Truth as a Defense. I've read a couple of things since the funeral. As Howard Kurtz notes, in the WaPo,

Whether you think it was appropriate or galling for Jimmy Carter and Rev. Joseph Lowery to use a funeral to take partisan shots at a president who was sitting behind them, this was news.

As I indicated, just below, I thought this was crass -- but others, including conservative commentators James Taranto and Mark Byron didn't find it so bad.

Lee Harris, on the other hand, aptly describes the situation,

This week, at the funeral for the widow of Dr. Martin Luther King, two of the speakers, Jimmy Carter and Rev. Joseph Lowery, might have opened their remarks by saying that they came not to bury Coretta Scott King, but to bash Bush, which is exactly what they proceeded to do. They exploited a solemn occasion in order to take cheap pot shots at the President, keenly aware that their remarks would be broadcast around the world, and into many American classrooms.

Of course, both Carter and Lowery were also aware that the target of their attack, George W. Bush, was sitting right behind them. Had he not been present on the occasion, their Bush-bashing would have only been an affront to good taste. But because Bush had come there to honor the memory of Coretta Scott King, and not to engage in a debate with his political opponents, the attacks on him crossed the boundaries of mere bad taste, and became low blows. They were deliberately attacking a man who they knew could not, under the circumstances, defend himself against their assault. Their aim was quite obvious -- to embarrass and humiliate Bush in the full knowledge that there was not a thing Bush could decently do about it.

I've listened to the defenders of Rev. Joseph Lowery (and Carter although, as I indicated, by that point in the funeral, I was gone -- I had to get to work) to understand their point. As best I understand it, their defense is truth. Even Mark Byron set out this defense:

I wasn't appreciating the digs that folks were getting in at Dubya's expense, but it was within their character, speaking what they saw as the truth to the power in front of them.

In his initial response (and a comment to my posting below) UCC Seminarian Chuck Currie used this defense. Now his response is a modification of that -- it's the Jack Nicholson "You can't handle the truth" response. Anyone who disagrees is a "right winger" who "Just Hates Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mrs. Coretta Scott King." (I'm glad to see the spirit of moderateness and temperance still lives in the UCC.)

As an aside, before I proceed, not all the commenters agreed with Currie -- there was a moderate spirit there trying to persuade him to the contrary. I particularly liked this:

While I may agree with what was said, there is no one on this earth that could make me believe that Mrs. King would have wanted an invited guest to be embarrassed. There is a time and a place for everything and I think what Rev. Lowery and President Carter did today was terrible. A funeral is not the place for partisan politics. It was to lift up Mrs. King - not the time for digs at a President.

No, truth is not a defense to charges of gracelessness or crassness. It never has been.

Let's try an experiment. Imagine if President Bush had stood up and said something that included the following lines:

• On October 10, 1963, the Attorney General of the United States, Robert F. Kennedy, authorized the wiretapping of Dr. King's telephones, and then hotel rooms. He did this even though Dr. King was not a terrorist, always preached and lived a life of non-violence. He did this even though Dr. King was a U.S. Citizen, living in the U.S.
  
• The tapes were played for the President of the United States, Lyndon Baines Johnson, a Democrat, who enjoyed the salacious details.
  
• The government of the United States even delivered a copy of the tapes to Coretta exposing her to the sordid details of his infidelity. An infidelity that whet beyond the '?lusts of the heart'? in the words of one former president and were more akin to the exploits of another president....
  
• Yes, Dr. King was not always with his wife, but at least none of his lovers drowned while he was driving...
  
• Why the President of the United States, Democrat Lyndon Johnson couldnÂ?t even find the time to attend the funeral of Martin Luther KingÂ?.

Yuck . . . I can'?t go on. All I'?ve written above it "?true"? yet, it'?s disgusting -? it'?s beyond crass. We'd all be condemning him. (Except, maybe the right-wingers, which sort of proves my point about people like Currie.)

In short, like what Lowery did, it doesn't belong at a funeral.

Let Her In. I'm alive today because of a private bill of Congress -- it's a long story -- another time.

Kim-Hoan Thi Nguyen, Mother of Binh N. Le, USMC, needs a private bill to get to the floor of the Congress in order to be permitted to stay in the U.S.

