It's A Boy!

Our son was born yesterday morning at 9:52, 8 pounds 9 ounces, 19 inches long and perfect. My wife is also doing well (recovering much more quickly than she did last time), so hopefuly we'll be heading home tomorrow. Sorry no pictures; I'm using a hospital computer, as their wireless internet is secured. Thanks for everyone's thoughts and prayers!

Persecuted on Every Side

Unlike the other reposts this week, the following has not appeared on this blog before. It is based on two posts from Signs of the Times:

In the aftermath of the PZ Myers debacle (which I promise not to post on again!) a fair bit of persecution rhetoric has floated around. Both sides seem rather quick to claim the status of victims of their overbearing ideological opponents. In fact, this is nothing new, as this has been a popular political game for years. For instance, back in 2006 Joe Carter wrote an interesting post about the Left's fear of an American theocracy, arguing that it evidences a profound ignorance of the largely populist nature of evangelicalism [I should note that the formatting on Joe's post slightly messed up; I couldn't tell you why, but it makes it harder to read].

A number of his commenters responded that this phenomenon of claiming persecution (whether present or in the near future) is not limited to liberals, but appears just as often in conservative circles. As "ex-preacher" notes, for every secularist decrying "the coming theocracy," there's a conservative complaining about "the war on Christians":

Each side is convinced that the other side is out to get them. There's a strange paranoia among both leftists and rightists that their political/religious opponents are on the verge of coming to some type of absolute power and legislating the other side out of existence.

I think he's exactly right, and unfortunately, this kind of thinking is self-reinforcing. Since almost any kind of victory or inflated rhetoric by the opposition can now be claimed as "persecution" and used to drum up support for a favored policy or organization, this victim mindset can easily outgrow the facts. What used to be taken as evidence that democracy is working—people disagreeing, voicing their views and voting with their consciences—can now be taken as evidence of a vast conspiracy to take over the culture. This, in turn, is used to justify one's own inflated rhetoric and the cycle goes on.

The tactic might help draw attention or garner votes, but the result is always the same: Rather than helping to move everyone toward the middle and thus avoid the feared extremist takeover, this kind of rhetoric only furthers the division between those claiming persecution. Each side becomes more extreme and the chances of one group or the other's fears being realized is increased rather than decreased.

There are, of course, laws that discriminate unfairly against one group or the other; there are "hate speech" regulations that are sometimes abused to restrict freedom of speech; there are also very different views about how this country should be run and there is a chance (however small) that either the extreme left or the extreme right could run away with enough elections to forever change the face of our nation. But there is no coming theocracy, there is no war on Christians. The only way there ever will be is if we insist on our present course of polarizing every debate.

For in point of fact, it is often our rhetoric itself that keeps us from working together. If more of us were willing to give up our victim mindset, Christians might just find that many secularists would be their allies on this matter. For though it is certainly true that left and right, Christian and secular (two very different distinctions) disagree on many fundamental issues, freedom of speech and religion are concerns shared by all. It is only our rhetoric that keeps us from working together. It is our claim to be persecuted that risks leading to the persecution we fear.

First Things First

This was previously posted here, and seems a good way to begin:

My daughter was born almost a month ago, and I could easily spend all day just watching her sleep (she returns the favor by keeping me up all night).* Of course, that’s not very practical—there are more pressing concerns in life. And yet, it’s funny how easily far less important things end up filling my time.

Stephen Covey (The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, First Things First, etc.) categorizes all activities into four types based on whether they are “important or not important” and “urgent or not urgent,” and urges us to analyze all our activities by these two criteria. Now you might expect him to advise focusing on the “important and urgent” activities, but he actually suggests focusing on those things that are “important but not urgent,” while cutting out the “not important and not urgent” pursuits that eat up so much of our time. As he notes, our natural tendency to focus on whatever is most urgent (interspersed with “breaks” filled with meaningless activities) may seem productive, but really prevents us from controlling our overall direction in life, and cuts out many of the best things in life. While we’re busy putting out fires left and right, we find that there’s no time left for things like poetry [do click through and read this, it's good!].

But my interest today is on those “not important and not urgent” activities. With the countless distractions modern technology has provided us, it's easy to feel that we risk burnout if we fail to take time for such trivia. We get the idea that occasional breaks for sitcoms or video games actually help our productivity as a whole, and feel justified in “vegging out” every now and then.

Unfortunately, this simply isn’t true. The problem is when you start thinking you need to do these things, they steadily eat up more and more of your time, especially if—like me—you work from home. At first, maybe you can work a whole day before feeling like you need to “check out” for a half hour. Pretty soon every three hours you need an hour break. Before long, you hardly get much done even when you are working; you feel like you always need a break.

