Posts
David C. Peterson. God Is a Particle? WestBow Press, 2017. See here to buy the book.
David C. Peterson is an attorney. This book, God Is a Particle?,
is about the Higgs boson particle/field, commonly called the “God
particle.” Peterson provides background information on how it was
discovered and what it is: essentially, it underlies the composition and
organization of the cosmos. Peterson believes that God created the
Higgs Boson particle, and he also offers reflections on Intelligent
Design, Black Holes and multiple universes, evolution, the post-mortem
survival of the soul, and the spiritual life.
Here are some thoughts about the book:
A. The prose is well-written and effectively organized. Not all WestBow books are like that!
B. In terms of the scientific element, some parts of the book were
more impressive than other parts. Peterson is not afraid to engage
atheist scientists like Victor Stenger. Peterson seems open to the
existence of multiple universes, whereas a number of Christian
apologists are dismissive of the concept. In terms of less impressive
parts, Peterson states that there are no missing links between
chimpanzees and humans, when the theory of evolution does not affirm
that humans descended from chimps but rather that humans are related to
chimps.
C. Peterson argues that atheists should not dismiss God’s existence
because there are a lot of things that are beyond our understanding.
Maybe, but atheists can make the same point about theism: why dismiss a
natural cause for the universe or life and posit a supernatural cause?
Maybe there is a natural cause that is unknown to us.
D. The parts about the afterlife and scientific studies of prayer
and meditation are interesting. Peterson makes an argument from
authority in talking about out-of-body experiences, but his point is
effective: you have people from different backgrounds, some of them
respected in academia, who have had these experiences, so there may be
something to them. Peterson refers to a study by Andy Newberg, MD of
the brain when it is praying and meditating, and the brain when praying
shows signs of communication. I am interested in fact-checking this to
see if that is what Newberg actually says, but it is an intriguing
point.
E. Peterson’s defense of the spiritual life is compelling, as he
talks about the futility of materialism. It may not be Christian-enough
for some, since it upholds some non-Christians as spiritual exemplars
and (as far as I recall) does not mention the death and resurrection of
Christ.
I received a complimentary copy of this book through BookLook Bloggers. My review is honest.
Thursday, September 13, 2018
Book Write-Up: Inspired, by Rachel Held Evans
Rachel Held Evans. Inspired: Slaying Giants, Walking on Water, and Loving the Bible Again. Nelson Books, 2018. See here to buy the book.
Rachel Held Evans is a controversial religious author. She is known for her writings about her struggles with conservative evangelicalism and even Christianity in general, and she currently attends an Episcopalian church.
Inspired contains her reflections about the Bible. She talks about the Bible of her upbringing, as she learned the biblical stories from sanitized versions or from cartoons. As she grew older, she became troubled by aspects of the Bible, such as the Flood, the Akedah, and the Israelite Conquest. She also came to believe that conservative evangelicalism tries to tame the Bible and make it what it is not, by explaining away biblical contradictions and troubling passages. This book affirms the Bible, however, as it highlights where the Bible was progressive for its time and attempts to offer a constructive way to look at the Bible, one that takes into consideration the cultural context of its authors, the positive moral and spiritual trajectory of which they were part, and the complexity of moral and spiritual questions. While the book includes Evans’ reflections, it also has a creative element. There is a story about Jews in Babylonian exile holding on to the Genesis 1 creation story in the face of the Babylonian Enuma Elish, for example, as well as a modernization of the Job story.
I was a little reluctant to read this book, to tell you the truth. There was a time when I was somewhat of a RHE-groupie, in that I diligently read her blog and shared her posts. But I have had a variety of ideological seasons in my life, and right now I am in a season in which I tend to roll my eyes at progressive Christianity. I was expecting this book to be a smug, hyper-dramatic critique of “ignorant” conservatives from an “enlightened” progressive, with a hefty dose of Trump-bashing thrown into the mix. Well, the book had its share of Trump-bashing, and Evans’ view of biblical inspiration probably falls short of what a lot of conservative Christians believe. Still, the book displayed some openness to conservative perspectives. Evans referred to Greg Boyd’s thoughts about the Conquest, but also the thoughts of Paul Copan, who has more of an apologetic approach. She mentions midrashic attempts to defend or at least explain the Akedah. She critiques conservative perspectives she has encountered, but also progressive perspectives, and she speaks reflectively about her past as a “Bible bully” who smiled disparagingly when conservative Christians claimed that Paul wrote Colossians. Evans in the book comes across as one who is self-reflective and is pursuing truth, from a variety of sources, as she shares honestly and humbly what makes sense to her and what does not. The book would have been better, perhaps, had she at least tried to understand the perspective of conservative Christians who feel persecuted: this feeling is not limited to being wished “Happy Holidays” but extends to their livelihood being challenged because they choose to hold to their religious convictions. Still, Evans’ political viewpoint is understandable, in certain respects, especially when it comes to social justice issues.
This book was helpful in terms of my faith journey and my own attempts to come to terms with the Bible, especially when it coincided with other things I have been reading or thinking. Evans speculates that the Conquest story was developed as a way for ancient Israel to affirm its dependence on God amidst challenges, and that reminded me of Derek Leman’s insights on Deuteronomy, as he drew from Stephen Cook’s work. Leman speculates that the Conquest story in the time of Josiah served to give Judah faith as she was surrounded by imperial powers, and he says that the author of Deuteronomy may have had legitimate concerns about paganism but is over-zealous, at times. Such an approach is different from a conservative approach, but it resonates with me, somewhat. I end up sympathizing with the biblical authors as they attempted to articulate, find, and practice their faith. Evans also expresses her hope that God is renewing the world and that justice ultimately will triumph, and she is willing to take a leap of faith that such a hope is valid. I agree with her there.
I have been in seasons of disenchantment with conservative and progressive Christianity; neither one is really my “speech community,” if you will. Still, I respect the practice of wrestling with difficult questions. There are conservatives who do this, and Evans is a progressive Christian who does so.
I received a complimentary copy of this book through BookLook Bloggers. My review is honest.
Rachel Held Evans is a controversial religious author. She is known for her writings about her struggles with conservative evangelicalism and even Christianity in general, and she currently attends an Episcopalian church.