So she can leave flowers on the grave of her son, who gave his life for our country.

It's time Congress -- let her in.

On-Line. It's weird the things you can find on-line. When I was 15 and fresh off the plane in Hawai'i, I swam in the Waikiki Roughwater Swim. It's 2 and a half miles in the sea, outside the reef, from Diamond Head to the beach by the Hilton. I see now my results are on-line -- I did it in 1:05:43. I see now I placed 65th overall and 15th within my age-group. Not bad, but not spectacular. However, little Dickie Walter, age 10, swam it in 59:52 and placed 34th overall (and first in his age group).

It's the closest I'll ever get to a marathon.

And I'll never do it again. (But I would love to do the Maui Channel Relay...)

Earth Day (early) - According to the NYT, today is evangelical earth day -- specifically a number of evangelicals (86 according to the NYT, "more than 85" according to its website) held a press conference this morning in DC to announce a new initiative: the Evangelical Climate Initiative. The publicist for this group is Jim Jewell of Rooftop MediaWorks. The group is funded by the Hewlett Foundation ($475,000), among others -- it is not clear whether this is a grass-roots organization or an astroturf organization.

I hope it is an organiztion which is genuinely concerned about doing well and truth -- I am concerned, however, that the emphasis is on "global warming." According to their FAQ's:

What is Climate Change or Global Warming?

Climate change, also called global warming, is an urgent problem that can and must be solved. The problem is caused primarily by human activities that produce heat-trapping or greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, artificially warming the planet and thereby changing the climate. Serious consequences include dryer droughts, fiercer floods, and harsher hurricanes. Carbon dioxide (CO2), the main greenhouse gas or global warming pollutant, is released when fossil fuels such as oil, gas, or coal are burned in our vehicles, by power plants, and by industry. The good news is that there are plenty of cost-effective solutions that will create jobs, clean up our environment, and enhance national security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil, thereby creating a safe and healthy future for our children.

Why is global warming an urgent problem?

There are three basic reasons for urgency: (1) Global warming is happening now. Impacts are already starting to be felt, e.g., a 2003 heat wave in Europe that killed approximately 20,000 people. (2) The oceans warm slowly, creating a lag in experiencing the consequences. Many of the impacts from climate change to which we are already committed will not be realized for several decades. The consequences of the pollution we create today will be visited upon our children and grandchildren. (3) As individuals and as a society we are making long-term decisions each day that determine how much carbon dioxide we will emit in the future, such as whether to purchase energy efficient vehicles and appliances that will last for 10-20 years, or whether to build more coal-burning power plants that last for 50 years rather than investing more in energy efficiency and renewable energy. We need to start solving global warming now to make it easier and less expensive for our children to deal with in the future.

Recently, I was reading The Great Mortality: An Intimate History of the Black Death, the Most Devastating Plague of All Time by John Kelly and came across this passage:

Sometime between 750 and 800, Europe entered the Little Optimum [note omitted] a period of global warming. Across the continent, temperatures in-[45]creased by an average of more than 1 degree Celsius, but rather than producing catastrophe, as many current theorists of global warming predict, the warm weather produced abundance.* England and Poland became wine-growing countries, and even the inhabitants of Greenland began experimenting with vineyards. More important, the warm weather turned marginal farmland into decent farmland, and decent farmland into good farmland. In the final centuries of Roman rule, crop yields had fallen two and three to one – a yield represents the amount of seed harvested to the amount planted: a return so meager, the Roman agricultural writer Columella feared that the land had grown old. In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, as winters became milder and summers warmer and drier, European farms began to produce yields of five and six to one, unprecedented by medieval standards.

*Says Dr. Phillip Stott, professor emeritus of bio-geography at the University of London, “What has been forgotten in all the discussion of global warming is a proper sense of history... During the medieval warm period, the world was warmer than even today and history shows that it was a wonderful period of plenty for everyone.” (Phillip Stott, interview, Daily Telegraph, 4/6/2003.)

From pages 44-45. (I include two links in Kelly's footnote so you can critique Stott yourself.)

This seems to make sense to me. First, I am not sure that "global warming" exists; second, I'm not sure, if it does, that it is human-created; third, I'm not sure it would be a bad thing if it did exist.

