Like the War in Iraq, Israel's invasion into Gaza has become controversial.
Is it a just war? Was it a last resort? Is the reaction proportionate to the cause?

If I were to know no history of the tensions and hostilities between Israel and its neighbors, I would probably believe the recent invasion to be, in a way, unjust. After all, Israel did not attempt an economic embargo or attempt to recruit UN involvement in this specific instance.

However, even from the limited amount of knowledge I have regarding Israel's interactions with Palestinians, I simply cannot answer the question, "If you were Prime Minister of Israel, what would you do?" in any other manner than the course they have taken.

I am a pacifist at heart. Nothing would make me happier than if we could all live out the song, "Why Can't We Be Friends?" But if, tomorrow, a terrorist group started sending rockets into my city, you won't find any flower bouquets or peace pipes near me.
Israel has tried diplomacy. The UN, notoriously anti-Israel, isn't going to be helping any time soon--so what more can Israelis do than to defend themselves forcefully?

The main difficulty of the scenario, I believe, lies in the character of the initial terrorist attacks, and the characters of the terrorists. Like the World Trade Center bombings, Israel's civilians are being attacked, and in a way in which direct defense is nearly impossible. Hamas is not marching across the border with blazing guns. Rather, they are deploying the blazing guns without the soldiers--same as September 11th. Also like America post-9-11, Israel is faced with a 'faceless' enemy insofar as Hamas does not have a country, uniforms, or formal structure.

Confronted with a garden full of normal and poisonous plants that are identical in appearance, both America and Israel have, for lack of a visible better option, been forced to use conventional warfare in unconventional wars. Civilian causalities are part of the result: to Hamas, the primary means of war, and to civilized nations, a horrible, tragic part of war, which seems unavoidable in this conflict.

Is there another way?--I throw the question out to you.

If warfare must be used, (which I believe it must), is there an honorable and unconventional type of warfare that Israel can use against an insidious but also unconventional enemy?

The Evangelical Outpost was just named a finalist for the 2008 Weblog awards!

Thank you for reading, contributing to, and sharing this blog with others. This has been a year of many changes, especially here at EO. Whether you began reading this blog when written by Joe or you are a newcomer, we appreciate you and we recognize that this nomination says more about you, the excellent, faithful, and participating reader, than it says about us.

Here are the other finalists for the "Best Religious Blog" category:

Happy Catholic
Conversion Diary
Tariq Nelson
Dervish
What Does the Prayer Really Say?
Christian Blog
Standing On My Head
One Cosmos
Jew Wishes
the Evangelical Outpost

Be sure to vote for the EO this January! To vote and to find out more information about the Weblog Awards, visit their website.

Like any little kid, I used to love dreaming about "the future" and all the nifty gadgets there would be. One invention I specifically remembering imagining was that of glasses where you could watch a movie right before your eyes--no TV's or movie theatres necessary. Simply load the movie onto the glasses, and enter into the virtual reality of the film.

I had forgotten about this dream for years, and then while doing some web surfing for Christmas presents, I found this. iPod video goggles--the transition from projecting movies to the viewer to projecting the viewer into the movie. I was stoked. I was fully prepared to save my pennies for as long as necessary if it meant I could jump into Middle Earth or Tatooine. Oh boy, the future is wonderful! ...right?

As I paraded about the house, excitedly telling my family members about the actualized childhood dream, a quotation from the wise John Donne intruded (against my will!) into my mind: "No man is an island."

Technology should bring together, not detach.

Kurt Vonnegut has a short story in Welcome to the Monkey House in which people strive to become elites so that they can afford to spend their lives plugged into a pleasurable, perfect, virtual reality. Reading the story as a freshman in high school, I had a reaction of shock and horror to the tale--but why? What is it about the thought of a completely virtual "life" that causes us to instantly label it as wrong and horrid?

Maybe because there's something very cowardly in the wish to escape what is true and moreover, who is true, for a pacific isolation.

After the creation of Adam in Genesis, God said it was not good for man to be alone. Humans are designed to uphold and enjoy the company of each other. Great thinkers from Aristotle to Confucius recognized this, and labored to understand and categorize relationships. While we can rightly turn to these thinkers for wisdom, the mysterious and wonderful depths of human interaction continue to pass full comprehension. People need one another, and therefore, I think it would be wise to approach with caution any device that encourages isolation.