Inspired contains her reflections about the Bible. She talks about the Bible of her upbringing, as she learned the biblical stories from sanitized versions or from cartoons. As she grew older, she became troubled by aspects of the Bible, such as the Flood, the Akedah, and the Israelite Conquest. She also came to believe that conservative evangelicalism tries to tame the Bible and make it what it is not, by explaining away biblical contradictions and troubling passages. This book affirms the Bible, however, as it highlights where the Bible was progressive for its time and attempts to offer a constructive way to look at the Bible, one that takes into consideration the cultural context of its authors, the positive moral and spiritual trajectory of which they were part, and the complexity of moral and spiritual questions. While the book includes Evans’ reflections, it also has a creative element. There is a story about Jews in Babylonian exile holding on to the Genesis 1 creation story in the face of the Babylonian Enuma Elish, for example, as well as a modernization of the Job story.
I was a little reluctant to read this book, to tell you the truth. There was a time when I was somewhat of a RHE-groupie, in that I diligently read her blog and shared her posts. But I have had a variety of ideological seasons in my life, and right now I am in a season in which I tend to roll my eyes at progressive Christianity. I was expecting this book to be a smug, hyper-dramatic critique of “ignorant” conservatives from an “enlightened” progressive, with a hefty dose of Trump-bashing thrown into the mix. Well, the book had its share of Trump-bashing, and Evans’ view of biblical inspiration probably falls short of what a lot of conservative Christians believe. Still, the book displayed some openness to conservative perspectives. Evans referred to Greg Boyd’s thoughts about the Conquest, but also the thoughts of Paul Copan, who has more of an apologetic approach. She mentions midrashic attempts to defend or at least explain the Akedah. She critiques conservative perspectives she has encountered, but also progressive perspectives, and she speaks reflectively about her past as a “Bible bully” who smiled disparagingly when conservative Christians claimed that Paul wrote Colossians. Evans in the book comes across as one who is self-reflective and is pursuing truth, from a variety of sources, as she shares honestly and humbly what makes sense to her and what does not. The book would have been better, perhaps, had she at least tried to understand the perspective of conservative Christians who feel persecuted: this feeling is not limited to being wished “Happy Holidays” but extends to their livelihood being challenged because they choose to hold to their religious convictions. Still, Evans’ political viewpoint is understandable, in certain respects, especially when it comes to social justice issues.
This book was helpful in terms of my faith journey and my own attempts to come to terms with the Bible, especially when it coincided with other things I have been reading or thinking. Evans speculates that the Conquest story was developed as a way for ancient Israel to affirm its dependence on God amidst challenges, and that reminded me of Derek Leman’s insights on Deuteronomy, as he drew from Stephen Cook’s work. Leman speculates that the Conquest story in the time of Josiah served to give Judah faith as she was surrounded by imperial powers, and he says that the author of Deuteronomy may have had legitimate concerns about paganism but is over-zealous, at times. Such an approach is different from a conservative approach, but it resonates with me, somewhat. I end up sympathizing with the biblical authors as they attempted to articulate, find, and practice their faith. Evans also expresses her hope that God is renewing the world and that justice ultimately will triumph, and she is willing to take a leap of faith that such a hope is valid. I agree with her there.
I have been in seasons of disenchantment with conservative and progressive Christianity; neither one is really my “speech community,” if you will. Still, I respect the practice of wrestling with difficult questions. There are conservatives who do this, and Evans is a progressive Christian who does so.
I received a complimentary copy of this book through BookLook Bloggers. My review is honest.
Wednesday, September 12, 2018
Book Write-Up: Middle Knowledge, by John D. Laing
John D. Laing. Middle Knowledge: Human Freedom in Divine Sovereignty. Kregel Academic, 2018. See here to purchase the book.
John D. Laing has a doctorate from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He teaches systematic theology and philosophy at the Houston campus of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, and he is also a chaplain for the Texas Army National Guard.
As the title indicates, this book is about the concept of Middle Knowledge, which was articulated by Luis de Molina, a sixteenth century Jesuit theologian. According to this concept, God foresaw various hypothetical worlds, how humans would act and things would unfold in different settings and situations. With this in mind, God acts to effect God’s will. God, in a sense, is limited: God chooses not to violate human free will, and God can only effect a world that is feasible. But God acts in light of the various alternative scenarios that God foresees: God knows that, if God does A, humans will do B. God wants humans to do B, so God decides to do A. God works with human free will: God is constrained by human choices, yet God can effect God’s will by influencing humans to make the choices that God wants.
The Introduction situates Middle Knowledge among other Christian models of divine providence and human free will, including Process Theology, Open Theism, and Calvinism. Chapter 1 explains Middle Knowledge, and Chapters 2-4 respond to objections to the concept of Middle Knowledge. Chapter 4 is noteworthy because it addresses the question of how God can interact with the world in time when God is said to exist outside of time. In Chapters 5-8 and 10, Laing contends that Middle Knowledge sheds helpful light on contentious theological issues: predestination and salvation, the problem of evil, biblical inspiration, science (particularly origins), and the efficacy of prayer. Chapter 9 focuses on what Laing considers to be biblical evidence in favor of Middle Knowledge. I Samuel 23:7-13, where God guides David in reference to a danger that would come if David were to remain in a particular area, is cited more than once in the book. Laing also refers to other Scriptural passages in which God is aware of alternative scenarios. Interestingly, Matthew 11:23-24, in which Jesus declares that Sodom and Gomorrah would have repented had they seen the sorts of miracles that he was performing, is denied by Laing to be an illustration of Middle Knowledge; rather, Laing claims that Jesus there is being rhetorical. Chapter 9 is also where Laing offers his interpretation of Romans 9, as he argues that God foresaw, not predestined, how Jacob and Esau would act as God chose Jacob instead of Esau.
The greatest strength of this book is that it meticulously goes through various positions and evaluates them. Chapters 2-3 were difficult because they used logical equations, but the rest of the book was fairly easy to understand. In some cases, Laing arrived at a position that made sense, as when he argued that libertarian freedom does not mean that choices lack motivation or influences; choices, in short, do not pop out of thin air, but what libertarian freedom affirms is that a person has some ability to choose otherwise. Another example of a sensible conclusion is when Laing stated that God is not required to create a perfect world, but that God creates a world that fits God’s purposes. In a number of cases, Laing’s conclusions were a little tepid. For instance, after an exhaustive discussion of views about whether divine foreknowledge undermines human free will, Laing simply concludes that humans have libertarian free will, even if their choices were foreseen. It is not so much the conclusion itself that is bothersome. What makes it disappointing is that one might expect a more robust defense of it after all of the build-up. Laing deserves credit for attempting to tackle the issue of natural evil. Essentially, he questions whether there is “natural evil”: “natural evil,” Laing muses, is subjective, and what one may see as natural evil may serve a positive purpose. But is there anything naturally beneficial about cancer? To his credit, Laing acknowledged situations in which readers might deem his conclusions to be inadequate, or begging the question.