Actually, there are two notes in the FAQ I find more troubling:

Does addressing climate change mean we're becoming liberals?

No. We believe that creating a better future for our children and grandchildren by fulfilling out biblical call to stewardship and love of neighbor through reducing pollution is simply being a good biblical Christian. Climate change is not a liberal issue. It is a profound problem for people Jesus loves, people Jesus died to save.

Are we working with environmentalists?

No. While we are not working with environmentalists, and are critical of some of their views and approaches, we also feel that once we have established our own voice on this issue we should use this as an opportunity to share the gospel with those who care about "environmental" issues. We also appreciate all environmentalists have done to protect God's creation. Finally, we do not rule out working with environmentalists and anyone else of goodwill in the future.

Umm, excuse me -- who really cares if "we're becomming liberals?" Nothing's wrong with that, is there? Second, what's wrong with working with environmentalists?

I'm sorry, but there's a lot in this whole "initiative" which rubs me the wrong way...

More

See also these two excellent posts by Mark Byron: 1. Christians and the Environment-Part I-The Purpose-Driven EPA? and 2. Christians and the Environment-Part II-Who's in the ECI?. Then there's this in GetReligion and this on the CTwebsite.

Mary Magdalene. One of my wife's friend's called her last night looking for information on Mary Magdalene. I know the basics -- she was a follower of Jesus, she was not a hooker, nor was she ever married to Jesus. Beyond that, I don't have a lot of recall. I handed her this book by Ben Witherington, III (I didn't know until just now that he has a blog...) and she read aloud an extensive passage.

Anyway, today I see there's a long piece on MM in the New Yorker. It's not bad -- I don't agree with a lot of the spin (definitely not evangelical) and the ending's weak -- but there's a few things I hadn't seen before.

Class and Crass. I watched/listened to a good portion of the Corretta Scott King funeral today at lunch and found myself very moved by President Bush's speech. You might say, "well, you're a Bush supporter." Yeah, that's been true in the past, but I haven't been too happy with him lately -- and not blogging enough to set forth the reasons why. But that will wait for another day. His address, which is available here, was very moving -- it nearly brought me to tears. One of the attorneys I work with said she thought the President sounded more like a minister than a politician.

He touched on the details of her life -- including the ministry at Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, addressed her family heritage ("the Scotts were strong, and righteous, and brave in the face of wrong"), noting it wasn't just "vicious words," but also having her house firebombed. And he addressed the spirit which made Coretta great, concluding:

But some had to leave before their time -- and Dr. King left behind a grieving widow and little children. Rarely has so much been asked of a pastor's wife, and rarely has so much been taken away. Years later, Mrs. King recalled, "I would wake up in the morning, have my cry, then go in to them. The children saw me going forward." Martin Luther King, Jr. had preached that unmerited suffering could have redemptive power.

Little did he know that this great truth would be proven in the life of the person he loved the most. Others could cause her sorrow, but no one could make her bitter. By going forward with a strong and forgiving heart, Coretta Scott King not only secured her husband's legacy, she built her own. Having loved a leader, she became a leader. And when she spoke, America listened closely, because her voice carried the wisdom and goodness of a life well lived.

In that life, Coretta Scott King knew danger. She knew injustice. She knew sudden and terrible grief. She also knew that her Redeemer lives. She trusted in the name above every name. And today we trust that our sister Coretta is on the other shore -- at peace, at rest, at home.

I listened up to, and through, the address of Rev. Joseph Lowery, which I found very disappointing. He seemed to forget why they were there and just wanted to make points at the expense of Bush. He seemed to think it was a time for "vicious words," not the loving, forgiving, healing words of Jesus. He seemed to want to be a politician, not a minister.

Sad.

But I guess he got what he wanted.

