I no longer read as much as I once did. I finish perhaps little more books each year than I once read in a month. This is somewhat depressing, but also reflects a life in which I am out more. I did not have a computer when I read that much, I rarely went out with friends (really, did not at all). Still, George Weigel reminds me how much there is still to read, and gives a nice set of names and a few titles as a starting place.[1]

[1] http://www.eppc.org/publications/pubID.2350/pub_detail.asp

The National Catholic Register reports the good news that the new California center for embryonic stem cell research has hit a snag: the bill authorizing it may be unconstitutional.[1] Hopefully this case will prevail, and the needless and senseless slaughter of 5 day old babies will be prevented.

[1] http://www.ncregister.com/current/0522lead1.htm

Another abortion case is going to be heard at the United States Supreme Court. This one is on the parental notification laws.[1] New Hampshire “forgot” to make an exception for minor’s health in the event of a medical emergency. Perhaps because such clauses get abused by pro-death doctors. Anyway, with the current Supreme Court mix, I do not expect anything good to come of this.

[1] http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050523/D8A9066G1.html

To no one surprise, the American Psychiatric Association, well known (by me at least) as a source of liberal propaganda, has come out in support of homosexual “marriages.”[1] Last week, Boundless published an article on marriage, and the competing social views of it, that I thought hit home particularly well.[2] It proposes that there are three views of marriage: 1)the traditional model, based on sexual complementarity and marriage as an institution 2)the choice model, looking at marriage essentially as an agreement between sovereign selves, and 3)the postmodern, looking at marriage as a codification of “the ‘web of interdependence’ that is created by this interaction with another person.” Only in the second two does the idea of a homosexual “marriage” make any sense, but only the first is the basis for a true marriage. Unfortunately, even some Catholics have lost track of the fact that marriage is more than just a social contract, and even more have forgotten or rejected the concept of the sexes being complementary.

[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4573461.stm
[2] http://www.boundless.org/2005/articles/a0001086.cfm

As I am sure you could have guessed, rabid atheists are not satisfied with challenging the Constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance, they are looking at challenging the national motto, “In God We Trust,” as well.[1] Some people seem to think there is not much chance of this challenge winning in court, but then, I am sure the same would have been said of the Pledge case before it went all the way to the United States Supreme Court.

[1] http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0523/p02s02-uspo.html

The Hunchback of Notre-Dame contains an interesting section talking about how the printing press would (perhaps Victor Hugo thinks “did”?) destroy the Faith.

In the first place, it was a priestly thought. It was the affright of the priest in the presence of a new agent, the printing press. It was the terror and dazzled amazement of the men of the sanctuary, in the presence of the luminous press of Gutenberg. It was the pulpit and the manuscript taking the alarm at the printed word: something similar to the stupor of a sparrow which should behold the angel Legion unfold his six million wings. It was the cry of the prophet who already hears emancipated humanity roaring and swarming; who beholds in the future, intelligence sapping faith, opinion dethroning belief, the world shaking off Rome. It was the prognostication of the philosopher who sees human thought, volatilized by the press, evaporating from the theocratic recipient. It was the terror of the soldier who examines the brazen battering ram, and says:–”The tower will crumble.” It signified that one power was about to succeed another power. It meant, “The press will kill the church.”[1]

He then goes on talk about his other idea, that the press killed architecture. This one is rather better supported, and, though tainted with his ideas on religion, is somewhat more valid.

But his idea that the printing press would or did kill the faith is so ludicrous as to be very nearly amusing. It is, incidentally, the same opinion that I read about on the part of the authorities and the doctors involved in Mary’s apparitions in Lourdes. Perhaps in the 1800s it appeared that the faith was only for the uneducated? I do not know. All that I do know is that the faith has persevered far longer than the ideas of those who wrote them have. And I do know that it is not a rejection of the faith that liberates, but an embrace of it. The false liberty of rejection leads to the mental prison of materialism that Mr. Chesterton describes so aptly. We are free to believe in physical laws as strict or as breakable as we like, but the materialist is not free to believe in even the smallest miracle for example. I will take my reality of hope over the dark and depressing views that have lead to the disaster we are in now, thank you very much.

[1] Project Gutenberg puts this at Book 5, Chapter II. My printed copy puts it at chapter 23. The titles given to each are similar, but not quite the same. Either way, it is the second paragraph of the chapter. http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext01/hback10.txt

Eric Warmenhoven is apparently annoyed by the oft-repeated statement that “everything happens for a reason.”[1] People who state this typically mean that God’s plans are often not evident to human perception, and that time will show the good that will come of some event. This represents a crucial mistake.

Eric is absolutely right, the statement as it stands, is a horrid misunderstanding of cause and effect. Even if you properly take into account the concept of free will, a given event happened because of some past event. That is to say, it was caused by that past event or choice. The actual teaching is that God will bring good out of everything, even out of evil. This is only superficially the same as the preceding, erroneous, statement.