The book is lucid, overall, in summarizing different positions, and Laing does well to reiterate what Middle Knowledge is throughout the book. There is still unclarity on my part, however, on how Middle Knowledge adds to many of the theological discussions that Laing discusses. There are so many variables and so much randomness that, even if God were to intervene through creation or providence, could God get entirely what God wants? And how does God effect God’s will? Okay, those who lack an opportunity to hear the Gospel are people whom God foresaw would not believe it anyway, if given the chance. Did God arrange for them to be born in non-Christian areas that have little access to the Gospel? That makes God somewhat of a micro-manager, which Molinism seems to argue that God is not.
In writing this review, I feel as if I am looking at a blurry image that becomes clear, then blurry again. Middle Knowledge makes sense, then it does not, then it does, and the cycle continues.
A slight point of critique: Laing frequently uses the term “counterfactual,” and he seems to mean by that term the various alternative realities that God foresaw, including the one that God chose to work with. That muddied the waters a bit. “Counterfactual,” one would think, implies contrary-to-fact, the alternative realities that did not take place.
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher. My review is honest.
John D. Laing has a doctorate from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He teaches systematic theology and philosophy at the Houston campus of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, and he is also a chaplain for the Texas Army National Guard.
As the title indicates, this book is about the concept of Middle Knowledge, which was articulated by Luis de Molina, a sixteenth century Jesuit theologian. According to this concept, God foresaw various hypothetical worlds, how humans would act and things would unfold in different settings and situations. With this in mind, God acts to effect God’s will. God, in a sense, is limited: God chooses not to violate human free will, and God can only effect a world that is feasible. But God acts in light of the various alternative scenarios that God foresees: God knows that, if God does A, humans will do B. God wants humans to do B, so God decides to do A. God works with human free will: God is constrained by human choices, yet God can effect God’s will by influencing humans to make the choices that God wants.
The Introduction situates Middle Knowledge among other Christian models of divine providence and human free will, including Process Theology, Open Theism, and Calvinism. Chapter 1 explains Middle Knowledge, and Chapters 2-4 respond to objections to the concept of Middle Knowledge. Chapter 4 is noteworthy because it addresses the question of how God can interact with the world in time when God is said to exist outside of time. In Chapters 5-8 and 10, Laing contends that Middle Knowledge sheds helpful light on contentious theological issues: predestination and salvation, the problem of evil, biblical inspiration, science (particularly origins), and the efficacy of prayer. Chapter 9 focuses on what Laing considers to be biblical evidence in favor of Middle Knowledge. I Samuel 23:7-13, where God guides David in reference to a danger that would come if David were to remain in a particular area, is cited more than once in the book. Laing also refers to other Scriptural passages in which God is aware of alternative scenarios. Interestingly, Matthew 11:23-24, in which Jesus declares that Sodom and Gomorrah would have repented had they seen the sorts of miracles that he was performing, is denied by Laing to be an illustration of Middle Knowledge; rather, Laing claims that Jesus there is being rhetorical. Chapter 9 is also where Laing offers his interpretation of Romans 9, as he argues that God foresaw, not predestined, how Jacob and Esau would act as God chose Jacob instead of Esau.
The greatest strength of this book is that it meticulously goes through various positions and evaluates them. Chapters 2-3 were difficult because they used logical equations, but the rest of the book was fairly easy to understand. In some cases, Laing arrived at a position that made sense, as when he argued that libertarian freedom does not mean that choices lack motivation or influences; choices, in short, do not pop out of thin air, but what libertarian freedom affirms is that a person has some ability to choose otherwise. Another example of a sensible conclusion is when Laing stated that God is not required to create a perfect world, but that God creates a world that fits God’s purposes. In a number of cases, Laing’s conclusions were a little tepid. For instance, after an exhaustive discussion of views about whether divine foreknowledge undermines human free will, Laing simply concludes that humans have libertarian free will, even if their choices were foreseen. It is not so much the conclusion itself that is bothersome. What makes it disappointing is that one might expect a more robust defense of it after all of the build-up. Laing deserves credit for attempting to tackle the issue of natural evil. Essentially, he questions whether there is “natural evil”: “natural evil,” Laing muses, is subjective, and what one may see as natural evil may serve a positive purpose. But is there anything naturally beneficial about cancer? To his credit, Laing acknowledged situations in which readers might deem his conclusions to be inadequate, or begging the question.
The book is lucid, overall, in summarizing different positions, and Laing does well to reiterate what Middle Knowledge is throughout the book. There is still unclarity on my part, however, on how Middle Knowledge adds to many of the theological discussions that Laing discusses. There are so many variables and so much randomness that, even if God were to intervene through creation or providence, could God get entirely what God wants? And how does God effect God’s will? Okay, those who lack an opportunity to hear the Gospel are people whom God foresaw would not believe it anyway, if given the chance. Did God arrange for them to be born in non-Christian areas that have little access to the Gospel? That makes God somewhat of a micro-manager, which Molinism seems to argue that God is not.
In writing this review, I feel as if I am looking at a blurry image that becomes clear, then blurry again. Middle Knowledge makes sense, then it does not, then it does, and the cycle continues.
A slight point of critique: Laing frequently uses the term “counterfactual,” and he seems to mean by that term the various alternative realities that God foresaw, including the one that God chose to work with. That muddied the waters a bit. “Counterfactual,” one would think, implies contrary-to-fact, the alternative realities that did not take place.
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher. My review is honest.
Monday, September 10, 2018
Church Write-Up: Stressed Moses, Three Mountains
I went to the Pen Church and the LCMS church last Sunday.
A. The pastor at the Pen Church started a new series on stress. His text was Exodus 18. Moses is stressed out over judging the people of Israel’s cases all day, so Jethro suggests that Moses appoint judges to lighten Moses’ load. Similarly, we should feel free to say “no.” The pastor also discussed other ways to alleviate stress: to have family meetings in which the family members can share what people in the family can do to make the other person’s life more peaceful, as well as the importance of prioritizing listening to God, as that can lead to a smoother family and work life. The pastor’s father-in-law used to be the pastor of this church, and the father-in-law liked v 24: “Moses listened to his father-in-law and did everything he said” (NIV).