More

Here's a sample of a funeral address by Dr. King, the Eulogy for the Young Victims of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church Bombing, delivered at Sixth Avenue Baptist Church:

And so my friends, they did not die in vain. (Yeah) God still has a way of wringing good out of evil. (Oh yes) And history has proven over and over again that unmerited suffering is redemptive. The innocent blood of these little girls may well serve as a redemptive force (Yeah) that will bring new light to this dark city. (Yeah) The holy Scripture says, "A little child shall lead them." (Oh yeah) The death of these little children may lead our whole Southland (Yeah) from the low road of man's inhumanity to man to the high road of peace and brotherhood. (Yeah, Yes) These tragic deaths may lead our nation to substitute an aristocracy of character for an aristocracy of color. The spilled blood of these innocent girls may cause the whole citizenry of Birmingham (Yeah) to transform the negative extremes of a dark past into the positive extremes of a bright future. Indeed this tragic event may cause the white South to come to terms with its conscience. (Yeah)

And so I stand here to say this afternoon to all assembled here, that in spite of the darkness of this hour (Yeah Well), we must not despair. (Yeah, Well) We must not become bitter (Yeah, That’s right), nor must we harbor the desire to retaliate with violence. No, we must not lose faith in our white brothers. (Yeah, Yes) Somehow we must believe that the most misguided among them can learn to respect the dignity and the worth of all human personality.

Here is the heart of Rev. Lowery's address:

She secured his seed, nurtured his nobility she declared humanity's worth, invented their vision, his and hers, for peace in all the Earth. She opposed discrimination based on race, she frowned on homophobia and gender bias, she rejected on its face. She summoned the nations to study war no more. She embraced the wonders of a human family from shoulder to shoulder. Excuse me, Maya.

She extended Martin's message against poverty, racism and war. She deplored the terror inflicted by our smart bombs on missions. We know now that there were no weapons of mass destruction over there. But Coretta knew, and we know there are weapons of misdirection right down here. Millions without health insurance, poverty abound. For war, billions more, but no more for the poor.

The words of a politician, not a minister.

The Liberal Supreme Court. In an essay, still not on-line (except to subscribers), WaPo editorialist Benjamin Wittes observes,

In the past few years alone the Court has upheld affirmative action at the University of Michigan Law School, struck down state laws banning partial-birth abortion, upheld the sweeping new McCain-Feingold campaign-finance-reform law, affirmed federal power to prohibit the medical use of marijuana, and struck down the death penalty for the mentally retarded and for those who committed their crimes as juveniles. It has dealt two body blows to the so-called property-rights movement - last term holding that localities could seize private property for economic- development purposes if they paid appropriate compensation, and a few years ago rejecting an attack on the power of state governments to restrict development around Lake Tahoe. It has curtailed it earlier experiment with carving out broad immunity for state governments from lawsuits seeking money damages. It has asserted jurisdiction over military detentions at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base, in Cuba. And it has entirely rewritten federal law relating to criminal sentencing, requiring that juries, not judges, make the key factual findings that determine how much prison time a convict may receive.

Benjamin Wittes, The Atlantic Monthly (January/February 2006) at 48.

It sounds like something I've mentioned before...

Prediction: Steelers win 48-6. Jerome Bettis passes for a touchdown to Marvel Smith; runs for 3 more. Troy Polamalu has an INT return for a TD.

More

I was wrong on all counts -- the Seahawks made a much better game of this than I expected. Nevertheless, neither team played to its potential -- if the Steelers had played this poorly against Indy, they wouldn't be here. Take away 3 plays and Seattle wins 10-0?

The zebras really stung Seattle -- there wasn't sufficient evidence to overrule that call on Roethlisberger's TD -- yet, there wasn't any evidence that he had scored to begin with. The holding call on Sean Locklear was very weak. I don't have a big problem with the offensive pass interference call on DJax, but I wouldn't have a big problem if it wasn't called. And what was the deal with Hasselbeck getting called for a below the legs block when he makes a tackle?

But the refs didn't take the game from Seattle -- if anything it was the Ike Taylor interception that did that.

In any event, a fun game to watch.

[click]

. . . I got you to hold me tight
I got you, I won't let go
I got you to love me so
I got you babe

I got you babe, I got you babe
I got you babe, I got you babe

Sorry, I always wanted to do that. I wonder how many radio stations play that song starting at 5:58 a.m.?

more

from Roger Ebert:

"Groundhog Day" is a film that finds its note and purpose so precisely that its genius may not be immediately noticeable. It unfolds so inevitably, is so entertaining, so apparently effortless, that you have to stand back and slap yourself before you see how good it really is.