But a funny thing happens when you stop and say: I really don’t need to be playing these games in the first place. You feel really bored for a day or two, and then suddenly you find that you can be productive for longer and longer stretches without any “brain breaks” at all. I know from personal experience: it's shocking how little such activities are missed once you get away from them, and how much more you can get done once they're gone.

And the best part is: cutting out such “not important and not urgent” activities doesn’t just let you be more effective at accomplishing the urgent activities, it also (and primarily) frees up your time for all those “important but not urgent” things that you always want to do, but never find the time for. When you cut out meaningless leisure activities, you suddenly have the freedom to pursue the ones that are truly satisfying: hobbies, sports, viewing/reading/listening to art (which can include good movies and television, though it probably can’t justify an afternoon of Friends reruns), deep thinking and reading, meaningful conversation and—my personal favorite—watching your baby girl sleep.

*Now two, my daughter no longer keeps me up at night (that will be my son's job now), but as a curious and conversational toddler, she certainly still keeps me busy.

The Dharma Initiative

Ok, one last thing before I take off. For all you LOST fans, check out www.dharmawantsyou.com (they sent me an email today; I think I remember signing up for something like this back at the end of Season Four).

Anyway, the site will run you through an interesting psychological test and if you pass (I assume you can't fail, but who knows), you can register as a Dharma Volunteer, whatever that means. Unfortunately, I kept getting an error message when I tried to register, but I'm curious what this is going to be. Try here for more information.

See You Next Week!

Tomorrow, tomorrow, I'll love you, tomorrow!

Sorry, but I'm a little excited (and I tend to get goofy when I'm excited). Tomorrow morning, my wife and I will make our way to the local hospital for the birth of our son, our second child, by scheduled C-Section. Rather than attempting to come up with new and exciting content in what I anticipate to be a rather distracted and sleep-deprived state, I'll be taking the week off. But not to worry (yes, I know you were all beside yourselves with grief!), following Drew's example I've scheduled several slightly updated reposts of material my newer readers might have missed. I've also scheduled a couple new items to keep things fresh. Let me also recommend my recent comment discussion with N. Adam, here, here, and here, which raised some interesting points.

In any case, feel free to discuss amongst yourselves, mock my ignorance behind my back, or simply go your merry way to greener pastures. I should still have Internet access and may poke my head in for a birth announcement, or an occasional comment, but probably no more than that til the middle of next week.

Before I take off though, let me just add that my wife is amazing. When I get a mild stomach ache, I moan in pain and spend the rest of the day on the sofa. She's been having contractions every day for weeks, each one feeling like she's had the wind knocked out of her, and not only does she never complain, she kept working full-time until last week and continues to do as much around the house as I let her. She's a saint, I tell you, and it's mainly for her sake that I wont be blogging for the next week—she needs me more than you do!

God bless, and I hope you all have a great week!

Quote - N.T. Wright on The Messiness of History

N.T. Wright, in The New Testament and the People of God:

History is not about tidiness, but, most often, about the odd, the unrepeatable and the unlikely. (pg. 107)

I Guess I Need to Read The Shack

This review has finally convinced me (HT Jesus Creed).

Mistaking Television for Reality

The opening paragraph of of this Newsweek article (HT Mark Shea) strikes me as ridiculously exaggerated, but... I don't even know what to say about the rest of it. Just wow:

The most influential legal thinker in the development of modern American interrogation policy is not a behavioral psychologist, international lawyer or counterinsurgency expert. Reading both Jane Mayer's stunning "The Dark Side," and Philippe Sands's "Torture Team," it quickly becomes plain that the prime mover of American interrogation doctrine is none other than the star of Fox television's "24," Jack Bauer.

This fictional counterterrorism agent—a man never at a loss for something to do with an electrode—has his fingerprints all over U.S. interrogation policy. As Sands and Mayer tell it, the lawyers designing interrogation techniques cited Bauer more frequently than the Constitution.

According to British lawyer and writer Sands, Jack Bauer—played by Kiefer Sutherland—was an inspiration at early "brainstorming meetings" of military officials at Guantánamo in September 2002. Diane Beaver, the staff judge advocate general who gave legal approval to 18 controversial interrogation techniques including waterboarding, sexual humiliation and terrorizing prisoners with dogs, told Sands that Bauer "gave people lots of ideas." Michael Chertoff, the Homeland Security chief, gushed in a panel discussion on "24" organized by the Heritage Foundation that the show"reflects real life."

