but I found myself cheering the pigeon’s victory. I appreciate and use technology, but sometimes crave the simpler past.
Perhaps it’s the truly international nature of the incident or maybe it’s Mona’s attitude has always irritated me, but for some reason this just made me laugh.
It’s a new educational pilot program. Due to concern over an era of moral uncertainty, students will be required to take a class in religion or ethics.
Where is this “unconstitutional” program being introduced? Alabama? South Carolina? Alaska?
Nyet! It’s Russia.
According to MSNBC the Kremlin’s plan is to introduce the program to about 12,000 schools, perhaps expanding nationwide within the next couple of years.
Despite constitutional separation of church and state found in Russia, the program gives students the choice between one of the four leading religions in Russia (Orthodox, Jewish, Islam, and Buddhism), an overview of all four, or a class in secular ethics.
Obviously this will be more educational than evangelistic, yet it is an interesting development. With the atheistic tradition of recent Russian history, allowing religion to be taught at all is almost incomprehensible. What remains to be seen is its effectiveness.
Recent scientific research from the Netherlands has demonstrated that unborn babies demonstrate the capacity for memory at as early as 30 weeks development.
The new study tested how fetuses in nearly 100 pregnant women responded to a specific stimulus, in this case, a “vibroacoustic stimulation,” which is a very low sound that makes a vibration. The researchers observed the reaction using an ultrasound. When the fetus first receives the stimulation, it is startled. But after repeated trials of the same stimulation, 30 seconds apart, the fetus gets used to the sound and doesn’t react.
Called habituation (the same process found in adults by which we grow accustomed to sensory stimuli – odors, sounds, etc), this learned response was noted to last up to four weeks in the babies at 34 weeks development. The researchers believe the babies can habituate earlier than 30 weeks if the correct stimuli is used.
Even a more liberal definition of personhood views consciousness of things external to oneself (such as the ability to feel pleasure or pain) as an indicator. Not only did the babies tested feel the vibration, they were able to respond in an increasingly intelligent manner through the use of memory. These findings further demonstrate that this pre-natal human development is earlier than previously thought.
Those who hold a developmental view of personhood will have two options: deny the results or merely admit that the process advances more rapidly than supposed. In actuality, it highlights one of the weaknesses of the developmental view: Subjective criteria making the final determination of personhood.
By establishing subjective criteria for personhood, the door is opened for further steps such as euthanasia, infanticide, and elimination of the physically and mentally impaired. (In fact, some have gone so far as to propose such measures.)
The value of an individual should not be based upon such ambiguous determinants, but upon the value of life found in the unique cell formed at conception. This human dignity that should be afforded to all people, both born and unborn.
Dan Burrell shares an article that is a powerful indictment of American Christianity.
Christianity started in Palestine as a fellowship; it moved to Greece and became a philosophy; it moved to Italy and became an institution; it moved to Europe and became a culture; it came to America and became an enterprise adding that an enterprise was a business.
After a few moments Martha, an 18 year old, the youngest student in the class, raised her hand. Acknowledging her she asked, “A business? But isn’t it supposed to be a body?” I responded in the affirmative. She continued, “But when a body becomes a business, isn’t that a prostitute?”
You can read the article in entirety here.
Yesterday was the first annual National Running Day. I just found out about it today, but I did “participate” yesterday with my normal training.
At least there’s always next year (only 364 more days!).
How and how often do you exercise?
I stayed up late last night to watch “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” Even though I enjoy old movies, for some reason I had never seen this Frank Capra classic (except for the climactic speech and collapse scene).
If you’re unfamiliar with the story, young “Boy Ranger” leader, Jeff Smith (played by Jimmy Stewart), is chosen by the governor of his state to finish the term of the Senator who has recently passed away. Smith is chosen in an effort to satisfy populist demands as well as provide an easily-manipulated stooge for the corrupt political machine of the state.
The wide-eyed, idealistic young senator arrives in Washington ready to play the part but soon finds himself at odds with his senior senator and other colleagues. Upon discovering that they are about to capitalize on a corrupt Public Works bill, Smith works to expose and defeat the political machine. Refusing to accept a bribe to compromise, he must utilize the filibuster to persuade the Senate and rally the people of his state to his side.
Several things about this film resonated with me: the fresh-faced idealistic optimism about our country and its government; the understanding of the necessary quid-pro-quo of politics coupled with a distaste for its abuse; the ultimate triumph of one man willing to stand unwaveringly by his principles.
I find myself caught in a quandary between optimism regarding our ideals of our system and pessimism over the reality of it. Though the senior Senator in “Mr. Smith” compromised with a corrupt political boss, there is no question that legitimate compromise is the very nature of politics. Still, something within me riles at leaders who say one thing then use compromise as their excuse for doing the opposite.
No doubt many of our elected officials face the same dilemma: idealism vs. realism. It’s a no-win situation. If they bow to the reality of compromise in order to accomplish a truly bi-partisan goal, they are crucified for giving up their principles. If they stand by their principles and refuse to cooperate with those on the other side of the aisle, they are branded as right (or left) wing extremists.
Until I’ve reconciled this conflict in my own mind, I’m trying to be a little more understanding of the Congressmen who daily face it on a deeper level than I ever will.
Here are a few quotes (mine and others’) from my sermon this past Sunday: “Country Club Christianity.”
“My Brothers, do not have the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ with respect of persons.”
James 2:1
“The way we behave towards people indicates what we really believe about God.”
Warren Wiersbe
“Look at everyone through the eyes of Christ. If the person is a Christian, we can receive him because Christ lives in him. If he is not a Christian, we can receive him because Christ died for him.”
Unknown
“We must see others through the eyes of Christ. If you view others as an American, you will have difficulty loving certain nationalities because of what they have done to your country. If you view others as a white person, your perspective of others will be ‘colored’ by your experiences and social environment of your background. Only when we view others as a Christian can we treat them with a Christ-honoring, grace manifesting love.”
“We are most comfortable around those we are like. But to ignore the needs of those different from us is to deny the grace of God.”
“A church of ‘cliques,’ ‘classes,’ and ‘clans,’ is not a church that will magnify the grace of God to an unbelieving world.”
“Christian love means treating others the way God has treated me. It is an act of the will, not an emotion that I try to manufacture.”
“Country Club Christianity” (Sermon preached May 31st, 2009)
“Whatever you would that men should do to you, do you even so to them.”
Jesus
When I consider your heavens, the works of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have ordained; What is man, that you are mindful of him and the son of man that you visit him?
Why do I do things I know I will regret?
*Why do I go in convenience stores? I know I will come out smelling like I have been deep-fried in tobacco smoke.
*Why do I watch Keith Olbermann? Reagan was a “lousy” president? Nice. Glad to see civility is on the rise. And besides, we’re not supposed to quote dead people?
*Why do I think I can go in Wal-Mart to buy two items? Can’t be done.
*Why do I eat that third Oreo? Well . . . ok. Forget that one.
So, what do you do that you question later?