Certainly I underrated it in my original review; I enjoyed it so easily that I was seduced into cheerful moderation. But there are a few films, and this is one of them, that burrow into our memories and become reference points. When you find yourself needing the phrase This is like "Groundhog Day" to explain how you feel, a movie has accomplished something.

This is the way I feel about the movie -- at the time, I liked it, but didn't think it would hang around like it has. It should be February's answer to "It's a Wonderful Life" -- some network should show it on every 2/2.

SciFive. Via Peter Sean Bradley, here's one SciFi top five list and here's mine:

1. Frankenstein by Mary Shelley
2. Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
3. Ray Bradbury: Fahrenheit 451; Martian Chronicles, Illustrated Man.
4. The Stand by Stephen King
5. ...

Since I cheated with choice number 3, I'm not picking a 5th. (If I were, it would probably be Nineteen Eighty-Four.*)

Discussion

Prologue

To answer this question, one first must address what is Science Fiction? Here is a page which collects the definitions from a number of SciFi writers. I pick one from Robert A. Heinlein:

Science Fiction is speculative fiction in which the author takes as his first postulate the real world as we know it, including all established facts and natural laws. The result can be extremely fantastic in content, but it is not fantasy; it is legitimate--and often very tightly reasoned--speculation about the possibilities of the real world. This category excludes rocket ships that make U-turns, serpent men of Neptune that lust after human maidens, and stories by authors who flunked their Boy Scout merit badge tests in descriptive astronomy.
from: Ray Guns And Spaceships, in Expanded Universe, Ace, 1981

Accordingly, to me, the best science fiction is an extended meditation on the nature of man that begins with a premise: "What if...?" In some ways, it's like the economist who begins with "assume full employment." Assume that a plague has decimated the human race..., assume that a man can harness electricity and re-animate a dead human body... and so on.

My List

• Frankenstein or The Modern Prometheus by Mary Shelley. Some call this the first Science Fiction novel (although there is a good argument that the first SciFi story was Shakespeare's The Tempest [via Eric Rabkin lecture]). Others say it's a Gothic, still others say it's pure horror. Nonsense, it's science fiction. First of all, the novel is different from the classic movie. Dr. Frankenstein's creation is (or becomes) quite eloquent, yet without a conscience. It explores the relationship of man and his attempts to become like God and what it means for all of us. This novel, especially when set in the context of the literature of the time, is incredibly revolutionary. Notes
  

• The title of the novel Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley is taken from Miranda's dialogue in Shakespeare's The Tempest, mentioned above:

O, wonder!
How many goodly creatures are there here!
How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world
That has such people in't! (V.i.181-4)

It appears that in the future, we have achieved utopia -- we're all healthy and well-ordered Poverty and war are no more. We're all equal and happy (Soma). Okay, so we had to get rid of a few small things: God, family, literature, art, and philosophy, to name a few... Plus, we don't have to worry about pregnancy -- just take that magic pill (who needs Humanae Vitae?). Who needs love?**

• Bradbury. I have always loved Ray Bradbury -- he was my stepstone (thanks Mom!) into the world of Science Fiction (if you don't count the Danny Dunn books). And I can't pick just one! F451 is a dystopia consistent with the first two mentioned above. Yet, Bradbury is so poetic and lyrical in his descriptions -- I'd probably pick this just based on the title alone ("the temperature at which book-paper catches fire and burns ..."). Both the Martian Chronicles and the Illustrated Man are loose collections of short stories with common themes. In part, I like Bradbury because he writes anti-science fiction. In part, because he is a wonderful writer. In part, because he forecast the future so well. The iPod, the Wall-to-Wall, hidef TV, microwave ovens, the smart house, and others I am forgetting now, all appeared in these stories, back in the 1940s.
  

• The Stand. This comes in two version - the original release and the director's, err, author's uncut version. Essentially biological warfare preparation goes bad and a superbug, Captain Trips, is released killing 99.4% of the world's population. The book looks at three distinct events -- the release and decimation of society; the eventual gathering; and a showdown between the forces of light and of dark.
  

-------------------

*So why Brave New World and not 1984? In the foreword of Amusing Ourselves to Death (1986), Neil Postman compared the two worlds:

What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions." In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.

While I think we need to guard against the abuses Orwell feared, I think Huxley's view is more likely.