Now, I don't mean to blow all this out of proportion. I'm still a fan of technology, and of those wicked awesome goggles. Nonetheless, it also seems easy to rush into technological capabilities without assuring that we have the prudence required to responsibly possess new powers.

I don't know about you, but I know myself well enough to know that I should not buy iPod video goggles. I'd be extremely tempted to isolate myself in my room for hours at a time, gorging on hyper-exciting and mythic 'realities' to point where the true and beautiful world would appear dull.

Now, all that being said...if you have the virtue of moderation, I would start hinting for this Christmas present immediately.

Merry Christmas!

I'm what you might call a CaliforniKansan. I was born in California, moved to Kansas when I was a kid, and moved back to California as an adult. I was fairly active politically as a teenager in Kansas, I spent a summer working in former Kansas Congressman Jim Ryun's office, and I still like to keep an eye on what goes on in Kansas politics.

That's why I was interested to see this on Politico awhile ago:

First open House seat of 2010
... looks to be the Kansas First District seat of Rep. Jerry Moran (R-Kansas), who announced that he plans to run for the Senate in 2010. He would be running for the seat of GOP Sen. Sam Brownback, who has already said he will not be running for re-election in two years.

Looks like the Republican contenders will be State Senator Tim Huelskamp and former Brownback staffer Rob Wasinger.

Huelskamp has a great reputation among Kansas conservatives - I've even heard him called "The best state Senator we have in Kansas." Huelskamp is a long-time Conservative and a long-time resident of Kansas, where he and his family still have a farm. Pro-lifers will be happy to hear that he's currently working to defund Planned Parenthood.

Kansas Conservatives will likely be less enthusiastic about former Brownback staffer Rob Wasinger, whose time in pro-abortion former Governor Bill Graves' office puts a less than ideal spin on his resume.

The first thing I noticed about Wasinger is that he doesn't have any pictures of himself on his campaign website. At first I was puzzled, then I was sure I must have somehow overlooked them, and then I was downright weirded out. Why would you not put your own picture on your own campaign site? Come on, even ugly people put their pictures online... does the guy have three ears or something?

I hope the new team will forgive me for jumping in, but I want to promote my new tumbleblogging venture, Joe Carter's Commonplace.

Since I do most of my long-form writing a Culture11, I needed a place to post 33 Things-type material. I update it daily so please stop by and check in often. (Not to get all mushy but I miss you guys.)

Head over to Trevin Wax's blog to find out how to enter to win the following:

#1. THE REASON FOR GOD - Tim Keller
#2. CULTURE MAKING - Andy Crouch
#3. SURPRISED BY HOPE - N.T. Wright
#4. WHY WE'RE NOT EMERGENT - Kevin DeYoung & Ted Kluck
#5. HOW PEOPLE CHANGE - Timothy Lane & Paul David Tripp
#6. THE BIG PICTURE STORY BIBLE -David Helm & Gail Schoonmaker
#7. JESUS MADE IN AMERICA - Stephen Nichols
#8. RESIDENT ALIENS - Stanley Hauerwas & Will Willimon
#9. WORSHIP MATTERS - Bob Kauflin
#10. The Sermon on the Mount through the Centuries - Jeffrey Greenman, Timothy Larsen, and Stephen Spencer

That's $260 worth of books, plus the ESV Study Bible. Cool!

Also, if you haven't done so already, visit christianaudio.com to download your free copy of C. H. Spurgeon's 90 Days of Morning and Evening during the month of December.

According to Newsweek's senior editor and religion commentator Lisa Miller:

More basic than theology, though, is human need. We want, as Abraham did, to grow old surrounded by friends and family and to be buried at last peacefully among them. We want, as Jesus taught, to love one another for our own good--and, not to be too grandiose about it, for the good of the world. We want our children to grow up in stable homes. What happens in the bedroom, really, has nothing to do with any of this. My friend the priest James Martin says his favorite Scripture relating to the question of homosexuality is Psalm 139, a song that praises the beauty and imperfection in all of us and that glorifies God's knowledge of our most secret selves: "I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made." And then he adds that in his heart he believes that if Jesus were alive today, he would reach out especially to the gays and lesbians among us, for "Jesus does not want people to be lonely and sad." Let the priest's prayer be our own.

And her boss, Newsweek editor Jon Meacham:

No matter what one thinks about gay rights--for, against or somewhere in between --this conservative resort to biblical authority is the worst kind of fundamentalism. Given the history of the making of the Scriptures and the millennia of critical attention scholars and others have given to the stories and injunctions that come to us in the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament, to argue that something is so because it is in the Bible is more than intellectually bankrupt--it is unserious, and unworthy of the great Judeo-Christian tradition.