In bringing good out of evil, God is not, usually, side-stepping causality (though He can). Joan of Arc’s preservation of France was not miraculous (well, perhaps it was, but it was not miraculous in the sense that it happened after the need for it). Rather, all that is necessary is to realize that from her choices and actions, God inspired certainly, but still rooted in causality, we later came to a situation where Catholic France would not be brought down when England betrayed the Faith in the Protestant Reformation. Again, the two statements, even with this example, remain very very similar. Someone in between St. Joan and the Reformation would know the reason for France’s freedom: St. Joan acted. They would not however know the purpose for her actions. Specifically, they could guess her purposes for acting, but not God’s for inspiring and aiding her actions. It is the purpose that will come clear with time, the purpose for which God did allow it, or the purpose for which He will use it, or both. It will be used as a cause, and the things it will cause remain unknown.

In some sense, this really is the same as saying the reason is unknown, but only if you think, as Calvin taught, that everything is predestined. It is not. You did not get sick because you needed to suffer. Adam did not sin because Jesus would save us. Rather, Jesus saved us because Adam sinned. Adam is the reason, or cause, of Jesus’ coming, Jesus is not the reason, or cause, of Adam’s sin. Now everything is as clear as mud. ☺

[1] http://www.warmenhoven.org/blog/7

We have now reached the point of human cloning.[1] As predicted, scientists, not held back by a universal moral framework from the inexcusable and unjustifiable, have proceeded. How many of these children, already denied the basic gift of being conceived into a family, are we going to allow to be killed before society realizes the evil? How much evil must happen until the will to stop it grows to sufficient levels?

[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4563607.stm

In her writings today, Ederlyn wrote “I suppose that patronizing as it may be, any philanthropy that results in money and time flowing downhill should be encouraged.”[1] I understand this statement, the peoples of the third and fourth worlds are in a truly bad state, and truly do need the money and time that the first and second world nations and populations can send. Yet I must respectfully disagree.[2]

Some time ago, I wrote a brief post about why the Church’s “option for the poor” is not the same as welfare.[3] It consisted mostly of a quote from a Jamaican Archbishop, telling the writer how it is more important that the human dignity of the people be preserved and enhanced than it is that they receive monetary or material goods from those who have an excess. This quote, in addition to disposing of the idea of a welfare state, also disposes of the idea of philanthropy being necessarily good, regardless of the form in which it comes, or the attitudes behind it. I do not, by this, wish or mean to absolve those who have much from giving of themselves, both in time and in money. I do, however, want to point out how harmful our misguided giving has been. We have been giving, through the International Monetary Fund(IMF), through the World Bank, and through other organizations, millions and billions of dollars to third world governments all over the globe. Even beyond the corruption involved in these efforts, what we have primarily succeeded in doing is providing excuses for these peoples not to help themselves. There has been no change for the better the world over, because these people are dependent on the IMF, the World Bank, on the United Nations, on the United States. True reform must come from within. True improvement must come by giving the peoples there the means (in tools and education) to help themselves.

If the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, it is also true that the price of prosperity is responsibility. Except for that tiny, guilty-feeling minority who depend on trust funds, people grow more prosperous in direct proportion to their own effort, and their own acceptance of responsibility. The free nations of the world have various standards of living. Some of that is luck(being limited to a few islands necessarily impacts the standard of living in Japan), some of that is history (not having been all that free all that long ago impacts any number of nations, businesses have not been developing in these countries), some of that is the level of free-ness they have. This last takes further thought. Looking at our own country, to the extent that we have implemented a dependency state instead of requiring that people take personal responsibility for their own lives, costs have gone up (see health care) and standards of living have not (see the welfare-dependent poor). To the extent that we have implemented welfare, and emphasized diversity and emotion over substance, our cities have grown less civilized. This holds true not only of our inner cities, but also of Appalachia. Where illiteracy abounds, the standard of living goes down, with few exceptions. It is the rare man who can found a successful company not knowing how to read and do basic math.

A perfect example of this is the rain forests. There are ways, we have demonstrated industries, that could thrive in the rain forest without destroying them. Further, we have proven that slash and burn agriculture is neither profitable or environmentally sound. So why is it still the norm? Because instead of helping these people start such industries, we are busy buying up rain forest land. Instead of helping them to help themselves, we are giving them a few livestock, some homes, the odd school or medical center. Instead of helping them help themselves, we give their governments money. Philanthropy for its own sake will continue this cycle, it takes a much stronger drive to effect the true and lasting changes the third world regions need.

[1] Lacson, Ederlyn. “The Young Lady’s Illustrated Primer” 2005-05-19 http://www.livejournal.com/users/baranoouji/211153.html
[2] Reading her replies to “cathkitten,” Ederlyn has a more complex understanding of this than I am responding to here. I do not understand her actual position, so I cannot address its accuracy or inaccuracy. My response then is limited to just the quote I provide, and should not be taken in any way shape or form to reflect on Ederlyn, as I am merely using her as a jump-off point.
[3] Schierer, Luke. “Random Unfinished Thoughts” 2005-03-09 http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20050309-1140/20050309-1140

As cool as the implications of sending tactile information over the Internet may be, I find it rather more than simply “eccentric” to develop a human-poultry interaction system.[1] It is quite frankly bizarre and disturbing. What happened to the good old days when we did our research with cats and dogs and other mammals? Who in their right mind would want to pet a chicken (except maybe a child)?

Still, as it develops, some of the other applications, such as helping people learn to dance, or interacting with other people, or even interacting with a guard dog, are interesting. It will be interesting to see this area of research develop.

[1] http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,67513,00.html