** "Whoever wants to eliminate love is preparing to eliminate man as such."
Who wrote that? Huxley? No, Benny16

Deus Est Caritas (2006) via PSB

It's over. Steelers Win. 24-19. No word whether Mick and the cardiac-kids made it through the half-time show.

Sad Day. Coretta has passed.

Through many dangers, toils and snares I have already come
‘Tis grace hath brought me safe thus far, and grace will lead me home

The Lord has promised good to me; His word my hope secures
He will my shield and portion be as long as life endures

Yes, when this flesh and heart shall fail, and mortal life shall cease
I shall possess, within the veil, a life of joy and peace

The earth shall soon dissolve like snow, the sun forbear to shine
But God, who called me here below, will be forever mine

-------------------------

I told the undertaker,
"Undertaker, please drive slow,
For this lady you are haulin'
Lord, I hate to see her go."

May she rest in peace...

What the [bleep]? In today's WaPo, Washington Post Staff Writer Caryle Murphy liberally throws around the "C" word (I count 8 uses), but no description such as the "liberal Episcopal denomination." Indeed the "L" word is not used once. I've written about this before -- the lack of context, that the Episcopal denomination is on the far left of the theological spectrum and that all the conservatives in that denomination are long gone.

One of the most disturbing examples of biased writing (and editing) by Ms. Murphy is when she quotes Truro Rector Martyn Minns:

The Rev. Martyn Minns, rector of Truro Episcopal Church in Fairfax City, a leading conservative church, said that "unless the diocese of Virginia moves in a different direction, it's hard to see how [conservative] congregations can survive in that setting." (emphasis added)

This is pretty appalling -- she edited his statement to make it reflect Murphy's own biases, inserting that "C" word. I'd like to know what Minns really said, without the bleeps and insertions.

Hotchpot.

• The 13th Man: Jumbotron.
• We already knew he was a pompous blowhard, but a plagiarist? Try claiming you were inspired, Fr. McBrien.
  
• What does "Cruel and Unusual" mean?
• Fake protests to gin up support? From the LA Weekly:
  
  [Bill] Bowers remembers collaborating with [Tim] Barrus on an erotic photo exhibit called Sadomasochism: True Confessions. After the opening night of the show drew lukewarm interest, Barrus assumed the fake name John Hammond and wrote an open letter to The Weekly News [a Key West gay paper] attacking the exhibit.
  
  “Sadomasochism is a disease,” the letter read “and gay men who are into that scene are wrong.” He then had Bowers write a response to their mythical antagonist Hammond, inviting him to “take a Valium, take a douche,” and published it in The Weekly News. “The next time Mr. Hammond wants to show his ignorance he should do some heavy research before he rejects his very own brothers.” The ensuing controversy rallied the gay community around the artists and propelled the exhibit to a successful run.
  
  “He would do anything to shock people,” said Bowers. “It works every time if you want a reaction, be it good or bad. Bad is good too, sometimes better.”
  

• Finally, Happy Birthday Wolfie -- thanks for the music.

Test Results: I'm a near heretic, your mileage may vary (edited, since the tables weren't displaying):

You scored as Chalcedon compliant. You are Chalcedon compliant. Congratulations, you're not a heretic. You believe that Jesus is truly God and truly man and like us in every respect, apart from sin. Officially approved in 451.

Chalcedon compliant 100%
Nestorianism 58%
Pelagianism 58%
Monophysitism 33%
Donatism 17%
Adoptionist 17%
Modalism 17%
Apollanarian 8%
Monarchianism 8%
Albigensianism 8%
The rest were 0%
Are you a heretic?
created with QuizFarm.com

*****************

You scored as Amillenialist. Amillenialism believes that the 1000 year reign is not literal but figurative, and that Christ began to reign at his ascension. People take some prophetic scripture far too literally in your view.

Amillenialist 60%
Moltmannian Eschatology 50%
Postmillenialist 45%
Premillenialist 45%
Preterist 30%
Left Behind 25%
Dispensationalist 25%

Quiz was here.


Finally, I forgot to copy and paste this one, but I’m a Chevrolet Corvette!

You’re a classic – powerful, athletic, and competitive. You’re all about winning the race and getting the job done. While you have a practical everyday side, you get wild when anyone pushes your pedal. You hate to lose, but you hardly ever do.