I know that this is an issue sensitive to many readers of this blog, myself included. I am writing this post because I believe that Newsweek's editors capture what I perceive to be the mainstream left's response to conservatives on this issue. Several writers for Newsweek's blog "On Faith" wrote an ecumenical response to the articles. They are worth reading because they are illustrative of the sloppy nature by which Newsweek, and others who make similar claims engage this issue.

Here's a portion of the ecumenical response (penned in part by EO's own John Mark Reynolds):

In the latest issue of Newsweek, editor Jon Meacham explains: "To argue that something is so because it is in the Bible is more than intellectually bankrupt--it is unserious, and unworthy of the great Judeo-Christian tradition." Indeed, he continues, "this conservative resort to biblical authority is the worst kind of fundamentalism." Curiously, he intends this as a defense of Lisa Miller's cover story, which announces that we should approve homosexual marriage because the Bible tells that Jesus would want us to.

On any plane of argument, the contradiction would appear stunning, but, then, neither Jon Meacham nor Lisa Miller are engaged in argument. They're speaking, instead, in familiar tropes and fused-phrases and easy clichés. They're trying to convey a feeling, really, rather than an argument: Jesus loves us, love is good, homosexuals love one another, marriage is love, love is loving--a sort of warm bath of words, their meanings dissolved into a gentle goo. In their eyes, all nice things must be nice together, and Jesus comes to seem (as J.D. Salinger once mocked) something like St. Francis of Assisi and "Heidi's grandfather" all in one.

The Bible has been one of the most influential texts in all of human history. Yet two of the top editors of one of America's most recognized news magazines cannot even demonstrate basic competence of the text nor demonstrate an appreciation for the complexity of that great and Holy work. Even if one were to bracket the question of homosexuality, the lack of carefulness that these editors demonstrate is shameful.

The Nation ran a story on Sunday, written by Christopher Hayes, which labeled President-elect Obama as a "pragmatist" rather than an "ideologue."

The article led me to wonder: Is pragmatism a positive characteristic in a President, or should we look for a leader who is more influenced by ideological rather than material standards? I see potential detriments and benefits of either type of leader, and will try to outline them here while working under the assumption that 'pragmatism' is not necessarily an ideology.

Pragmatist advantage:
Gerrymandering, congressional pork, and ridiculous legislation like California's recent Prop 2 are, I believe, driving the American public mad. No matter your loyalty--democrat, republican, independent, etc. etc.--thinking of crippling impracticality in the government does not take long. The left says Iraq is a drain of taxpayer's money and lives; the right says a $700 billion bailout is a drain of resources in an already indebted economy. Either controversial policy may be the 'right' thing to do, but it is possible that neither is practical.

A pragmatist would, in theory, help America escape ideologically driven policies that are harmful in material ways. The economy should improve; everyone should be employed with health-care; gasoline should stay under two dollars.

Pragmatist detriment:
I see two main problems with a pragmatist leader. First of all, even practical plans (i.e. Universal Health Care) run the risk of failure. While the ideologue has principles by which to assess and respond to such an event, the pragmatist has more of a risk for being a deer in the headlights of unexpected realities.

For example: The practical wisdom of Sony told them Beta would be a hit, and withholding the technology was the best way to improve their material standing.
Oops. When the VCR came, Sony couldn't recover--they hadn't accounted for things to develop so unlike their predictions. Those are big risks to take when you're handling people's livelihoods. Mistakes are acceptable--complete failure...not as much.

The second issue I have with a purely pragmatist leader is that what 'makes sense' is not always right. Marx's vision that we should all pool our wealth, distribute it evenly, and sufficiently provide for all citizens makes practical 'sense.' Also, the plan that I should pay higher taxes so that my neighbor has health care makes 'sense.'

However, are these systems moral? If we take away people's self-determination to be generous, we take away from them opportunities for goodness--that seems wrong. Practical? Yes. After all, we can't assure people will be generous like we can assure they pay taxes. Moral? Hmm...

Ideologue advantage:
An ideologue, on the other hand, offers people predictability greater, I think, than the pragmatist. If a tough decision arises, what the pragmatist will decide is more uncertain than the ideologue, whose principles beyond material benefit are known. After all, practical sides of a decision may be fairly even while, simultaneously, a moral responsibility is obvious. We don't want a robot as a leader--we need a personality that Americans can feel confident getting behind. Maybe Obama is not a pure pragmatist, and he is that personality. I'm open to that possibility, but only time will tell.