Somebody tell me this is fiction. Read the whole thing.

PhD Comic

Heh. I can totally relate (don't hold it against my Thesis Advisor though, he's actually very helpful and available—I'm just by nature nervous about everything I write):

Quote – Freedom of Speech

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. (Spuriously attributed to Voltaire)

Further Reactions to PZ Myers and the Desecrated Eucharist

Here are a few more reactions to PZ Myers' Eucharist desecration (UPDATED, see below. For earlier reactions, see here; once again, I may add further worthwhile links as I find them):

The Duty to Defend the (Nearly) Indefensible

That angry email is understandable. Professor Myers is encouraging the desecration of [one of] the most sacred symbols of faith for the vast majority of the world’s Christians. He is doing so while making no great argument or artful satire. He is doing so simply because he despises somebody else’s views. If they feel anguish at his actions, then he mocks them for caring about what he (originally) called a “g-d d-mned cracker.”...

Christians have every right to point out that they think what Professor Myers is doing is wrong. We have an obligation to do what we can reasonably do to keep our services from being disrupted and our cherished ceremonies mocked, but our duty does not end there....

First, we must not confuse the actions of one skeptic with that of most skeptics.... Second, we must recognize that if P.Z. Myers does blaspheme, then it will be a sad act of theatrical atheism doing more harm to his own cause than to Christianity.... Third, we should remind ourselves that Myers is not alone in his lack of love for the feelings of his neighbor.... Finally, we must defend without reservation Professor Myers’ right to express private opinions.

Dohanue on Swastikas and Burning Crosses

Donahue’s statement, in calling for the University of Minnesota to fire Myers, from MYERS DESECRATES THE EUCHARIST

“It is important for Catholics to know that the University of Minnesota will not tolerate the deliberate destruction of the Eucharist by one of its faculty. Just as African Americans would not tolerate the burning of a cross, and Jews would not tolerate the display of swastikas, Catholics will not tolerate the desecration of the Eucharist.”

The important point to note here is that the Swastika and the burning cross (and the Confederate flag, for that matter), are symbols of actual violence committed against Jews and blacks. These are symbols of organizations that not only advocate, but who have actually committed, physical and violent crimes against the people involved.

Nothing in what Myers has done consists of a real or threatened act of violence against a human being.

So, what Donahue is doing in making this analogy to say that the act of putting a nail through a cracker is equivalent to the slaughter of 6 million Jews, the lynching and segregation of blacks, and a century of slavery.

To make such a statement, of course, is to denigrate - to utterly trivialize - the Holocaust, segregation, and slavery.

On the other hand:

The case for firing PZ Myers

I am unapologetically secular, but I hope that Myers gets fired. It disgusts me to agree even for a split second with the likes of wingnut Bill Donohue, but I agree with him. Myers is calling for people to take a religious artifact from a church under not only false pretenses but with intent to degrade that artifact's rightful owner. It is fraudulent and larcenous to present oneself to a priest or a bishop as a Catholic in good standing in a perceived state of grace (as defined by the Church) and to receive the Church's sacrament with intent of defiling it.

Similarly:

P. Z. Myers Must Be Fired

He also is in violation of the University of Minnesota Code of Conduct, which holds that faculty members "must be committed to the highest ethical standards of conduct" (II:2) and that "Ethical conduct is a fundamental expectation for every community member. In practicing and modeling ethical conduct, community members are expected to: act according to the highest ethical and professional standards of conduct [and] be personally accountable for individual actions" (III:1).

It also stresses that faculty members must "Be Fair and Respectful to Others. The University is committed to tolerance, diversity, and respect for differences. When dealing with others, community members are expected to: be respectful, fair, and civil . . . avoid all forms of harassment . . . [and] threats . . . [and] promote conflict resolution."

P. Z. Myers has done none of these things. He is in fundamental breach of the University of Minnesota's Code of Conduct and must be discharged.

I’ve said from the beginning that I don’t think Myers should be fired, no matter how disrespectful his comments—and I still think it would do more harm than good—but I am beginning to appreciate the opposing argument. At the least, I can’t condemn those who are demanding his dismissal, even if I disagree. It is one thing to speak disrespectfully about a religious symbol—it may be rude and counterproductive, but it should certainly not be illegal, nor should a tenured professor have to fear for his job for doing so. But to go the next step and acquire (though deception, if not fraud) the sacred object itself and then to publicly desecrate it—that is something else. Should it be illegal? I don’t know, but it certainly violates the dictates of civil society (and the Code of Conduct of the University of Minnesota). It also sets a precedent which could lead to many similar acts of desecration. Whether that justifies his firing, I’m not sure—in fact, if he were fired that itself would likely spark many more acts of desecration!—but I also must respect the freedom of speech of those who believe he should be.

