So said the sign. I confess, my initial reaction to the news was similar. Even before I saw that hand-written sign in the jubilant crowd outside the White House, in my head, I likewise channeled the residents of Munchkinland, but left the quote intact "Ding, dong, the witch is dead. Which old witch? The wicked witch". I firmly believe the world is a better place now that bin Laden has departed.
I am grateful for all the men and women that have been hands-on in the hunt for America's Most Wanted for nearly a decade. I am awed by the audacity, courage, and amazing level of professionalism displayed by the Navy Seals of Team Six that executed their orders to perfection. I can't imagine what was going through their heads as they were flying in to Abbottabad. They had to know the gravity of what they were about to attempt. They must have felt the enormity of the historical significance their mission would have. I'm sure they felt the weight of an entire country's hunger for justice on their shoulders. Adrenaline levels must've been off the charts. Certainly greater than any other similar missions they had ever completed before. And yet they got the job done.
And America rejoiced.
However, as I watched the events unfold on television, my feelings changed rapidly. I wasn't any less relieved that he is gone. I wasn't any less grateful for our military and intelligence professionals. I still believe justice has been served. But, well, let's just say that I believe President Obama's demeanor during his address inside the White House was far more appropriate to the occasion than that displayed by the masses gathering outside the White House, at Ground Zero and Times Square. There were no fist-pumps from the President. No woots of joy. No victory sign. Not even a smile. Based on his facial experessions and tone of voice, he could as well have been announcing that the mission was a complete failure and that all of the Seals had perished and Osama lives on. I believe that was an appropriate way to respond to a victory of this nature.
I totally understand the intense emotions, the sense of justice, the joy, the closure expressed by the crowds in DC and NYC. Especially from the families that lost loved ones at the hands of Osama. I'm not implying anyone behaved inappropriately, or did anything wrong. But watching the crowds celebrating the death of bin Laden, it reminded me of scenes from the streets of Tehran.
Yes, I'm old enough to remember "The Hostage Crisis". The genesis of Nightline. "Day 393, and this......is Nightline". The failed rescue attempt ("gee, you mean if we try to fly helicopters across the desert at low altitude, they'll get sand in the engines?"). And there have been many other scenes of people around the world rejoicing at the deaths of Americans in the years since. By and large, we look upon such demonstrations as proof-positive that those people are not only our enemy, but are evil. Evil to the core.
So last night, we poured into the streets to celebrate the execution of an evil enemy. And because we believe the enemy to be evil, that justifies being elated about death. But here's the thing, those foreigners on the other side of the globe that celebrate when Americans meet death or misfortune believe that we are evil. They are just as convinced that Americans are evil as we are convinced that they are evil. So when they pour into the streets, they too are celebrating the death of an evil enemy.
And so I'm left to ponder....are we as different from them as we believe we are? Are we superior, as we believe we are? Are we good and they evil, as we believe we are? Based on recent behavior, I'm not so sure. When they take to the streets to publicly celebrate the death of an evil enemy, we declare that they're evil. Last night, we took to the streets to publicly celebrate the death of an evil enemy. So what does that make us? Based on our reaction to the news last night, I'm left to wonder: are we as evil as they are, or are we just tremendous hypocrites?
Make no mistake, the events of yesterday are a victory and should be hailed as such. For those who have lost loved ones to terror and the war on terror, bin Laden's exit brings relief, justice, and closure. For all Americans, yesterday's victory closes an important chapter in this story. But let us not not lose sight that this is a story of death and destruction.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Here we go again...
It seems Stephen Hawking, brilliant British physicist has a new book, "The Grand Design", that is about to hit book stores. In it he says:
A similarly brilliant scientist, Carl Sagan, has posited that a single, intelligent message from outer space is sufficient proof that intelligent life exists beyond planet earth. In fact that's the premise of his novel "Contact". In other words, a single, intelligent message must have an intelligent source.
Equally brilliant geneticists, the amazingly gifted men and women that have been unraveling the marvels of DNA and genes, and such, have determined that a single, human cell contains more information (aka intelligent messages) than the entire 30+ volume Encyclopedia Britannica.
A single, intelligent message must have an intelligent source.
A human cell contains millions of intelligent messages.
You do the math....
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist,"Interesting that he says it is not necessary to invoke God to explain the origin of the universe, but he doesn't rule out the possibility that God did light the blue touch paper and set the universe going! Yet many atheists around the world, scientists and Jon Q. Public's alike, will take this statement as proof that God did not create the universe and all that is in it.
"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."
A similarly brilliant scientist, Carl Sagan, has posited that a single, intelligent message from outer space is sufficient proof that intelligent life exists beyond planet earth. In fact that's the premise of his novel "Contact". In other words, a single, intelligent message must have an intelligent source.
Equally brilliant geneticists, the amazingly gifted men and women that have been unraveling the marvels of DNA and genes, and such, have determined that a single, human cell contains more information (aka intelligent messages) than the entire 30+ volume Encyclopedia Britannica.
A single, intelligent message must have an intelligent source.
A human cell contains millions of intelligent messages.
You do the math....
Monday, August 30, 2010
Stupid Americans
I recently read this article on how dumb Americans are. The author begins by citing a recent poll showing that 20% of Americans believe President Obama is Muslim. He then goes on to list other examples of how dumb and stupid Americans are.
Some of them are somewhat amusing: more than 75% of Americans can name 2 or more of the 7 Dwarfs, but less than 25% can name 2 or more members of the Supreme Court
Some a little scary: 21% of Americans believe in witchcraft.
Some a little sad: 63% of young Americans can't find Iraq on a map. 90% can't find Afghanistan
One was a little troubling: Only 39% of Americans believe Darwin's theory of evolution.
It isn't troubling that 39% of Americans belieive the theory of evolution (although it should be). What I found most troubling is the author's position that, since 61% of us don't believe the theory of evolution, we must be stupid. Hmmm. I think this fails on several fronts.
First - the author's position strongly implies that chimps turning into humans is a fact. Well, the word "theory" still means "hypothesis", or "unproven idea". Journalistic negligence hasn't changed the meaning of the word "theory" to be synonymous with "proven fact".
Second - Darwin himself had doubts about his theory. He even pokes several holes in his theories in the very same book, "On Origin of Species", which most people consider the genesis of the theory. If the author of the theory isn't 100% convinced it's true, then why should any, never mind all, Americans believe it's true?
Third - In the 150+ years since "On Origin of Species" was first published, much more scientific evidence has been gathered. What has this additional evidence revealed? Well, let's just say that only 45% of scientists currently believe Darwin's theory of evolution to be true. So, if highly educated, skilled and experienced scientists, who have examined the original theory, the data behind it, and 150 years' worth of additional data have come to the conclusion that it's pure bunk, why would we expect dumb-old Joe Six-pack to believe differently?
Three strikes and you're out. The theory has never been proven to be fact. The majority of scientists believe the theory to be false. Darwin himself had, and documented, doubts about the theory.
Sounds like somebody needs to write an article about how dumb journalists are.
Some of them are somewhat amusing: more than 75% of Americans can name 2 or more of the 7 Dwarfs, but less than 25% can name 2 or more members of the Supreme Court
Some a little scary: 21% of Americans believe in witchcraft.
Some a little sad: 63% of young Americans can't find Iraq on a map. 90% can't find Afghanistan
One was a little troubling: Only 39% of Americans believe Darwin's theory of evolution.
It isn't troubling that 39% of Americans belieive the theory of evolution (although it should be). What I found most troubling is the author's position that, since 61% of us don't believe the theory of evolution, we must be stupid. Hmmm. I think this fails on several fronts.
First - the author's position strongly implies that chimps turning into humans is a fact. Well, the word "theory" still means "hypothesis", or "unproven idea". Journalistic negligence hasn't changed the meaning of the word "theory" to be synonymous with "proven fact".
Second - Darwin himself had doubts about his theory. He even pokes several holes in his theories in the very same book, "On Origin of Species", which most people consider the genesis of the theory. If the author of the theory isn't 100% convinced it's true, then why should any, never mind all, Americans believe it's true?
Third - In the 150+ years since "On Origin of Species" was first published, much more scientific evidence has been gathered. What has this additional evidence revealed? Well, let's just say that only 45% of scientists currently believe Darwin's theory of evolution to be true. So, if highly educated, skilled and experienced scientists, who have examined the original theory, the data behind it, and 150 years' worth of additional data have come to the conclusion that it's pure bunk, why would we expect dumb-old Joe Six-pack to believe differently?
Three strikes and you're out. The theory has never been proven to be fact. The majority of scientists believe the theory to be false. Darwin himself had, and documented, doubts about the theory.
Sounds like somebody needs to write an article about how dumb journalists are.
To Mosque, or not to Mosque?
So there's been a bit of a brouhaha recently over plans to build a Mosque near the 9/11 site in New York. Given that the perpetrators of the heinous acts of 9/11 claimed to be acting in the name of Allah, a little consternation over the issue is understandable. The terrorists that plotted and executed the attacks of that day claimed that their Islamic faith compelled them to act in such a violent, deadly manner. It's easy to take their actions as being representative of all Muslims and the Islamic faith.
But do these murderers truly represent Islam? Does the Koran and it's teachings condone the actions of 9/11? Are all Muslims evil, homicidal, nut-jobs? Of course not. Far from it. Therefore its unfair to judge Islam and its followers based on the actions of a few dozen crazies that claim to be acting on their behalf.
Should Christians and Christianity be judged based on the Crusades? or the Inquisition? Even Hitler occasionally referenced Christian principles as justification for his, um, leadership style. Should Christians and Christianity be judged based upon he actions of Hitler? Jeez, I hope not.
What if Timothy McVeigh claimed he was acting in the name of Jesus Christ when he bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City? What if he claimed it was his Christian faith that compelled him to kill all those innocent people? What if the Catholic church wanted to build a cathedral across the street from the bomb site? Would there be a huge public outcry? Not likely. The public would rightly separate the acts of a deranged individual from the organization of people he claimed to represent.
Let's take a look back in history to a previous, unprovoked attack on American soil, Pearl Harbor. How did we respond to those that perpetrated that attack? Ok, we bombed the snot out of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But after that? We forgave. And we helped them rebuild. We helped rebuild them into the world's second greatest economy, and a valued ally.
In Mark 12:31, Jesus says "Love your neighbor as yourself". Note He doesn't say "Love your Christian neighbor as yourself". He doesn't say "Love your neighbor as yourself as long as he/she has similar beliefs and values as you". He says "Love your neighbor as yourself". Period.
The flag-waving American in me wants to say "Hell no" to a Mosque near ground zero. Too risky, too disrespectful to those that lost their lives that day. But the Jesus-following Christian in me says "Let them". It's time to forgive. And to rebuild.
But do these murderers truly represent Islam? Does the Koran and it's teachings condone the actions of 9/11? Are all Muslims evil, homicidal, nut-jobs? Of course not. Far from it. Therefore its unfair to judge Islam and its followers based on the actions of a few dozen crazies that claim to be acting on their behalf.
Should Christians and Christianity be judged based on the Crusades? or the Inquisition? Even Hitler occasionally referenced Christian principles as justification for his, um, leadership style. Should Christians and Christianity be judged based upon he actions of Hitler? Jeez, I hope not.
What if Timothy McVeigh claimed he was acting in the name of Jesus Christ when he bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City? What if he claimed it was his Christian faith that compelled him to kill all those innocent people? What if the Catholic church wanted to build a cathedral across the street from the bomb site? Would there be a huge public outcry? Not likely. The public would rightly separate the acts of a deranged individual from the organization of people he claimed to represent.
Let's take a look back in history to a previous, unprovoked attack on American soil, Pearl Harbor. How did we respond to those that perpetrated that attack? Ok, we bombed the snot out of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But after that? We forgave. And we helped them rebuild. We helped rebuild them into the world's second greatest economy, and a valued ally.
In Mark 12:31, Jesus says "Love your neighbor as yourself". Note He doesn't say "Love your Christian neighbor as yourself". He doesn't say "Love your neighbor as yourself as long as he/she has similar beliefs and values as you". He says "Love your neighbor as yourself". Period.
The flag-waving American in me wants to say "Hell no" to a Mosque near ground zero. Too risky, too disrespectful to those that lost their lives that day. But the Jesus-following Christian in me says "Let them". It's time to forgive. And to rebuild.
Introduction
Ok, so Blogspot only gave me 500 characters to describe my blog. Wasn't enough. So post numero uno will be to expand (expound?) on the short description above.
Being a Christian today is a little easier than it used to be. Especially here in the United States of America. No one is throwing us into lion's dens. We aren't being shoved into arenas full of blood-thirsty patrons and being slaughtered by gladiators for their entertainment. None of us has been crucified upside-down recently.
Yet it can still be tough. Dealing with contemporary problems and issues as a Christian can be challenging. At times it can seem like we're dealing with stuff that Christ could never have envisioned 2,000 years ago. So how do we apply and reconcile the teachings of Jesus to our thoroughly modern world?
A few years ago, "WWJD" was very hip and trendy in Christian circles. What Would Jesus Do? Simple. Sometimes. When faced with a situation or issue that isn't clear-cut, I've taken to asking myself "What DID Jesus Do?" That seems to be less speculative and more concrete. I don't have to extrapolate what Jesus would do, I can simply turn to the scriptures and read what he did do.
Although the issues and situations of today may not appear to have a corollary in Jesus times, if you boil things down to their basic elements, it becomes easy to find analogous situations that faced Jesus during his walk here on earth. Then it becomes pretty simple to examine how Jesus handled things. At this point it usually becomes much clearer how I, as a Christian, should believe, feel and act.
Anyway, I hope you find my public musing and pondering as I deal with life as a Christian in the 21st century thought-provoking, enlightening and a touch entertaining. I have to confess, and warn, that a current burr under my saddle is churches and other religious organizations that, while intending to be true to Jesus word and teachings, end up doing the opposite. I'll try to keep rants to a minimum (there's that whole speck in your brother's eye vs. log in your own thing), but even Jesus had a few bouts of righteous anger, no?
And keep an eye out for those WD-JD (What Did Jesus Do) moments!
Being a Christian today is a little easier than it used to be. Especially here in the United States of America. No one is throwing us into lion's dens. We aren't being shoved into arenas full of blood-thirsty patrons and being slaughtered by gladiators for their entertainment. None of us has been crucified upside-down recently.
Yet it can still be tough. Dealing with contemporary problems and issues as a Christian can be challenging. At times it can seem like we're dealing with stuff that Christ could never have envisioned 2,000 years ago. So how do we apply and reconcile the teachings of Jesus to our thoroughly modern world?
A few years ago, "WWJD" was very hip and trendy in Christian circles. What Would Jesus Do? Simple. Sometimes. When faced with a situation or issue that isn't clear-cut, I've taken to asking myself "What DID Jesus Do?" That seems to be less speculative and more concrete. I don't have to extrapolate what Jesus would do, I can simply turn to the scriptures and read what he did do.
Although the issues and situations of today may not appear to have a corollary in Jesus times, if you boil things down to their basic elements, it becomes easy to find analogous situations that faced Jesus during his walk here on earth. Then it becomes pretty simple to examine how Jesus handled things. At this point it usually becomes much clearer how I, as a Christian, should believe, feel and act.
Anyway, I hope you find my public musing and pondering as I deal with life as a Christian in the 21st century thought-provoking, enlightening and a touch entertaining. I have to confess, and warn, that a current burr under my saddle is churches and other religious organizations that, while intending to be true to Jesus word and teachings, end up doing the opposite. I'll try to keep rants to a minimum (there's that whole speck in your brother's eye vs. log in your own thing), but even Jesus had a few bouts of righteous anger, no?
And keep an eye out for those WD-JD (What Did Jesus Do) moments!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)