Additionally, an ideologue will be firm concerning their convictions--less prone to flip-flops than the pragmatist, who might change their mind on a decision due to sudden changes in evidence. The ideologue has principles they will adhere to even when their ideas are unpopular, (i.e. Robert E. Lee becoming the C.S. general despite lucrative offers from the North).

Ideologue Detriment:
Ideology can go berserk. Crusades or jihad are examples of this: when fervor is all action is based off of, without any consideration of real consequences, the result is usually bad. Also, one must consider that pragmatism can become an ideology in and of itself, (i.e. Leninism), and is extremely dangerous as such. Theorists, for the same reason they are firm in conviction, are also unlikely to compromise or relent, even if the face of well-reasoned objections. Emotional devotion to a cause, while potentially good, is a powerful weapon that can be used horrifically, (i.e. the Holocaust).

Both pragmatism and ideology would appear important in a leader, but at the end of the day, I find ideas to be more real than indexes. I will be interested to see what sort of role pragmatism will play out in Obama's administration over the next four years. Admittedly, I am concerned about the unpredictability of a pragmatist leader. For now, however, I open the floor to you: which of the two qualities do you think is more important in a leader?

... and how long before the Sierra Club stages a protest?

A group of environmentalists was appalled to find evidence of an illegal logging operation in a Polish nature reserve this fall. When the activists discovered a neat stack of twenty tree trunks they quickly alerted the police - hoping, no doubt, to save the remaining trees that were notched for felling.

As Barry Arrington points out,

Most crimes require the prosecution to prove a culpable mental state. For example, to prove murder the prosecutor must prove the defendant intended to kill the victim. On the other hand, to prove criminally negligent homicide, the prosecutor need only prove that the defendant was negligent.

Environmental laws are an exception to this rule and fall under the rubric of "strict liability." To obtain a conviction for violation of an environmental law the prosecutor need only prove that the defendant engaged in the proscribed conduct (in this case, felling trees). His mental state is not relevant.

So, just to be clear, the culprits that started this illegal logging camp should be prosecuted no matter what their mental state. Motive is irrelevant here - the culprits belong in jail, right?

Right.

Because if we don't keep those renegade beavers at bay, the Cows With Guns may come after us. And we can't have that.

I echo Mr. Arrington's query:

Now here's my question for the materialists. Should the beavers be arrested and jailed for violating the environmental laws? It is no answer to say the beavers cannot form the requisite criminal intent. The crime is, after all, a strict liability crime and their mental state when they felled the trees is not relevant.

Materialists? What say you?

By Robin Dembroff

In his foundational work The Republic, Plato said, "Excess of liberty, whether it lies in state or individuals, seems only to pass into excess of slavery."

Today's news would seem to echo that sentiment, for it illustrates the extent to which we have become free from morality, only to become slaves to wealth and power.

Rod R. Blagojevich, governor of Illinois, has been arrested on corruption charges, accused of attempting to 'sell' President-elect Obama's Senate seat. Governor Blagojevich may be innocent, (though the evidence is rather overwhelming), and for now I will assume he is. After all, in America we are innocent until proven guilty, even politicians.

However, Gov. Blagojevich's arrest is only part of a troublesome trend of political corruption. The prior governor, Republican George Ryan, is currently in prison, and recent news has been full of deceptive dealings in FBI stings, voting fraud (remember ACORN?), and racketeering.

I am not suggesting that corruption is anything new on this earth, but would the founding fathers have sold their seats in Congress? Would Abraham Lincoln have used fraud to get himself elected? (For the record, I am not here accusing President-elect Obama of being involved in ACORN.) What is it that those men had that many modern public 'servants' lack?

"The debate over global warming is over." This is the most rhetorically powerful (read abusive) and overused card played by those who claim to be champions of the environment. The debate is over. It seems to me that those who make this claim operate on the assumption that debate leads to passivity, to a lack of action. The thinking goes: Debate creates inaction! Inaction stops progress! Progress must be made! End debate!

Given the above line of thought, it is not unreasonable to arrive at the assumption that debate stops progress. And yet, the assumption is flawed.

