A preacher of my acquaintance was recently asked whether Islam is evil. Being a blunt-spoken sort and not one for pulling his punches, he said, “Yes.” I can’t help thinking that it wasn’t a very helpful answer, in part because it isn’t a very helpful question; it can mean several different things, covering multiple areas of interest and concern.For instance, one might consider this question theologically: is Islam, considered as a body of beliefs about God, evil? As a Christian, I would say that Islam is a religion which preaches a form of works righteousness, thus encouraging people to put their faith in their own efforts rather than in Jesus Christ; as such, it’s as evil as any other such religion, including a number of things which generally pass themselves off as forms of Christianity. This is not to say that there’s no real difference between a given stream of Islam and your typical American church preaching “moralistic therapeutic deism,” but the core theological issue would seem to be the same in both cases. One may call specific versions of Islam evil—the jihadists who plan terrorist attacks and preach suicide bombing as a form of religious martyrdom are clearly teaching something evil—but it seems to me that you can’t call Islam as a whole evil, on a theological level, without saying the same about some ostensibly Christian preachers. (To some, that might be a deterrent to calling Islam evil; to others, it might prompt a re-evaluation of some American religious leaders.)That said, I’m pretty sure that the person who asked that question didn’t have that concern in mind; I suspect that their interest was less theological than political. We might therefore ask, Is Islam necessarily the cause of political evil? I know there are those who are pessimistic and would say “yes” to this because they believe that Islam naturally tends to despotism; but I believe this question is properly answered in the negative. One, even if one agrees that there can be no such thing as a healthy Islamic democracy, modern Western democracy isn’t the only good way to run a country; Morocco, as a constitutional monarchy that has seen significant positive developments over the last couple decades, offers another possible way forward. Two, there are Muslim thinkers at work developing a particular Muslim theological and philosophical groundwork for democracy, and I don’t think it’s reasonable to declare their work a failure before it even has the chance to bear fruit. This is especially true given that we have in Iraq a potential cradle for Islamic democracy, and early signs of its success are encouraging.At this point, someone might object by pointing to evil Islamic governments and leaders, and certainly I have no great opinion of any of the rulers of Iran; but to say that there are evil people who carry the label “Muslim” is not to say even that all Muslims are evil, let alone that Islam itself is evil. After all, there are evil people who claim to be Christian, too; the first person who comes to my mind isn’t a political figure, but Dennis Rader, the BTK Killer, who was an elder in his Lutheran church in Wichita. It’s a severe logical stretch at best to assume that because a person who professes a given faith is evil, that faith must be the cause of their evil.The bottom line: I believe Christianity is true, which logically entails the belief that Islam is false. I think it’s perfectly fair to say that there are streams of Islamic tradition, such as Wahhabism, which are bad news. A sizeable percentage of the world’s terrorists are Muslim, and while I suspect a lot of them (perhaps most of them) would still be pretty malignant people if they’d been raised as Buddhists or Baptists, the fact remains that they both justify and promote their terrorist activity on the grounds of their Muslim beliefs; I think it’s foolish in the extreme to pretend not to see that. But all of that said, it seems to me that treating Islam (and Muslims in general) as if the likes of Osama bin Laden and Ayman al’Zawahiri are representative of what it necessarily means to be Muslim is like holding up Fred Phelps and saying, “This is what a Christian looks like.” A more nuanced evaluation, I think, would be preferable.
Politics just keeps getting stranger
as Michelle Malkin points out; if it isn’t Sarah Palin inspiring the loonies on the Left, it’s Barack Obama inspiring the nutcases on the Right (although some of those, it seems, are actually Clintonites who just can’t let go). I particularly appreciate her conclusion:
I believe Trig was born to Sarah Palin. I believe Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. I believe fire can melt steel and that bin Laden’s jihadi crew—not Bush and Cheney—perpetrated mass murder on 9/11. What kind of kooky conspiracist does that make me?