UPDATE: It looks like freedom of speech is going to win out over decency. I'm shocked that he isn't being reprimanded at all, but I'm glad he's not being fired (HT Greg Laden):

Morris chancellor defends instructor who defiled Eucharist, tore Qur'an

The chancellor at the University of Minnesota, Morris, is standing up for a faculty member's freedom of expression after the instructor posted on the Internet a photo of a defiled communion wafer with pages ripped from the Qur'an....

In response today, University of Minnesota, Morris, Chancellor Jacqueline Johnson said the school has deactivated the link between Myers' personal blog and the university website, emphasizing his views "do not reflect those of the University of Minnesota, Morris, or the University of Minnesota system."

At the same time, Johnson said, while she believes "behaviors that discriminate against or harass individuals or groups on the basis of their religious beliefs are reprehensible," the school also "affirms the freedom of a faculty member to speak or write as a public citizen without institutional discipline or restraint."

In the end, I still think Rod Dreher's response is the most in line with what Jesus would have done:

P.Z. Myers desecrates the Eucharist

It's plain that the raging of Christians only feeds Myers' hatred. But what would he do if the response to his hideous blasphemy is ... love? What would he do if Catholics and other Christians, and even sympathetic members of other faiths, turned up en masse on his campus simply to pray quietly for him? What kind of witness would that be to the wider culture? How might that make straight the path to salvation for P.Z. Myers, and many who now admire him? Wouldn't that be blessing those who persecute you, as Christ commands us to do?

Humanity and Symbolism

Responding to my last post, Greg Laden objected to this comment of mine:

If cooler heads were to prevail, this ought to be the take-away lesson: To view a deeply cherished religious symbol as no more than baked bread, a book as no more than ink and paper, indeed a human being as no more than chemicals and electricity, this is not a mark of sophistication. It is, rather, proof of a sadly impoverished worldview.

He objected that:

There is nothing that links the part about a cracker and a book to the human in anything PZ has said or done, and it conflicts starkly with what he has said and done in the past. This is not even quote mining, it is attributing a very improper thought to a person who has never had that thought and never would. Up to that paragraph, I thought your comments were quite reasonable for a christian, and fair. But giving PZ Myers the attribute of believing the importance of people to be in the same category as crackers [is] utterly absurd.

I want to make this clear, because I can see how my clipped phrasing could be misunderstood: My point was not that Myers considers human beings to be of no greater worth than a cracker—far from it. The whole point of his post, which I agreed with, was that compared to a human life, "a cracker" is a small thing. But he went much further than that, saying not only that the Eucharist ought to be less important, but that it ought not to matter at all, on the grounds that “Nothing must be held sacred.”

My point was that this justification for his claim that "it's just a cracker" is based on an extreme and ridiculous form of reductionism that implies that the only thing that matters about an object is its physical composition. Since the wafer doesn't really turn into Jesus' body, Myers claims that no one has a right to be upset if he destroys it. My point was that, if you accept that premise it leads to absurd results, one of them being that a human is "no more than chemicals and electricity."

I would fully expect Myers (and any sane person) to reject that conclusion, but he cannot do so without rejecting the premise. For part of what it means to recognize that a human being is far more than the sum of their parts is to recognize that we—as individuals and communities—create meaning and hold certain things as valuable and sacred. The Eucharist is not just a cracker, because it is held dear by a community of people, just as a flag is not just a piece of cloth and a wedding ring is not just a piece of metal. In making the absurd claim that “it’s just a cracker,” Myers in fact rejects a key aspect of the humanity of over a billion people who do (rationally or irrationally) place great value on the Eucharist.

He is, of course, entitled to believe and argue that Catholics are mistaken in their devotion to the Eucharist, but he cannot reasonably claim that "it's just a cracker," nor can he find it surprising that those who hold it dear might be upset by his willful desecration of their cherished symbol.

PZ Myers Follows Through on His Threat to Desecrate the Eucharist

Well, he did it:

I wasn't going to make any major investment of time, money, or effort in treating these dabs of unpleasantness as they deserve, because all they deserve is casual disposal. However, inspired by an old woodcut of Jews stabbing the host, I thought of a simple, quick thing to do: I pierced it with a rusty nail (I hope Jesus's tetanus shots are up to date). And then I simply threw it in the trash, followed by the classic, decorative items of trash cans everywhere, old coffeegrounds and a banana peel. My apologies to those who hoped for more, but the worst I can do is show my unconcerned contempt....