David Nilsen of the A-Team blog, a blog that is always interesting and well worth adding to your regular reads, has introduced us to the "Green Bible." If your Jesus Junk alarm just went off, it is for good reason. The Word is complex, it is rich, and it is deep. As David reminds us in his post, oversimplifying the scriptures to give us one perspective can be dangerous:

Scripture purposefully makes use of many different genres (and different themes!) to convey the Gospel message in the most comprehensive way possible. A Bible that goes out of its way to draw attention to only a single theme can have the unfortunate side effect of obscuring the Gospel message itself.

Gimmicky is a great adjective to describe most themed Bibles. However, the problem of the Green Bible is not that it is gimmicky, rather the problem is that it could lead to heresy. The Green Bible perverts Scriptures to promote the Gospel of Green:

"[From the Green Bible Quiz] 4) Where did Jesus go to commune with nature?"

(It's been said before, but it bears repeating here: Jesus was not a hippy). The answer to this question is apparently found in Matthew 4:23 [sic], "And after he had dismissed the crowds, he went up the mountain by himself to pray." Seriously, are the people responsible for the green "bible" actually reading it? Jesus didn't go up the mountain to commune with nature! He went up to pray (literally, to commune with God!). Stretching the meaning of a verse to make a point is one thing. Butchering a verse and literally replacing God with nature...that's a whole new ballgame.

David's critique of the Green Bible is precise and insightful. I recommend you read the rest of his post here.

Great idea Abraham:

Let's Christmas shop from each other.

Do you sell stuff that would make good gifts?

Give us a link and a short pitch.

Then let's all go shopping.

Go forth and shop.

Barack Obama's unprecedented use of online advocacy tools left the GOP in the dust this last campaign cycle. Not only was his campaign more "plugged-in" than any other, but Obama also managed to turn many, many of his online supporters into offline activists. No major campaign will be able to get by after this without learning how to replicate Obama's success. (Politically inclined tech geeks the world over should be rejoicing now...)

The GOP - and, for that matter, the Conservative movement as a whole - is going to have to get its technological act together if it wants to win any future elections. Conservatives do well in talk radio, but the Left owns the internet. It's time for the Right to stop treating the internet like just another communications medium and to start using it to spark real-world action.

Fortunately there are a number of young activists who recognize this and are hard at work finding ways to bring Conservatives up to speed. Check out sites like The Next Right, the #dontgo Revolution, and Rebuild The Party to see what I mean. Keep an eye on what strategists like Patrick Ruffini and Matt Lewis are saying. You'll get the idea.

In addition, a growing number of Conservatives have begun to band together on Twitter just over the past couple of days. Take a look at the Top Conservatives on Twitter list if you're ready to join in the brainstorming, strategizing and general hubbub there.

Several years ago I had the privilege of meeting Brant DeBow at GodblogCon. At the time, Brant was among the few Christians who were aggressively pioneering the podcast side of the web and he freely gave of his services to help us podcast our conference. Now Brant is helping to take Christians into another rapidly growing field of tech: the iPhone application.

Just in time for the beginning of the church year, Brant and his team have introduced an Advent focused app for the iPhone. It's only .99 cents and 10% of the proceeds go to WorldVision, an organization dedicated to bringing aid and the good news of the gospel to those in need around the world. The app looks stylish and useful, costs very little, and you would be supporting a company that understands the importance of loving their neighbor. I encourage you to check them out:

Here's a link to open the app in iTunes.
Here's a link to visit the app's website.

By Robin Dembroff

President-elect Barack Obama has announced his planned nominee for Secretary of State, and it's 'surprisingly expected': Senator Hillary Clinton.

The choice sparks both approval and doubt in my mind.

On the one hand, it is a smart move. Obama will gain political advantage by Clinton's appointment. Not being highly experienced in DC, Obama does not have the same political 'clout' that the Clintons have through their connections and global name recognition. Having Sen. Clinton as Secretary of State, Obama will probably be in a position to pull strings on the Hill and gain financial supporters that he would not be able to otherwise.

However, in light of Obama's basic platforms in the recent election, I have to express some trepidation about Clinton's nomination. I believe Obama was elected because he presented a message of hope through drastic, necessary changes in DC...

But what is more "ho-hum" than another Clinton in the White House?
(Well, at least he's not nominating Jeb Bush or something, eh?)

Obama was elected based on his ability to break out of the box, and now this nomination appears to be his jumping back into it. Clinton, even the name itself, represents the "business-as-usual" in DC. So he gains some connections...but what good are connections if you can only get them by minimizing what you needed them for in the first place?