HT: Baseball Crank
And you think bureaucracy is bad now
I’ve been reading David Hamilton-Williams’ book Waterloo: New Perspectives: The Great Battle Reappraised, which I picked up used some time ago on a flyer; it’s a controverted work and I’m no expert in Napoleonic history, so I don’t claim to pronounce on the accuracy of the author’s conclusions, but it’s an interesting read. One of the things which struck me was his account of the screwy bureaucratic structure under which the British army labored, and the ways in which it hampered military operations. I don’t think one needs to know much about the Peninsular War (the 1807-13 war in Portugal and Spain; Arthur Wellesley took command of the British forces in 1809 and was eventually created Duke of Wellington for his success) to understand this letter from Wellington to the War Office which the book quotes:
Gentlemen: Whilst marching to Portugal to a position which commands the approach to Madrid and the French forces, my officers have been diligently complying with your request which has been sent by H.M. ship from London to Lisbon and then by dispatch rider to our headquarters. We have enumerated our saddles, bridles, tents, and tent poles, and all manner of sundry items for which His Majesty’s Government holds me accountable. I have dispatched reports on the character, wit, spleen of every officer. Each Item and every farthing has been accounted for, with two regrettable exceptions for which I beg you your indulgence. Unfortunately, the sum of one shilling and ninepence remains unaccounted for in one infantry battalion’s petty cash and there has been a hideous confusion as to the number of jars of raspberry jam issued to one cavalry regiment during a sandstorm in western Spain. This reprehensible carelessness may be related to the pressure of circumstances since we are at war with France, a fact which may come as a bit of a surprise to you gentlemen in Whitehall. This brings me to my present purpose, which is to request elucidation of my instructions from His Majesty’s Government, so that I may better understand why I am dragging an army over these barren plains. I construe that perforce it must be one of the alternative duties, as given below. I shall pursue one with the best of my ability but I cannot do both. 1. To train an army of uniformed British clerks in Spain for the benefit of the accountants and copy-boys in London, or perchance, 2. To see to it that the forces of Napoleon are driven out of Spain.
TV is for losers?
No, not exactly; but a new study reported in the New York Times has found something interesting:
Happy people spend a lot of time socializing, going to church and reading newspapers—but they don’t spend a lot of time watching television, a new study finds.That’s what unhappy people do.Although people who describe themselves as happy enjoy watching television, it turns out to be the single activity they engage in less often than unhappy people, said John Robinson, a professor of sociology at the University of Maryland and the author of the study, which appeared in the journal Social Indicators Research.
Very interesting. This is not, I’m sure, to say that watching TV makes you unhappy (though the news these days could have that effect); but the other activities referenced (in the article, anyway) are either communal, or require effort, or both. TV is neither—it’s a passive activity which can be isolating (though it need not be); it’s an easy pleasure, and easy pleasures get us nowhere that matters.HT: Ray Ortlund
Holy dread
I live with the dread of tame, domesticated Christianity. I fear for my students that they will chase after what they want—and therefore miss what God wants.—Dr. Howard HendricksWhat a remarkable statement. My thanks to the Rev. Dr. Ray Ortlund for posting this. It is, I think, far too rare a realization that missing out on what God wants for us is a far greater loss, and far more to be feared, than missing out on what we want. As C. S. Lewis said in perhaps his greatest single work, “The Weight of Glory,”
Indeed, if we consider the unblushing promises of reward and the staggering nature of the rewards promised in the Gospels, it would seem that Our Lord finds our desires, not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.
May God deepen and strengthen our desires, and expand our vision.
Being inconvenient is a capital offense
Such, at least, is the logic of abortion; such is the logic of euthanasia. Such is the logic of the culture of death, which we might also call the culture of “might makes right.” And don’t let talk of “death with dignity” misdirect you; though there are certainly those who are suicidal because of illness or injury, those who advocate euthanasia have far broader concerns. As Dr. Bob of The Doctor Is In writes,
While invariably promoted as a merciful means of terminating suffering, the suffering relieved is far more that of the enabling society than of its victims. “Death with dignity” is the gleaming white shroud on the rotting corpse of societal fear, self-interest and ruthless self-preservation.
This is where we end up when our only concern is what is reasonable in our own eyes, and our only standard for reasonability is our own self-interest: with
a philosophy where the Useful is the Good, whose victims are the children whom Reason scorned.Euthanasia is the quick fix to man’s ageless struggle with suffering and disease. The Hippocratic Oath—taken in widely varying forms by most physicians at graduation—was originally administered to a minority of physicians in ancient Greece, who swore to prescribe neither euthanasia nor abortion—both common recommendations by healers of the age. The rapid and widespread acceptance of euthanasia in pre-Nazi Germany occurred because it was eminently reasonable and rational. Beaten down by war, economic hardship, and limited resources, logic dictated that those who could not contribute to the betterment of society cease being a drain on its lifeblood. Long before its application to ethnic groups and enemies of the State, it was administered to those who made us most uncomfortable: the mentally ill, the deformed, the retarded, the social misfit.