B. The LCMS church was having its 60th anniversary service. Instead of having two services—-traditional and contemporary—-it merged the two services into one for this occasion. This service had hymns and also contemporary praise songs. It was interesting to see the traditional people try to adept to the contemporary songs. I used to attend the contemporary service, but I have gone to the traditional one for the past nine months. One reason is that I want to go to Sunday school, which is after the traditional service, and it is sometimes at the traditional service that a new Sunday school class is announced, on the very day that it is beginning! If I were to go to the contemporary service, which is after Sunday school hour, I would miss out on that information. Another reason that I go to the traditional service is that I have come to know people there. Two people were saving me a seat, and that was nice of them!
I like the traditional service, since there is something to reading and singing the old hymns. I also prefer the pastor’s sermon delivery at the traditional service. At the contemporary service, he uses pictures on the overhead, whereas, at the traditional service, he does not have that and relies on his storytelling ability; the latter allows for a more compelling delivery, in my opinion.
Still, in singing the contemporary songs, I realized that I somewhat miss the contemporary service. I have heard these songs at other churches and in other settings, but this LCMS church performs them the best. I think that is because other churches make them sound like rock songs, whereas the LCMS service adds a dimension of cheerfulness and sweetness to them: the service is called “Morning Song,” after all. I may attend both services on some Sundays. I somewhat have a niche at the traditional service (assuming I didn’t unintentionally burn social bridges today). But it would be nice to go to the contemporary service, every once in a while.
The sermon was delivered by one of the church’s past pastors. He talked about the current predicament of the church today, with the Roman Catholic scandals and the skepticism that many have about Christian institutions and beliefs. He spoke of three mountains. One was Mount Hermon, a site of rife paganism, close to where Jesus affirmed that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church. The second mountain was Mount Tabor, where the transfiguration traditionally took place. Peter, James, and John ended up looking at Jesus alone, as we should. The third mountain was Calvary. The pastor also commented on John 21. Jesus asks Peter two times if Peter loves him, using the Greek word agape, meaning divine love. Peter replies that he loves Jesus, using phileo, which refers to friendship. Jesus finally asks Peter if Peter loves him, using phileo. According to the pastor, Jesus was accepting whatever inadequate love Peter offered. Scholars have been skeptical of the radical differentiation between agape and phileo, seeing the two words as interchangeable. Still, I wonder if there is significance to Jesus using agape two times, then phileo the third time.
A. The pastor at the Pen Church started a new series on stress. His text was Exodus 18. Moses is stressed out over judging the people of Israel’s cases all day, so Jethro suggests that Moses appoint judges to lighten Moses’ load. Similarly, we should feel free to say “no.” The pastor also discussed other ways to alleviate stress: to have family meetings in which the family members can share what people in the family can do to make the other person’s life more peaceful, as well as the importance of prioritizing listening to God, as that can lead to a smoother family and work life. The pastor’s father-in-law used to be the pastor of this church, and the father-in-law liked v 24: “Moses listened to his father-in-law and did everything he said” (NIV).
B. The LCMS church was having its 60th anniversary service. Instead of having two services—-traditional and contemporary—-it merged the two services into one for this occasion. This service had hymns and also contemporary praise songs. It was interesting to see the traditional people try to adept to the contemporary songs. I used to attend the contemporary service, but I have gone to the traditional one for the past nine months. One reason is that I want to go to Sunday school, which is after the traditional service, and it is sometimes at the traditional service that a new Sunday school class is announced, on the very day that it is beginning! If I were to go to the contemporary service, which is after Sunday school hour, I would miss out on that information. Another reason that I go to the traditional service is that I have come to know people there. Two people were saving me a seat, and that was nice of them!
I like the traditional service, since there is something to reading and singing the old hymns. I also prefer the pastor’s sermon delivery at the traditional service. At the contemporary service, he uses pictures on the overhead, whereas, at the traditional service, he does not have that and relies on his storytelling ability; the latter allows for a more compelling delivery, in my opinion.
Still, in singing the contemporary songs, I realized that I somewhat miss the contemporary service. I have heard these songs at other churches and in other settings, but this LCMS church performs them the best. I think that is because other churches make them sound like rock songs, whereas the LCMS service adds a dimension of cheerfulness and sweetness to them: the service is called “Morning Song,” after all. I may attend both services on some Sundays. I somewhat have a niche at the traditional service (assuming I didn’t unintentionally burn social bridges today). But it would be nice to go to the contemporary service, every once in a while.
The sermon was delivered by one of the church’s past pastors. He talked about the current predicament of the church today, with the Roman Catholic scandals and the skepticism that many have about Christian institutions and beliefs. He spoke of three mountains. One was Mount Hermon, a site of rife paganism, close to where Jesus affirmed that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church. The second mountain was Mount Tabor, where the transfiguration traditionally took place. Peter, James, and John ended up looking at Jesus alone, as we should. The third mountain was Calvary. The pastor also commented on John 21. Jesus asks Peter two times if Peter loves him, using the Greek word agape, meaning divine love. Peter replies that he loves Jesus, using phileo, which refers to friendship. Jesus finally asks Peter if Peter loves him, using phileo. According to the pastor, Jesus was accepting whatever inadequate love Peter offered. Scholars have been skeptical of the radical differentiation between agape and phileo, seeing the two words as interchangeable. Still, I wonder if there is significance to Jesus using agape two times, then phileo the third time.
Friday, September 7, 2018
Current Events Write-Up: 9/7/2018
Here is this week’s Current Events Write-Up. It is a little earlier
this week than usual because I will not be able to write it on Friday
evening this week.
CounterPunch: “Revised NAFTA Shows Every Sign of Being Another Trump Scam,” by Pete Dolack.
I asked last week why progressives are not supporting President Trump’s renegotiated NAFTA, with its minimum wage and collective bargaining provisions. This article offers a progressive critique of NAFTA 2.0. According to this article, those provisions are voluntary rather than binding. The article also contends that the renegotiated NAFTA allows for pharmaceutical price-gouging and will undermine the newly-elected Mexican President’s ability to effect reforms before he even takes office.
The Epoch Times: “Pentagon Suspends $300 Million in Aid to Pakistan Over Terror Groups,” by Holly Kellum.
I remember a few years after 9/11. I attended a liberal church. Someone mentioned President Bush’s statement that “Whoever is not for us is against us.” A lady then remarked, “Then he turns around and makes an agreement with Pakistan.” I heard such an argument from the Left frequently: if the Bush Administration is so serious about combating terrorism, why does it give Pakistan a free pass? Well, rightly or wrongly, the Trump Administration seems to be acting according to this argument.