Transformation, for good or bad, does not typically come through normalcy: Lenin didn't overthrow the Tsar through the Duma, and Martin Luther King Jr. didn't operate his social revolution through Congress.

Obama's 'safe' choice leads me to wonder if, less than a month after his election, he is already caving under the Hill's pressure to conform. I hope I'm wrong. But, man...
I was really hoping for a Bush/Clinton-free White House for the first time in nearly thirty years.

Robin Dembroff is a Sophomore in the Torrey Honors Institute at Biola University majoring in Humanities, with an emphasis in Philosophy. After college, she is interested in pursuing speechwriting within the political arena.

Oil prices are dropping. For many, including myself, this comes as a relief. However, there are some for whom dropping oil prices pose a critical problem: American auto makers. A quick case study of Ford Motor Company helps us to see why.

Ford's best selling product has been their F-Series. In fact, Ford is the most popular truck company in the world if one judges such things by sales figures. In 2004, trucks and SUVs accounted for 70% of Ford's sales. However, recent dramatic increases in oil prices have altered consumer demand causing the truck and SUV market to decline dramatically. Added to this was pressure from Congress and environmental groups for higher mileage standards on all vehicles. Were these trends to continue, or at least maintain current levels, Ford has an expensive yet simple solution: change their factories to produce smaller, more fuel efficient cars. Ford is currently pursuing this solution and plans to reduce their sales of trucks and SUVs to 34%.

Here's the problem: what happens when oil prices drop and consumer demand returns to trucks and SUVs?

Have you ever seen a literary character eclipse an author?

Take Captain Kirk, for example: though he is only a fictional character, he's much more frequently remembered than his creator, Gene Roddenberry. Nearly everyone recognizes Kirk, but not everyone knows who Roddenberry was. And when's the last time you saw William Shatner on TV and didn't immediately think "There's Captain Kirk"? Shatner is a human being and thus is much more real than a character he used to play on TV. Plus, he has played other characters--so why do we think of him as Kirk?

Sometimes a character can wield such imaginative force that he overwhelms his author and his portrayer. Similarly, sometimes the character of Socrates is so prominent in Plato's writings that it's easy to forget that it was Plato who wrote them and not Socrates.

By Robin Dembroff

Hearts should be breaking.

In a story released yesterday, November 13, on FoxNews, a report was given of an elderly woman who attended a "No on Prop 8" rally in order to support traditional marriage.

Sixty-nine year old Phyllis Burgess came holding a large foam cross, and video footage reveals the brutality with which she was received by the "rally," or better termed, "mob." I would encourage everyone to watch the footage and reflect on the method by which we "exchange" ideas in our present society. As you watch, you will see the cross being ripped from her hands and trampled upon by the raging protesters.

Bringing a big cross and conservative views to a vehement liberal rally was, granted, probably not the wisest idea. However, that is no excuse for the violent retaliation of the crowd.

To add irony to insult, as Burgess tries to escape from the scene--likely to avoid being injured--the camera follows her, and one of the protesters blocks the camera's view by shoving a sign in front of Burgess' face.

And what do you think this sign said?: "Vote No on Prop 8:

Equality for All."

The road we dare not...trample?

This leads me to wonder: if those who claim to believe the ideology act in a way that spits on their own theory, what is their foundation for expecting it of others?

Robin Dembroff is a Sophomore in the Torrey Honors Institute at Biola University majoring in Humanities, with an emphasis in Philosophy. After college, she is interested in pursuing speechwriting within the political arena.

Interesting:

The physics of this dunk by LeBron James

Amusing:

Sound smarter than you are. Smugopedia.

Bling

"Although all the rage today, bling couldn't have existed a few years ago; FDR, after all, made the private ownership of gold illegal and confiscated all gold in the country."

Thanks to projects like archive.org, this post will probably still be online when you are dead.

Weird, huh?

In the beginning of Plato's Phaedo Phaedo describes to Echectrates the conversation Socrates had with his friends in his prison cell while he awaited execution. Phaedo, who was present for the discussion, reports that he and Socrates' other companions experienced "an unaccustomed mixture of pleasure and pain."(Phaedo 59a6.) Presumably, he enjoyed spending time with Socrates, but was saddened to know that his friend would soon die.

It must have been strange to converse with the knowledge that Socrates would be dead in a number of hours. The coming death was certain-Socrates had been given a number of opportunities to escape from prison in the past and had refused them. He was scheduled to die at sundown. As the dialog begins in the morning, the men in the prison cell had an entire day to count down the hours to Socrates' death.