By the way, I didn't want to single out just the cracker, so I nailed it to a few ripped-out pages from the Qur'an and The God Delusion. They are just paper. Nothing must be held sacred.

As I said at the beginning, I agree with his insistence that disrespect for a communion wafer ought to be a much smaller matter than disrespect for a person, but his little stunt in fact disrespects both. Still, I can hardly blame him. Though plenty of valid objections have been raised against this kind of iconoclasm, they have been almost completely overwhelmed by the flood of semi-literate hate-mail he has received. In the face of such seemingly irrational hatred, it cannot surprise that he felt that drastic measures were needed.

In truth, his actual desecration was surprisingly understated, but that will not stop Bill Donohue and the Catholic League from doing everything in their power to make his life miserable. In the end, as a Protestant who does not believe in transubstantiation, all I can say is that PZ Myers has not in fact done any harm to Jesus, but those who have responded with hatred and death threats have certainly done so. They have proven his point for him, by making Christianity appear to be little more than irrational superstition, and seriously damaged the reputation of Christ in the world.

But to me the most interesting aspect of this incident arises from the fact that he also chose to destroy copies of the Koran and Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion. On the one hand, adding a second form of blasphemy does nothing to diminish the disrespect of the first, but it does at least clarify his point: that to PZ Myers, "Nothing must be held sacred."

If cooler heads were to prevail, this ought to be the take-away lesson: To view a deeply cherished religious symbol as no more than baked bread, a book as no more than ink and paper, indeed a human being as no more than chemicals and electricity, this is not a mark of sophistication. It is, rather, proof of a sadly impoverished worldview. It is rational to condemn the atrocities committed in the name of a flag; it is mere childishness to desecrate and discard such a flag as "just" a piece of cloth. With this stunt, Myers has proven precisely nothing about the meaning of the symbol, he has only proven his own distaste for the sacred.

But I’m afraid that point will be missed in the rush to condemn his blasphemy, as many of those who should recognize the sacred value, not just of a Eucharistic wafer, but of a human being—made in the image of God—will instead treat him with "profound disrespect." And that is the real tragedy in this situation.

The Christian Carnival and Then Some

This week's Christian Carnival is at A True Believers Blog, and includes my post on The Dark Knight and plenty of other things. In particular, this post which quotes an humorous Rabbinic discussion about animals too big for Noah's ark, and also links to a series of posts (here, here, here and here) on why the flood cannot have been global, and why it shouldn't matter.

In other news, Mark Shea links to an excellent post at Old World Swine on Harry Potter, magic tents, free will and materialism—you'll have to read it.

Dark Knight Reviews and Speculations About a Sequel

Here's an interesting review at First Things, which explores many of the same aspects of the film that I did, but in greater depth (minor spoiler warning for this and the next review):

Nolan focuses in The Dark Knight on the “idea of escalation,” the way Batman’s dramatic persona, with its violent heroism, calls forth a greater, more creative response from the criminal element. It would be hard to imagine a more compelling embodiment of the escalation of evil in Gotham than what Nolan and actor Heath Ledger have created in the character of The Joker, whose insouciant embrace of chaos eclipses the malevolence of Hannibal Lecter from Silence of the Lambs and John Doe from Se7en. What makes Nolan’s latest film such a success is not, however, Ledger’s compelling presentation of evil, on which critics have focused their attention, but the way in which he uses that character to bring out the depth and complex goodness of the other characters in the film, including Batman.

Next, John Carney, perhaps taking the films a bit too seriously, asks if Bruce Wayne's business dealings in Batman Begins and The Dark Knight might actually make him that "better class of criminal" the Joker claims to want (HT Peter Chattaway):

He seems to be a white-collar criminal, engaging in the kind of corporate crimes that attract our real-life two-faced prosecutors. He takes corporate resources to pursue his own interests, uses underhanded means to acquire a majority stake in Wayne Enterprises after encouraging an initial public offering, and intimidates a potential whistle-blower.

Finally, since Warner Brothers surely wont be able to pass up a cash-cow of a sequel (since everyone knows the third film in a trilogy is always the best!), check out MTV.com's brief interview with Dark Knight writer David Goyer, who claims he and the Nolan brothers already have a theme and a villain in mind. He's not saying who, but there are plenty of possibilities (but watch out for spoilers if you haven't seen The Dark Knight yet).