Two Opposite Conservative Perspectives on Trump’s Decision to Cut Subsidies to Palestine: “Will Getting Rid of UNRWA Fix the Palestinian Problem?”, by Mike Konrad (Con) vs. “Here’s What You Need To Know About Trump’s Decision To Cut Subsidies To Palestine,” by Michael Pometantz (Con).
Townhall: “Will the Export-Import Bank Rise Again?,” by Veronique de Rugy.
According to de Rugy, the Export-Import Bank is starting to support small businesses rather than big businesses, and, for some reason, Democrats are fighting this.
Townhall: “No, Betsy DeVos is Not Trying to ‘Sneak Guns Into Schools,’” by Christian Barnard.
“DeVos’s openness to the idea of arming teachers is rooted in her department’s broader goal of allowing states to pursue their own educational priorities. After all, there are 172 school districts in Texas that allow teachers and staff to carry guns on school property, and DeVos wants to respect the decision of these elected school boards…The education secretary cannot be blamed for providing clarity on a program she neither came up with nor wanted to fund, and her critics are wrong to condemn her without the full context.”
Yahoo Lifestyle: “Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner Attend McCain Funeral Service after the President Wasn’t Invited,” by Tanya Edwards.
And, of course, they get criticized. I wonder if they would have been criticized had they not attended.
American Thinker: “How Trump Can Save Free Speech from Big Tech,” by Rich Logis.
How Trump can do this, without federal interference in the Internet.
American Thinker: “Village Voice, the Original Alt-Weekly, Officially Dead,” by Rick Moran.
And this conservative author is sad about this. I understand, as one who likes to read alternative media.
CounterPunch: “Revised NAFTA Shows Every Sign of Being Another Trump Scam,” by Pete Dolack.
I asked last week why progressives are not supporting President Trump’s renegotiated NAFTA, with its minimum wage and collective bargaining provisions. This article offers a progressive critique of NAFTA 2.0. According to this article, those provisions are voluntary rather than binding. The article also contends that the renegotiated NAFTA allows for pharmaceutical price-gouging and will undermine the newly-elected Mexican President’s ability to effect reforms before he even takes office.
The Epoch Times: “Pentagon Suspends $300 Million in Aid to Pakistan Over Terror Groups,” by Holly Kellum.
I remember a few years after 9/11. I attended a liberal church. Someone mentioned President Bush’s statement that “Whoever is not for us is against us.” A lady then remarked, “Then he turns around and makes an agreement with Pakistan.” I heard such an argument from the Left frequently: if the Bush Administration is so serious about combating terrorism, why does it give Pakistan a free pass? Well, rightly or wrongly, the Trump Administration seems to be acting according to this argument.
Two Opposite Conservative Perspectives on Trump’s Decision to Cut Subsidies to Palestine: “Will Getting Rid of UNRWA Fix the Palestinian Problem?”, by Mike Konrad (Con) vs. “Here’s What You Need To Know About Trump’s Decision To Cut Subsidies To Palestine,” by Michael Pometantz (Con).
Townhall: “Will the Export-Import Bank Rise Again?,” by Veronique de Rugy.
According to de Rugy, the Export-Import Bank is starting to support small businesses rather than big businesses, and, for some reason, Democrats are fighting this.
Townhall: “No, Betsy DeVos is Not Trying to ‘Sneak Guns Into Schools,’” by Christian Barnard.
“DeVos’s openness to the idea of arming teachers is rooted in her department’s broader goal of allowing states to pursue their own educational priorities. After all, there are 172 school districts in Texas that allow teachers and staff to carry guns on school property, and DeVos wants to respect the decision of these elected school boards…The education secretary cannot be blamed for providing clarity on a program she neither came up with nor wanted to fund, and her critics are wrong to condemn her without the full context.”
Yahoo Lifestyle: “Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner Attend McCain Funeral Service after the President Wasn’t Invited,” by Tanya Edwards.
And, of course, they get criticized. I wonder if they would have been criticized had they not attended.
American Thinker: “How Trump Can Save Free Speech from Big Tech,” by Rich Logis.
How Trump can do this, without federal interference in the Internet.
American Thinker: “Village Voice, the Original Alt-Weekly, Officially Dead,” by Rick Moran.
And this conservative author is sad about this. I understand, as one who likes to read alternative media.
Tuesday, September 4, 2018
Church Write-Up: Lots on Obedience and Service
Here is my Church Write-Up for this week:
A. I went to the LCMS church. The text on which the pastor focused was Deuteronomy 4:1-2, 6-9. The pastor said that one of his favorite books is John Steinbeck’s East of Eden, which is a modernization of the Cain and Abel story in Genesis 4. Much of that book revolves around a debate between an educated Chinese man and another person over the meaning of the Hebrew word timshal in Genesis 4:7: is God telling Cain that he has the ability to master sin, to choose good and to avoid evil? Well, in Deuteronomy 4, God is speaking to the Israelites as if they have the ability to choose. The problem is that we all have our personal definitions of good, and we use those to reassure ourselves and to condemn others. When we encounter God’s objective standard in the Ten Commandments, we see that we fall short. The solution is God’s nearness to us, for Deuteronomy 4:6-8 talks about God’s nearness to Israel and the righteousness of God’s law. The pastor recalled something that existed before GPSs, called Triple A Triptiks. They were maps that had an orange line marking people’s itinerary. He got to sit in the middle and hold the map when he was a kid and the family went on large family trips. The map guided them, telling them to turn here and there. The pastor likened that to God being with us as we walk the path of obeying God.
B. I then went to the largely African-American Baptist church. The sermon there was about service, and the text was Matthew 20:20-28, in which Jesus teaches about service. We try in life to exalt ourselves, and we measure our success by how many people we have under us; we look forward to retirement, when we do not have to deal with people anymore. When we serve, we try to serve those above us because that can exalt ourselves. But Jesus taught another way: we also serve those whom society considers unimportant, even when nobody is watching. I thought about the ministry of Jesus: he went about doing good, trying to enhance the lives of others by healing (Acts 10:38).