Tolerance: "A fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own."

From the Desert Sun:

The woman at the center of a disturbance that erupted at a protest against the gay marriage ban on Friday will be pressing charges, The Desert Sun has learned.

Phyllis Burgess alleges that she was assaulted as she carried a Styrofoam cross through the crowd at a No on Proposition 8 rally. The 69-year-old Palm Springs resident originally declined to press charges when asked by police and joked she felt lucky, at least she didn't lose her wig in the tussle like Cloris Leachman did on Dancing with the Stars.

"I guess I didn't see the gravity of the whole thing and how it was being portrayed to the public," Burgess said. "People are incensed. They seem to want some kind of justice."

What was planned as a peaceful candlelight service in front of City Hall took a hostile turn when the crowd began pushing and a cross was torn from Burgess' arms. The cross ended up in pieces on the ground.

The crowd chanted, "Go home!" "Nazi!" and "shame on you!" as organizers pleaded with the crowd to ignore the woman. About 500 protesters attended the event, the largest in the county since 52 percent of voters approved Proposition 8, an amendment that banned same-sex marriage.

Palm Springs Police made no arrests, but say they spent about 40 minutes on Saturday trying to convince Burgess to press charges.

Lt. Dennis Graham said he tried to convince her how important it was to file a police report.

Detectives, he said, are reviewing video taken at the rally to try and identify possible suspects.

The charges likely would be assault and vandalism, both misdemeanors, Graham said.

Thank you to all of our readers here who are veterans. I appreciate the work you have done and the sacrifices you have made for the rest of us.

Thank you to my brother-in-law John, who ships out to Iraq for the first time in just a few days. Thank you also to my other brother-in-law, Joey.

Today I am thankful especially for the service of a very dear childhood friend, Lcpl Darin Thomas Settle. He died in Iraq 2 ½ years ago.

Thank you, veterans, for allowing us to honor you. It is good for us to remember your service, and you do us a great service by permitting us to do so.

Are you trying to launch the next best place in the blogosphere? Hoping to attract a few new readers? Or perhaps just experiencing writer's block (blogger's block?) and looking for some new material?

Boy have I been there. That's why I was so excited when Thomas Nelson CEO Michael Hyatt announced a shiny new book review program.

It's very simple: just go to http://brb.thomasnelson.com, create a free account, and request your first book. All they ask is a 200 minimum word review to be posted on your blog, sent to them, and posted on consumer retail web sites like amazon.com.

I haven't requested my first book yet because I want to catch up with my quickly-growing stack of review books from elsewhere first... but stay tuned!

By Matthew Anderson

I have always thought that every academic--or wannabe, such as myself--ought have one or two hypotheses that are held very loosely, are somewhat defensible but impossible to prove, and just fringe enough to make academic parties mildly interesting.

One such hypothesis that I have occasionally advanced is that G.K. Chesterton's Orthodoxy is the most important work of the 21st century, even though it was written in the 20th.
Though Chesterton attained more fame during his than C.S. Lewis--he was greeted by massive crowds on his trips around the world-- by the beginning of World War Two his position as chief apologist and defender of the faith had been taken over by Lewis. In particular, Chesterton's influence on American evangelicalism has been relatively non-existent compared to Lewis's.

And no wonder: Lewis' Mere Christianity, which has influenced numerous evangelical leaders over the past few decades, is a masterfully written apologetic for the truth of Christianity. The discovery of Lewis helped many evangelicals in the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s realize the importance of having a faith that was as intellectual as it was spiritual.

Yet the situation within evangelicalism--and without--has now changed, and Mere Christianity is an apologetic suited to its time. While evangelicals have made significant strides in recovering the life of the mind, it is now en vogue to criticize evangelical Christianity as too propositional. The new generation of post-modern evangelicals is moved more by the story of Christianity than its ideas, and more prone to appeal to the imagination than the intellect.

Such critics would do well to consider Orthodoxy.

By Robert Stevenson

Last night, for the first time, a black man accepted his election as the next President of the United States. In that sense, today is a glorious and redemptive day in American history. As I look forward and ask "what is a young conservative to do?," let us consider what we have seen.

In the past eight years, President Bush has been maligned in ways that were not only personally vicious, but also demeaning to the office of the President. I pray, whatever our opinions, that we treat our next chief executive with the highest respect and dignity, as befits his office.