Take the Which Sports Car Are You? quiz.

Munich. As my nom de blog indicates, I am of (partial) Slovak descent. Accordingly, when you say Munich to me, I associate it with "Peace in our time" and the coming of WWII. Steven Spielberg apparently wants you to associate Munich with the attack on the Twin Towers.

But I'm getting ahead of myself...

Mild Spoiler Warning! (I don't think I'm giving away much, however.)

There are about five things I liked about the movie Munich (in no particular order):

1. It equates marital fidelity with life, adultery with death. If you've seen the movie, you know what I'm talking about.
2. I found myself thinking about it many days later -- to me this is always good (well, unless I'm just thinking of some pointless gore...)
3. It reminds the world that a group of Palestinian Terrorists attacked and deliberately murdered Israeli athletes during the Olympics violating the ideal of a time of truce for all countries.
4. It shows the Israelis (who are engaged in a new type of warfare) wrestling with their consciences.
5. It showed how the media can really screw things up (the terrorists were watching the attempted rescue in the Olympic village and called the negotiators to warn off the rescuers.
   

Yet the negatives far outweigh the positives:

• It treats the Israelis engaging in a defensive military action as the equivalent of the Palestinian terrorist who attack defenseless innocents. More about this below.
• It uses a grossly offensive Jewish stereotype to malign the Israelis ("Bring the receipts" bellows a Jewish accountant over and over.) Compare this from the real ex-spies.
  
• It uses fictitious history -- and especially fictitious statements -- to support its case, which is...
• Fighting back is wrong and leads to a cycle of violence.
• It implies that the United States was behind the attack on the Israeli athletes, or at the very least, sheltered the terrorists following murders (i.e. the US is an "accessory after the fact").
  
• Finally, as best put by David Brooks, "There is, above all, no evil. And that is the core of Spielberg's fable. In his depiction of reality there are no people so committed to a murderous ideology that they are impervious to the sort of compromise and dialogue Spielberg puts such great faith in.
  Because he will not admit the existence of evil, as it really exists, Spielberg gets reality wrong. "
  

This event happened when I was about 13 and still had a dream to make the 1976 US Olympic Swim Team. This was the Olympics in which Mark Spitz won 7 gold medals, Dan Gable won the gold medal without having a point scored on him, Olga Korbut, Dave Wottle's run from behind Sugar Ray Seales.

Yes, there were ugly politics, the US-USSR basketball game, the suspension of Vincent Matthews and Wayne Collett, the revocation of Rick DeMont's medal.

Then came September 5, 1972 and the Yasser Arafat backed (via Fatah) terrorists.

My blood still boils when I think about this attack -- during the movie, it took all my self-control from crying out "Waste those..." well, you get the idea...

The movie is full of fake dialogue and fact facts designed to portray the Israelis and the terrorists as engaged in some sort of yin and yang struggle, some sort of co-equal forces; both equally moral or immoral.

For example, the movie's 'Golda Meir' says "Every civilization finds it necessary to negotiate compromises with its own values." This is her justification for ruthlessly attacking other members of Fatah -- albeit those who planned the massacre. This is baloney.* What Mrs. Meir actually said was this:

From the blood-drenched history of the Jewish nation, we learn that violence which begins with the murder of Jews, ends with the spread of violence and danger to all people, in all nations. . . We have no choice but to strike at the terrorist organizations wherever we can reach them. That is our obligation to ourselves and to peace.

from Michael Medved, USA Today (quoting Mrs. Meir's Sept. 12, 1972, address to the Israeli Knesset). That was the case then; it's the case today. If there is a rattlesnake in the yard, you don't wait for it to strike before you take action.

The fact is the terrorists who hit the Israeli athletes in Munich were pure evil. Their backers and planners were evil. Their supporters and apologists are evil. This can not be denied, ignored, or spun away with false history.

By definition, terrorists strike innocent victims; helpless people in a defenseless situation. Their goal is to spread terror. This is evil, pure and simple. It must be crushed, not appeased.

Negotiating with terrorists, like negotiating with Hitler, only allows evil to grow stronger and the innocent to suffer.

You would think the man who directed Schindler's List would know this.