C. I then went to the “Pen” Church. It was playing a video and telling stories about last week’s service projects. One of the projects, incidentally, was at the home for unwed mothers that spoke to the LCMS church weeks ago! Back to the “Pen” church: someone talked about a homeless person who wanted to join the church because she was impressed by the service that people were doing. The pastor then preached, wrapping up a sermon series that he was doing about happiness. The pastor shared one of his famous quotes by actor Jim Carrey, about happiness not being found in fame and fortune. And Jim Carrey knew what he was talking about, since there was a time when he earned millions of dollars for each movie he was in! The pastor talked about the importance of being rooted in Christ (Colossians 2:7-9). Strong roots are planted in water, so that the plants thrive even when the weather is bad. The Bible likens trusting in God and meditating on God’s law to putting our roots in water (Psalm 1; Jeremiah 17:8). We do this as we conform to God’s blueprint for our lives: Jesus made a similar point when he talked about building our house on a rock, the foundation of his teachings, and how storms cannot threaten that (Matthew 7:24-27). Part of conforming to God’s blueprint is by un-clinching our fists of trying to be in control, and letting God through the Holy Spirit work in our lives: so many times, Paul exhorts believers to “let” such-and-such happen. The pastor told the story about someone who recently joined the church. This man was moving towards his 80s and wanted to spend that decade of his life serving God. He moved close to the church and got involved in small groups. He became a Christian when he was a child and had committed a crime, and the next decades were filled with addiction and alcoholism; he likened his marriages to holding his wives hostage! But he joined twelve-step programs, and he has found that, to keep out of his own head, where he can get mugged, he needs to be a mentor and to have a mentor.
D. I listened to the sermon from the “Word of Faith” church the night before. Apparently, the series on the Book of Revelation was not over! The pastor made a variety of points. He said that the Babylonian system in Genesis 11 tried to climb its way up to God, when God wants to come down and dwell with us. He said that God does not call us to love every single person but to love and serve our neighbors, those near us. And even then, our allegiance and love is directed towards Christ, and that is what motivates us to love our neighbors. The pastor likened showing love to difficult people to the faithfulness unto death that the martyrs of the Book of Revelation possessed! The pastor said that it is easy to give to a food bank, but that the Gospel is letting the homeless dwell in our homes. I thought of Isaiah 58:7, which says regarding the fast God has chosen: “Is it not to share your bread with the hungry, and bring the homeless poor into your house; when you see the naked, to cover them, and not to hide yourself from your own kin?” (NRSV). The pastor also talked about the importance of focusing, not on programs (evangelism, social justice), but on Jesus, then the evangelism and justice will fall into their rightful place. He shared that the church does not focus on songs about God filling us up, as if the focus is on us, but rather on songs that exalt Jesus.
E. This last items will be personal reflection. I have no intention of inviting homeless people to stay in our home! That can be dangerous. Did not Jesus tell his disciples to be wise as serpents (Matthew 10:16)? I think that giving to charities that can serve their needs is the way to go. On faithfulness unto death in my relationships, I remember something that another pastor said: we love Jesus as much as we love the person we love the least. The thing is, when I hear that, I just resign myself to saying, “Well, then I have problems loving Jesus, then!” On service, I am thinking of helping out with an LCMS project this week. It is within walking distance (I don’t have a car). I am reluctant to do so because I do not know many people, but, as someone online told me a year ago, the thing to do is “Just show up!”
A. I went to the LCMS church. The text on which the pastor focused was Deuteronomy 4:1-2, 6-9. The pastor said that one of his favorite books is John Steinbeck’s East of Eden, which is a modernization of the Cain and Abel story in Genesis 4. Much of that book revolves around a debate between an educated Chinese man and another person over the meaning of the Hebrew word timshal in Genesis 4:7: is God telling Cain that he has the ability to master sin, to choose good and to avoid evil? Well, in Deuteronomy 4, God is speaking to the Israelites as if they have the ability to choose. The problem is that we all have our personal definitions of good, and we use those to reassure ourselves and to condemn others. When we encounter God’s objective standard in the Ten Commandments, we see that we fall short. The solution is God’s nearness to us, for Deuteronomy 4:6-8 talks about God’s nearness to Israel and the righteousness of God’s law. The pastor recalled something that existed before GPSs, called Triple A Triptiks. They were maps that had an orange line marking people’s itinerary. He got to sit in the middle and hold the map when he was a kid and the family went on large family trips. The map guided them, telling them to turn here and there. The pastor likened that to God being with us as we walk the path of obeying God.
B. I then went to the largely African-American Baptist church. The sermon there was about service, and the text was Matthew 20:20-28, in which Jesus teaches about service. We try in life to exalt ourselves, and we measure our success by how many people we have under us; we look forward to retirement, when we do not have to deal with people anymore. When we serve, we try to serve those above us because that can exalt ourselves. But Jesus taught another way: we also serve those whom society considers unimportant, even when nobody is watching. I thought about the ministry of Jesus: he went about doing good, trying to enhance the lives of others by healing (Acts 10:38).
C. I then went to the “Pen” Church. It was playing a video and telling stories about last week’s service projects. One of the projects, incidentally, was at the home for unwed mothers that spoke to the LCMS church weeks ago! Back to the “Pen” church: someone talked about a homeless person who wanted to join the church because she was impressed by the service that people were doing. The pastor then preached, wrapping up a sermon series that he was doing about happiness. The pastor shared one of his famous quotes by actor Jim Carrey, about happiness not being found in fame and fortune. And Jim Carrey knew what he was talking about, since there was a time when he earned millions of dollars for each movie he was in! The pastor talked about the importance of being rooted in Christ (Colossians 2:7-9). Strong roots are planted in water, so that the plants thrive even when the weather is bad. The Bible likens trusting in God and meditating on God’s law to putting our roots in water (Psalm 1; Jeremiah 17:8). We do this as we conform to God’s blueprint for our lives: Jesus made a similar point when he talked about building our house on a rock, the foundation of his teachings, and how storms cannot threaten that (Matthew 7:24-27). Part of conforming to God’s blueprint is by un-clinching our fists of trying to be in control, and letting God through the Holy Spirit work in our lives: so many times, Paul exhorts believers to “let” such-and-such happen. The pastor told the story about someone who recently joined the church. This man was moving towards his 80s and wanted to spend that decade of his life serving God. He moved close to the church and got involved in small groups. He became a Christian when he was a child and had committed a crime, and the next decades were filled with addiction and alcoholism; he likened his marriages to holding his wives hostage! But he joined twelve-step programs, and he has found that, to keep out of his own head, where he can get mugged, he needs to be a mentor and to have a mentor.