Someday America will stray so far from its founding that the time for revolution would be recognized even by Burke, and even the most conservative among us will demand radical, violent change. Not today, and not soon. Up to that day I will serve my country. Up to that day, whether he be republican or democrat, liberal or conservative, intelligent or idiotic, Christian, atheist, or Muslim, I will always, always take a bullet for the President of the United States.

President-elect Obama is certainly not the sort of leader America needs. His radical social ideas, his background is shady and, perhaps worst of all, he seems out of step with the Burkian, Jeffersonian, and Lockeian ideals upon which this nation rests. Nevertheless, God save the President of the United States, and God save Senator Barack Obama.

Robert Stevenson is a Senior at Biola University and a student at the Torrey Honors Institute. Robert is a candidate in the United States Marine Corps and has completed Marine Corps Officer Training. In addition to his work as a student and for the Marine Corps, Robert has worked as an assistant producer for the Hugh Hewitt Show.

Californians, today you are being asked to vote on one of the most critical pieces of legislation that we have yet seen. I have given an extensive argument for why I believe it is moral and just to support proposition 8. The argument by those opposing proposition 8 is that it is wrong and unfair. They say that Proposition 8 has nothing to do with what goes on in your family or my family and everything to do with affirming love. However, the education that your children receive in schools directly impacts your family. That opponents of proposition 8 deny this aspect of proposition 8 reveals a stunning lack of integrity on their part. Consider the evidence:

Proposition 8: Who's Really Lying?

Public Records Show Proposition 8 Opponents Want Gay Marriage To Be Taught In Public Schools - 'The earlier the better.'

The top issue that has emerged in the Proposition 8 campaign is whether same-sex marriage will be taught in California public schools if the initiative is not enacted. Opponents of Proposition 8 are spending millions of dollars on television commercials telling voters that the Yes on 8 campaign's claim that gay marriage will be taught in public schools is a lie. Yet a review of public records filed with the First District Court of Appeal in Boston shows these same organizations who claim our statement is a lie fought to make it true in Massachusetts. Specifically, they fought to ensure that gay marriage be taught in Massachusetts public schools, even over the objection of parents who sought an "opt out" for their children. Gay marriage was legalized by Massachusetts courts in 2003.

Recently, I posted a number of posts about California Proposition 8. This is an emotionally charged issue with good thoughts on both sides.  Not surprisingly, my posts sparked debate in the comment sections where a number of excellent questions were raised. Richard Hollis is one commentator who raised especially thoughtful questions. As a result of the questions raised, especially by Richard, I have decided to write my thoughts on Same-Sex Marriage from the ground up and have asked Richard to respond. Below is my essay followed by Richard's response. Please note, when I sent Richard my essay, I had not yet added links to my sources. Richard and readers of Evangelical Outpost - thank you for your thoughtful read and consideration of this post. - Dustin Steeve.

The upcoming proposition amending the constitution in the state of California to affirm marriage gives us opportunity to pause and reflect. Since 1970, marriage has endured a series of devastating attacks. In January 1970 the Family Law Act was signed by California Governor Ronald Reagan and "no-fault divorce" was written into law. Reagan would later cite this as one of his greatest regrets. The intent of the law was to help Californians separate amicably without having to contrive reasons for obtaining a divorce. As the explosive increase in divorces since 1970 attests, the effect of the law was that it hurt marriage.

Presently, proposition 8 is giving Californians a rare opportunity to stop further tampering of marriage through law.  As we consider the proposition, reason, empirical evidence, and morality ought to inform us. Each of these has led me to the decision to affirm marriage by voting yes on proposition 8.

In a random thought experiment today, I began listing the qualifications that I would look for in a person that I would choose to hire as an executive administrator of something or other (provided, of course, that I ever found myself in a position to do so).
1. Integrity & moral character
2. Good work ethic
3. Intelligence & sound reasoning
4. Independence & free thinking
5. Passion & motivation
6. Conviction & belief
7. Determination & commitment
8. Loyalty & teamwork
9. Skill-set & knowledge

There may be one or two others that upon further reflection I would add to this list, but most of these are in no particular order. Qualification #9, however, is very deliberately placed at the bottom of the list, because without all the others I really didn't care if that one was present in the candidate or not. He or she might be an encyclopedia of information on the exact area of expertise that I was looking for, but if he had a lousy work ethic or was simply untrustworthy, there's no way I would hire him.