[The following is adapted from a paper I wrote for an undergraduate class I took several years ago. – Funky]
Religion as Sacred and Science as Profane:
Bryan Appleyard’s Views on Science and Religion in Relation to Mircea Eliade’s Theory of the Sacred and the Profane As It Applies to the Search for God
I recently had a revelation regarding the nature of faith. For many, it is a mere assent, an atomic event of belief. If we accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, we will gain eternal life. After all, did not Jesus Himself tell us as much? To such individuals, who love the Lord with their souls, works of charity are laudable but not required for salvation. For others, faith is reduced to an intellectual exercise. Surely, if one is well versed and observant of the creeds, councils, and other artifacts of Sacred Tradition, he will be saved. For these, who love the Lord with their minds, there is at least a sense in which faith is a life long pursuit, but even they fall short what God asks in their dry academic studies. Still yet there are those who understand that faith requires love. An attempt is made to love their neighbors. It is an affective love, though, and is often represented by permissiveness and fear of discipline.
They are all wrong. However, like every good lie, they contain aspects of the truth. What is that truth? The Pharisees asked a similar question of Jesus. Continue reading
Apparently, conservatives don't own dictionaries. They seem utterly oblivious to the definition of "litmus test" as well as "irony" and "hypocrisy". I've received a number of alarmist emails from various conservative groups with in this vein:
"Write to your Senators and let them know you don't support any litmus test demands!"
How are demands for so-called strict constructionists who will overturn Roe v. Wade not litmus tests?! Everyone knows that if Bush hadn't nominated a "solid conservative", the loyal base that got him elected twice would have eaten him alive. That wasn't a suggestion. That was demand – a political debt to be paid.
These kinds of hypocritical political tactics will only hurt the pro-life cause. I'd like to see abortion on demand ended as much as the next pro-lifer, but this is not a productive way to go about it. As long as this battle remains Us versus Them, hearts will not be changed and lives won't be saved. Why should we be forced to accept any Supreme Court nominee – or political candiate for that matter – based solely on his position on abortion rulings? Worse yet, in this case, we don't even know for certain what his position is!
Chicken Little, the sky is not falling. There are other ways to reduce abortions than loading the courts with pro-lifers. Also, Supreme Court appointments are for life and there a lot of ways a justice could screw up constitutional law. I'd like to know how a nominee feels about a lot of issues aside from abortion before hounding my senators to accept his appointment. Besides, demanding pro-life strict constructionists is just as much as litmus test as demanding pro-choice "living document" nominees. It makes pro-lifers just as hypocritical as the pro-choicers they demonize, if not worse, and it undermines the pro-life cause.
In the name of the modern Holy Innocents, I beg you to stop.
[Note to search engine visitors: This post is by far the most visited on my blog thanks to hundreds of people searching for “red light district” and similar phrases. I’m very curious to know what you folks are looking for. Porn? An article on Amersterdam’s red light district? Something else? Please take a moment and leave a comment to let me know what you’d hoped to find. Thanks for your consideration. 🙂 – Management]
Words cannot adequately express how absolutely flabbergasted by this I am. That's never stopped me from trying, though, so here goes.
Bush administration objects to .xxx domains
"The Bush administration is objecting to the creation of a .xxx domain, saying it has concerns about a virtual red-light district reserved exclusively for Internet pornography."
Recently I highlighted a grassroots effort to make Pittsburgh's government more open to public scrutiny – or return it to that state, as the case happens to be. Sadly, that effort has met with failure.
"Pittsburghers won't have a chance to vote for an 'open government' referendum on Nov. 8, but they will be able to vote for the referendum's creator — longtime activist and Squirrel Hill resident David Tessitor."
"Tessitor, former head of Pittsburghers for Open Government, is running for mayor as an independent candidate."
….
"The referendum needed 8,493 signatures to get on the November ballot, and a group of 100 volunteers managed to collect about half that number over the last seven weeks, Tessitor said."
I'm less than impressed for a few reasons. 1) A non-Democrat hasn't a chance in hell of getting elected in this yellow dog city. 2) He's a complete unknown. 3) If his campaign is as disorganized as the Open Pittsburgh petition effort, he'll still be an unknown on election day.
Expanding on #3, take a look at the Open Pittsburgh website. The news page hasn't been updated since the site was created. I'm also skeptical that only around 4,000 people in the city care about this issue enough to would be willing to at least put a referendum on the ballot. Surely more people could have been reached with a more organized and enthusiastic effort. I don't mean to totally trash the effort. I still agree with the proposed referendum. I just think that Tessitor could have learned a few lessons from Bob Brigham and Tim Tagaris or perhaps Grassfire.org.
"He said Pittsburghers for Open Government will conduct a new signature campaign either during the winter or next summer."
When they do, I'll let you folks know. I'll help spread the word however I can.