Big Spoiler Alert

Last, and this is a definite spoiler, Spielberg closes with a long shot dwelling on the World Trade Center. He has made an argument throughout the movie that striking back at evil just causes the evil to escalate and his unmistakable conclusion is that Israel's decision to strike back at terror instead of negotiate with it is what led to 9/11.

--------------------------

*Similarly, Premier Meir is said to have avoided attending the athletes' funerals because she was afraid of being booed (because she refused to negotiate with the terrorists). However, a Jerusalem Post poll found her the most popular figure in the nation, just one week after the killings.

--------------------------

More. Here's a good story looking back at the Massacre, by CBS News:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/05/world/main520865.shtml

Back again. As I indicated, I was out for awhile on a trip for work. I've got a piece I started on Munich -- maybe I can get it up tonight.

In the meantime, here's the sunrise from where I was on my birthday while I was gone:

Call to repentance. I've been traveling, yet again, but in the meantime, here's this, regarding The Falls Church:

Virginia's largest Episcopal parish, in a letter to the church's 2,200 members, yesterday called on Virginia's the Rt. Rev. Peter J. Lee to "repent and return to the truth" over supporting the ordination of the openly homosexual bishop of New Hampshire.
Leaders of the Falls Church Episcopal said in their eight-page, single-spaced letter that "no compromise on this issue is possible," although they refrained from specificthreats. In the past, the parish's rector has threatened schism.
"A Christian leader does not approve of sin, or purport to declassify it," the letter said to Bishop Lee, who backed the 2003 consecration of the Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire. "Rather, he calls sinners to repentance and proclaims the Good News that sin can be forgiven and new life can be obtained in Christ."
The letter was sent to Bishop Lee on Oct. 4 but was not made public until yesterday. Calls to the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia yesterday for comment were not returned. Bishop Lee, however, did meet with parish leaders soon after the letter was sent.
The letter is modeled after Matthew 18:15-17, which advises Christians that "if your brother sins against you," one is to first privately show him his fault, then repeat the message accompanied by "two or three witnesses."
If the exhortation still is ignored, Christians are to "tell it to the church," the pattern that church leaders followed yesterday. If still nothing happens, the offender is to be treated "as you would a pagan or a tax collector," the verses say.

The remainder of the story is here.

I do not believe the letter is available on-line, as yet. The letter is available here in .pdf format. And here is the Rector's letter to the congregation regarding subsequent discussion with Bishop Lee.

Favorite Movies - 2005 edition. Last year I had the dilemma of selecting either Temptation or Incredibles as my favorite movie and I yielded entertainment to a truly excellent movie with a great message. This year, entertainment and an excellent message combine in The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe. That's my movie of the year.

Other favorites:

2. Cinderella Man. Terrific Movie -- even if it didn't have the wonderful comeback and rise, the portrayal of the Great Depression was one of the best I've seen.

3. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire -- this is my favorite of the HP series (to date). Unfortunately, the movie does not live up to the written story. For one thing, too much had to be cut out -- really, this could've been broken into two movies. Second, the guy who plays Dumbledore, Michael Gambon, is way over the top at times -- just out of control. The rest of the time he seems to be channeling William Shatner. He's completely wrong for the character.

4. Batman Begins. Finally gets it right. Except for all the hokey oriental stuff.

5. March of the Penguins. Nice.

6. Walk the Line. Good movie about the descent of Johnny Cash. It's sad to think about how he threw away his marriage. Great acting.

7. The Great Raid. This makes the list based on being a terrific true story.

8. Munich. I'll have to say more about this later -- it was very well done, but also very frustrating. Slips away from the true story into being manipulative propaganda. More later.

9. Because of Winn-Dixie. A kids movie that was actually watchable by all. Again, pretty good acting.


Movies I haven't seen, but would probably like:

• Pride & Prejudice
• Dreamer
• Millions
• Crash
• The Gospel
• Bride and Prejudice
  

Two Disappointments:

• Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith
• Mr. & Mrs. Smith
  

Out of the Mouth of Babes (Ch. 942). My Emilie was singing this the other day, to the tune of "Davy Crockett:"

Jesus,
Baby Jesus
King of the Wild Frontier...

Not bad theology, either...