D. I listened to the sermon from the “Word of Faith” church the night before. Apparently, the series on the Book of Revelation was not over! The pastor made a variety of points. He said that the Babylonian system in Genesis 11 tried to climb its way up to God, when God wants to come down and dwell with us. He said that God does not call us to love every single person but to love and serve our neighbors, those near us. And even then, our allegiance and love is directed towards Christ, and that is what motivates us to love our neighbors. The pastor likened showing love to difficult people to the faithfulness unto death that the martyrs of the Book of Revelation possessed! The pastor said that it is easy to give to a food bank, but that the Gospel is letting the homeless dwell in our homes. I thought of Isaiah 58:7, which says regarding the fast God has chosen: “Is it not to share your bread with the hungry, and bring the homeless poor into your house; when you see the naked, to cover them, and not to hide yourself from your own kin?” (NRSV). The pastor also talked about the importance of focusing, not on programs (evangelism, social justice), but on Jesus, then the evangelism and justice will fall into their rightful place. He shared that the church does not focus on songs about God filling us up, as if the focus is on us, but rather on songs that exalt Jesus.
E. This last items will be personal reflection. I have no intention of inviting homeless people to stay in our home! That can be dangerous. Did not Jesus tell his disciples to be wise as serpents (Matthew 10:16)? I think that giving to charities that can serve their needs is the way to go. On faithfulness unto death in my relationships, I remember something that another pastor said: we love Jesus as much as we love the person we love the least. The thing is, when I hear that, I just resign myself to saying, “Well, then I have problems loving Jesus, then!” On service, I am thinking of helping out with an LCMS project this week. It is within walking distance (I don’t have a car). I am reluctant to do so because I do not know many people, but, as someone online told me a year ago, the thing to do is “Just show up!”
Saturday, September 1, 2018
Current Events Write-Up:9/1/2018
Time for this week’s Current Events Write-Up.
Let’s start with the passing of Senator John McCain, along with some reflections.
First, there is this CNN reporter’s questioning of John Sununu, trying to goad him into saying something about President Trump. Sununu calls her out for it, and she responds in an arrogant, holier-than-thou manner. Newsflash: a lot of conservatives dislike the mainstream media. They are not required to apologize for that! Second, I will now be a little hypocritical: after criticizing this reporter for politicizing John McCain’s death, I will do something similar. My goal here is not to encourage you to vote for one person or party over another, but rather to use these articles as an opportunity to share my own ambivalent thoughts about John McCain. There is this article: Remember When Obama And His Supporters Hated And Mocked John McCain? That did annoy me about Barack Obama. My problem is not that he criticized John McCain. They were running against each other, so that should be expected. It really got on my nerves, though, that Obama would lump McCain in with George W. Bush, when McCain had a known record as a reformer, a maverick, one who did not always follow the GOP line. Obama seemed oblivious to that! What this article shows, however, is that prominent Democrats questioned McCain’s wartime heroism. Now, I do not think that being shot down and tortured qualified John McCain for the Presidency, nor do I believe that it gave him the moral authority that he sometimes appeared to claim. That said, it is ironic that Trump got villified for challenging McCain’s heroism, when prominent Democrats made similar points back in 2008. Here is a post-mordem criticism of McCain from the left, and here is a post-mortem criticism of him from the right. I believe that John McCain was a decent human being, at least in his later years. He was humble, down-to-earth, and a person with class. Yet, he either participated in policies or encouraged policies that took the lives of civilians abroad. I should feel bad for his family and his friends. At the same time, is demanding that everyone feel bad like telling oppressed peoples to mourn for their oppressors? This is a dilemma that comes with a lot of American leaders, Republican and Democrat, who enact or pursue policies that threaten innocent people’s lives. Some may say that this is unavoidable and that leaders have to make tough decisions. I don’t know. This article was kind of cool: one of McCain’s Vietnamese captors shares his memories of the man. Then there is this article about the resistance some Republicans are making to renaming the Russell Senate Building after McCain. Russell was a racist, but these Republicans are saying that he helped effect the school lunch program. Aren’t Republicans normally critical of those sorts of programs?
Federalist Radio: “The Best Interviews on Gun Safety and Firearm Laws”
A couple of days this week, the Federalist Radio Hour ran reruns. Ben Domenech, the usual host of the program, is Meghan McCain’s husband, so he was understandably absent this week. This particular rerun included three excerpts of interviews about gun safety and gun laws. One of the interviewees was Dana Loesch, the controversial NRA spokesperson. I will not defend her gaffes, but, in this interview at least, she sounded pretty reasonable.
The Federalist: “Here’s What You Need to Know about Trump’s Proposed Trade Deal with Mexico,” by Helen Raleigh
The good news: lower food tariffs and teeth on issues that have emerged since the 1990’s. The bad news, according to Raleigh: a high minimum wage and collective bargaining for the steel industry. Raleigh thinks that could bring jobs back to the U.S., but prices on steel would be high. You would think that progressives would be applauding that part of the agreement!
The Federalist: “To Break Millennials from Socialized Health Care, Republicans Need an Actual Plan to Cut Health Costs,” by Alex Muresianu
This part was poignant: “Another restraint on healthcare supply has been consolidation among health providers, as large hospitals take up more and more of the healthcare market. Recent regulatory expansion, often supported by big hospitals, has prevented smaller, specialized care providers from entering the market and competing with hospitals on price. This cronyism made headlines a few weeks ago, when a North Carolina doctor who runs a small, low-cost medical imaging center was prevented from buying and using an MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) machine at his clinic — thanks to hospital-backed regulations.”
Roger Olson: “Is Trump ‘Our Cyrus?’ A Critical American-Christian Explanation and Response”
“These people see themselves as a remnant of the conservative Christianity that once made America truly great. And they look at some European countries and Canada where some laws have been passed that could make them criminals if those laws were passed here. (In a highly debated incident a Norwegian Pentecostal pastor was jailed overnight for publicly declaring homosexuality sin.) Their view of American history is a downward slide toward not true pluralism but suppression of traditional Christian values. They truly believe that Trump, even if he is immoral and criminal (the latter has not been proven, of course), was raised up by God to reverse the trend in American culture toward total decadence and hedonism. But even more, they believe God raised up Trump not because he is one of them but because he hears them and will put a stop to efforts by government bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. (e.g., in the Department of Education) to persecute Christians.”
On that note, see “DOL Issues New Guidelines to Stop Discrimination Against Religious Federal Contractors,” by Stephanie Taub (Townhall).
LA Times: “California Legislator Shelves Bill to Ban Paid ‘Gay Conversion Therapy’ for Adults,” by Melanie Mason
I am pleased that the legislator who introduced this bill took the time to listen to the bill’s critics.
Christianity Today: “Bearing False Witness: Arab Theologians Advise Americans Not to Fear Islam’s Alleged ‘Permission to Lie,'” by Jayson Casper
Discusses taqiyya.
Townhall: “Police Officers Are Not Disproportionately Killing Black Men—Here Are the Facts,” by John R. Lott, Jr.