The immediate material benefits of such a policy are easy to articulate. The hidden long-term costs, material, cultural, and spiritual, are equally easy to overlook through deliberate short-sightedness, yet they are in the end far greater:
The benefits of suffering, subtle though they may be, can be discerned in many instances even by the unskilled eye. What are the chances that Dutch doctors will find a cure for the late stage cancer or early childhood disease, when they now so quickly and “compassionately” dispense of their sufferers with a lethal injection? Who will teach us patience, compassion, unselfish love, endurance, tenderness, and tolerance, if not those who provide us with the opportunity through their suffering, or mental or physical disability? These are character traits not easily learned, though enormously beneficial to society as well as individuals. How will we learn them if we liquidate our teachers?Higher moral principles position roadblocks to our behavior, warning us that grave danger lies beyond. When in our hubris and unenlightened reason we crash through them, we do so at great peril, for we do not know what evil lies beyond.
As Dr. Bob notes, the truth of that is clearly illustrated by the German history with euthanasia. Here’s hoping we will ultimately show ourselves willing to learn from their experience, rather than condemning ourselves to relive it.HT: Gerald Vanderleun, with special thanks to the Anchoress.
Bail out US automakers?
What would be the point? It would be like Mickey Mantle’s liver transplant; it wouldn’t give GM, Ford and Chrysler a chance at new life, it would only prolong their agony. Giving them billions of dollars now merely allows them to put off the final reckoning and avoid facing the real problem: as these companies now exist, they cannot compete and will never be able to compete. Investor’s Business Daily‘s Michael Ramirez captures their situation with his usual pointed wit (click to enlarge):
When your labor costs are 55.6% higher than the other guy, that’s the kind of disadvantage you’re facing—it’s not something you can overcome, no matter how hard you try. As far as I can see, the only thing that will change this situation is when (not if, when) the Big Three declare bankruptcy and reorganize. Yes, that’s a bad solution. Yes, a lot of people will be hurt by that. Unfortunately, there aren’t any better options, and the sooner these companies take their medicine and file, the less bad it will be; delaying the inevitable will only make it worse when it finally happens.
Why we need Christ coming
Joseph Bottum again, from his powerful piece “Christmas in New York”:
It’s not my fault—the cry we’ve made every day since Adam took the apple. Down somewhere in the belly, there’s an awareness of just how wrong the world is, how fallen and broken and incomplete. This is the guilty knowledge, the failure of innocence, against which we snarl and rage: That’s just the way things are; there’s nothing I can do; I wasn’t the one who started the fight; it’s not my fault. What would genuine innocence look like if it ever came into the world? I know the answer my faith calls me to believe: like a child born in a cattle shed. But to understand why that is an answer, to see it clearly, we are also compelled to know our guilt for the world, to feel it all the way to the bottom.
Cokie Roberts on Sarah Palin’s future
Those who are hoping that Gov. Palin will quietly disappear into one of history’s footnotes—a group which includes Republican supporters of other 2012 contenders as well as many Democrats—would do well to listen to what Cokie Roberts has to say on the subject, because there’s a reason she’s one of the top political reporters in the country. As the daughter of two successful politicians and an experienced and gifted correspondent, she knows her field better than most. Her conviction that “there’s more of Sarah Palin in our future” is grounded in part in her observation that “the camera loves” Gov. Palin, which is certainly true and important; of more significance, though, is her comment that Gov. Palin feels “she was vastly disserved by the McCain campaign and I agree with her.” What Ms. Roberts realizes and many others do not is that many of Gov. Palin’s negatives are the result of her mishandling by the McCain campaign, not her own personality, inclinations, and gifts, and thus won’t be coming along with her. To expect those negatives to endure and drag her career down when she won’t be reinforcing them is simply unreasonable. Two years is a long time in American politics, and four years is pretty near a lifetime; Gov. Palin will have plenty of opportunities over the next few years to dispell the negative perceptions of her among independent voters, and all she’ll need to do to accomplish that is to be herself.(Note: the original article from the Boston Herald has been archived and is only available for purchase.)
Brief comment on Barack Obama’s Cabinet choices
There have been a lot of comments on the people Barack Obama has chosen for various positions, and the significance of the fact that from Rahm Emanuel on, he’s opted to build a team of Bush appointees and Clintonites (including perhaps his best pick, Timothy Geithner, who looks at first blush like the best Treasury appointee in decades); but despite the skepticism of folks like Paul Mirengoff, I tend to agree with Jonah Goldberg and Victor Davis Hanson: in his appointments, President Obama has basically given the giant finger to his leftist base. I think Dr. Hanson is dead on to call this “one of [the] most profound bait-and-switch campaigns in our political history.” Throw in his perfunctory support for Jim Martin in the Georgia runoff election against incumbent Sen. Saxby Chambliss (while on the other side, Sarah Palin was barnstorming across Georgia as Sen. Chambliss’ chosen closer), and it really looks to me like he’s doing everything he can to keep the Democratic caucus on the Hill from running the show. I’m not sure if it will work, but I appreciate the effort.
Update: Here’s Investor’s Business Daily‘s Michael Ramirez’ take on this: