- A single point of light.
- Science and Faith.
- Football and Faith.
- Decorating Politics with Slogans.
- Hormones and Life Savers.
- Civil and mature debate my way, you &#!!%^^!.
Mark Shea channels Mike Flynn regarding one Robert Grosseteste (1175-1253), rector of Oxford and Bishop of Lincoln. Grosseteste wrote intriguingly of creation from a single point from which the entire physical order emerged by way of extension or expansion. The first dimensionless point was light which was one and simple, “containing matter implicitly in the form of light.” I don’t know what to make of that beyond Shea’s wry wrap:
Grossteste does not appear to provide strong evidence for the postmodern conviction that medievals were nine centuries stupider than highly evolved specimens of our own time such as Snooki Polizzi, Jerry Springer, Paris Hilton, Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins.
Speaking of matters of science and faith, biologist Ruth Bancewicz makes “a first attempt at communicating the things that I’ve found are most important to Christians working in scientific research” in 10 things I wish people knew about my science and my faith.
John Sanidopoulos at Mystagogy has a cute video of Troy Polamalu’s 3-year-old son out-talking him in a locker room interview.
Want to know about Pomalalu’s faith? Look in his locker, he’s not a talker. And so far as I know, he doesn’t do any Tebowing on the field (or for show elsewhere, either).
Paul Gottfried at The Imaginative Conservative laments that the GOP has swallowed the conservative movement (which should not be confused with “Movement Conservatism®”). That’s what the title would lead you to think, but the reality is that “[c]ontrary to what I hear from the liberal press, it was not the Republican Party that swallowed the Right but exactly the opposite that occurred. The conservative movement went into the business of working for the GOP and decorating its politics with slogans.”
In a way, it’s “same old same old” stuff I’ve been grousing about since the start of this blog, but still worth a read for how Gottfried puts it and where he places pockets of true conservative.
Commenting on the Obama Administration’s somewhat surprising decision not to countenance “12 year olds being able to buy on her on, like it was a pack of Life Savers, a dose of hormones that will keep her from getting pregnant after sex,” Rod Dreher notes:
There was on the radio this morning the usual rigamarole about how the secretary’s decision reflected a preference for “politics” over “science.” These are almost always stupid complaints. Of course it’s a political decision! So what? “Science” only offers an opinion about whether this pill is or isn’t safe for kids to take. It doesn’t offer an opinion about whether or not it’s a good idea to make it available to them. That is a moral decision, which means, inevitably, a political one. Again: so what? Had the decision gone the other way, it would also have been a political decision. Again: so what?
That was exactly the gist of the New York Times’ blathering editorial this morning, not just the radio.
Tom Peters ledes the story thus: “A funny thing happened on the way to the pharmacy: Kathleen Sebelius did the right thing. It has pro-lifers scratching their heads and pro-aborts apoplectic.”
If gay activists actually want to have a civil debate on marriage, they can begin by ceasing to claim that every hurt visited on young people is the responsibility of Christians, and acknowledging our right to use our own tradition and moral principles as a guide.
I’m not asking them for permission, I’m asking us to call them out when they violate any of these simple, objective principles for debating in good faith. A mark of hypocrites is that they always are quick to point out perceived hypocrisy. Maybe that’s why the charge of hypocrisy is the most common attack gay activists attempt to level at their Christian opponents.
The [rainbow sash] movement states that it is interested in ‘a mature exchange of ideas’ but by employing the following, stating that Archbishop Dolan is an ‘accomplice’ in ‘soul murder,’ ‘more comfortable taking cheap shots from his ivory tower,’ ‘lacks courage’ and will likely meet the request with ‘arrogance,’ you run contrary to the very nature of your appeal for civil, respectful dialogue.
Ah yes! “I want a respectful dialog, you cowardly sumbitch.”
(* “Executive Director”?! I do hope this outfit isn’t shameless enough to feign being “grass roots,” but of course, they would be.)
I went to hear to Irish group Danu last night. It’s hard to remain morose during an Irish jig or reel.
Othello should have believed his heart instead of his eyes.
On the other hand, his heart didn’t tell him not to trust Iago.
* * * * *
Having become tedious even to myself, I’m Tweeting more, blogging less. View this in a browser instead of an RSS feeder to see Tweets at upper right.
I also have some succinct standing advice on recurring themes. Maybe if I link to it, I’ll blog less obsessively about it.