Lott still offers suggestions as to what the police can do to prevent such tragedies.
Triablogue: “IQ Meritocracy,” by Steve Hays
Hays critiques an Alt-right argument.
Taki’s Magazine: “Africa Destroyed: Poster Child for Liberalism,” by Hannes Wessels
I am not endorsing this site. When I glance at it, I often want to take a bath! Still, this article made some noteworthy points and observations. It said that the landholders produced a lot of food, which helps the South African economy, and that Russia is reaching out to the dispossessed landholders.
People’s World: “Even Nixon Funded Jobs Programs, Why Can’t We Do It Today?”, by Michelle M. Tokarczyk
Tokarczyk shares her positive experiences with the CETA program.
Let’s start with the passing of Senator John McCain, along with some reflections.
First, there is this CNN reporter’s questioning of John Sununu, trying to goad him into saying something about President Trump. Sununu calls her out for it, and she responds in an arrogant, holier-than-thou manner. Newsflash: a lot of conservatives dislike the mainstream media. They are not required to apologize for that! Second, I will now be a little hypocritical: after criticizing this reporter for politicizing John McCain’s death, I will do something similar. My goal here is not to encourage you to vote for one person or party over another, but rather to use these articles as an opportunity to share my own ambivalent thoughts about John McCain. There is this article: Remember When Obama And His Supporters Hated And Mocked John McCain? That did annoy me about Barack Obama. My problem is not that he criticized John McCain. They were running against each other, so that should be expected. It really got on my nerves, though, that Obama would lump McCain in with George W. Bush, when McCain had a known record as a reformer, a maverick, one who did not always follow the GOP line. Obama seemed oblivious to that! What this article shows, however, is that prominent Democrats questioned McCain’s wartime heroism. Now, I do not think that being shot down and tortured qualified John McCain for the Presidency, nor do I believe that it gave him the moral authority that he sometimes appeared to claim. That said, it is ironic that Trump got villified for challenging McCain’s heroism, when prominent Democrats made similar points back in 2008. Here is a post-mordem criticism of McCain from the left, and here is a post-mortem criticism of him from the right. I believe that John McCain was a decent human being, at least in his later years. He was humble, down-to-earth, and a person with class. Yet, he either participated in policies or encouraged policies that took the lives of civilians abroad. I should feel bad for his family and his friends. At the same time, is demanding that everyone feel bad like telling oppressed peoples to mourn for their oppressors? This is a dilemma that comes with a lot of American leaders, Republican and Democrat, who enact or pursue policies that threaten innocent people’s lives. Some may say that this is unavoidable and that leaders have to make tough decisions. I don’t know. This article was kind of cool: one of McCain’s Vietnamese captors shares his memories of the man. Then there is this article about the resistance some Republicans are making to renaming the Russell Senate Building after McCain. Russell was a racist, but these Republicans are saying that he helped effect the school lunch program. Aren’t Republicans normally critical of those sorts of programs?
Federalist Radio: “The Best Interviews on Gun Safety and Firearm Laws”
A couple of days this week, the Federalist Radio Hour ran reruns. Ben Domenech, the usual host of the program, is Meghan McCain’s husband, so he was understandably absent this week. This particular rerun included three excerpts of interviews about gun safety and gun laws. One of the interviewees was Dana Loesch, the controversial NRA spokesperson. I will not defend her gaffes, but, in this interview at least, she sounded pretty reasonable.
The Federalist: “Here’s What You Need to Know about Trump’s Proposed Trade Deal with Mexico,” by Helen Raleigh
The good news: lower food tariffs and teeth on issues that have emerged since the 1990’s. The bad news, according to Raleigh: a high minimum wage and collective bargaining for the steel industry. Raleigh thinks that could bring jobs back to the U.S., but prices on steel would be high. You would think that progressives would be applauding that part of the agreement!
The Federalist: “To Break Millennials from Socialized Health Care, Republicans Need an Actual Plan to Cut Health Costs,” by Alex Muresianu
This part was poignant: “Another restraint on healthcare supply has been consolidation among health providers, as large hospitals take up more and more of the healthcare market. Recent regulatory expansion, often supported by big hospitals, has prevented smaller, specialized care providers from entering the market and competing with hospitals on price. This cronyism made headlines a few weeks ago, when a North Carolina doctor who runs a small, low-cost medical imaging center was prevented from buying and using an MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) machine at his clinic — thanks to hospital-backed regulations.”
Roger Olson: “Is Trump ‘Our Cyrus?’ A Critical American-Christian Explanation and Response”
“These people see themselves as a remnant of the conservative Christianity that once made America truly great. And they look at some European countries and Canada where some laws have been passed that could make them criminals if those laws were passed here. (In a highly debated incident a Norwegian Pentecostal pastor was jailed overnight for publicly declaring homosexuality sin.) Their view of American history is a downward slide toward not true pluralism but suppression of traditional Christian values. They truly believe that Trump, even if he is immoral and criminal (the latter has not been proven, of course), was raised up by God to reverse the trend in American culture toward total decadence and hedonism. But even more, they believe God raised up Trump not because he is one of them but because he hears them and will put a stop to efforts by government bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. (e.g., in the Department of Education) to persecute Christians.”
On that note, see “DOL Issues New Guidelines to Stop Discrimination Against Religious Federal Contractors,” by Stephanie Taub (Townhall).
LA Times: “California Legislator Shelves Bill to Ban Paid ‘Gay Conversion Therapy’ for Adults,” by Melanie Mason
I am pleased that the legislator who introduced this bill took the time to listen to the bill’s critics.
Christianity Today: “Bearing False Witness: Arab Theologians Advise Americans Not to Fear Islam’s Alleged ‘Permission to Lie,'” by Jayson Casper
Discusses taqiyya.
Townhall: “Police Officers Are Not Disproportionately Killing Black Men—Here Are the Facts,” by John R. Lott, Jr.
Lott still offers suggestions as to what the police can do to prevent such tragedies.
Triablogue: “IQ Meritocracy,” by Steve Hays
Hays critiques an Alt-right argument.
Taki’s Magazine: “Africa Destroyed: Poster Child for Liberalism,” by Hannes Wessels
I am not endorsing this site. When I glance at it, I often want to take a bath! Still, this article made some noteworthy points and observations. It said that the landholders produced a lot of food, which helps the South African economy, and that Russia is reaching out to the dispossessed landholders.
People’s World: “Even Nixon Funded Jobs Programs, Why Can’t We Do It Today?”, by Michelle M. Tokarczyk
Tokarczyk shares her positive experiences with the CETA program.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)