Just my two cents on the home-schooled girl

ordered into a public school by a judge because she had rigid religious views.

In the process of renegotiating the terms of a parenting plan for the girl, the guardian ad litem involved in the case concluded, according to the court order, that the girl “appeared to reflect her mother’s rigidity on questions of faith” and that the girl’s interests “would be best served by exposure to a public school setting” and “different points of view at a time when she must begin to critically evaluate multiple systems of belief...in order to select, as a young adult, which of those systems will best suit her own needs.”

I wonder, if, as Subvet asks, what would have happened if she had been raised as an atheist? Would she have been sent to a Catholic school? Or if she had been raised by Muslims, would the judge have ordered her to a synagogue school?

Of course not.

Now, I don't know this girl and neither do you. Maybe she has a devout, even orthodox, faith in Christ. Maybe she thinks that anyone who rolls the toilet paper off the top instead of the bottom is predestined for hell. But that's not the point here. Obviously, her education was not an issue, as the judge clearly admits that she is “well liked, social and interactive with her peers, academically promising, and intellectually at or superior to grade level”. What the judge found in need of correcting was that the girl has firmly held beliefs not in conformity to the amorphous, relativist, secular mindset that pervades our culture. The problem is not that the girl has religious beliefs; the problem is that she takes those beliefs seriously.

See, people in our culture are very tolerant of those who have different beliefs, as long as no one holds those beliefs to be actually true. Beliefs are permissible if they are not actually beliefs. Nice fables, fine. Vague moral compass, OK. But the moment that someone acts like beliefs and actions have real consequences in a metaphysical way, then they must be isolated and corrected.

It's like the parents that send their kids to Catholic school so they will have some religious upbringing, but fail to attend Mass. These are the people who send their kids to learn all about the faith that's not real enough or important enough to put into practice. But that's OK, right? I mean, as long as you're a good person, God's not going to reject you.

I'm not advocating any witch-hunts of non-believers, if that's what my tone suggests. But my frustration lies greatest with an attitude toward that faith that renders it "cute" or "curious". The danger of a pluralistic society is not that there are people who believe differently who might challenge my beliefs. It's that a pluralistic society demands that I have no belief at all.

Obama and the war in Iraq

So as Patrick at CMR is reviewing his predictions, I'd like to review one of my own. Last year on CV my wife and I battled constantly with Catholics who were willing to trade off their vote on pro-life issues for other "proportionate" reasons. They cited numerous things: Obama would fix the economy, he would make it easier for pregnant women to keep their babies, he would help the poor, and he would end the war in Iraq. They claimed all of these things outweighed the 1.7 million babies aborted every year in the U.S. They ignored Obama's intention to overturn the Mexico City policy, they ignored his voting four times against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in Illinois. They said ending the war in Iraq outweighed it.

I tread lightly in this post because I take no pleasure in the facts at hand. But I have to say that I was right. I argued more than once that Obama's plan to remove troops from Iraq at the pace of a brigade a month was unreasonable, dangerous, and deceptive. I argued repeatedly that unless stability was firmly reached in Iraq, reducing the number of troops there prematurely would place the remaining troops in greater danger and might also undermine the gains that have been achieved. I argued that Obama would end up doing almost exactly as McCain promised he would do, and that was to leave troops in Iraq until the job was finished.

But they wouldn't listen. Obama was the enlightened one. He wanted to end the war in Iraq, unlike the war-monger John McCain. He wanted to bring peace and happiness, unlike the ex-military man John McCain. Obama would do it all.

Except he didn't and he won't. He'll just tell you he will.

Tom Ricks, a senior fellow at the Center for A New American Security, in this NPR interview explains how the Obama administration is doing in Iraq what I predicted it would do, despite his campaign promises to the contrary.

All humor is funny because it at least has a semblance of truth...

...but I wouldn't worry about it if government takes over health care.

Cap and Trade means...

* that I should start making candles
* that we should bring ice down from Canada this winter and pack it in sawdust for the summer
* that I should move the whole fam-damily into the back room at work so I can afford to travel to my job
* that welfare will be expanded to include utility bills for many more Americans, which will then mean also...
* that the government will not only tell utility companies how much tax they have to pay to operate, but how much they can charge for services, which will mean profit margins untenable for private companies, which means also...
* that it's only a matter of time until the government takes over utilities as well
* that the current number of people in this country cannot be sustained if our utility infrastructure and economy is turned back to 1800's levels, so expect child quotas


You think I'm crazy, don't you?
But I'm right.

Ministry of Truth not necessary

George Orwell had his hands tied. He imagined the Ministry of Truth would have to daily check all history books and newspaper articles for consistency with the current Party policy. He didn't realize that their job would be much easier than that.

The constant 24-hour news bombardment and the eternal present of the Internet numbs us to all sense of history and makes us susceptible to the snake charmer's song, ready to believe whatever we are told. The way I say it is today, it always was that way. What I say today is exactly consistent with what I said yesterday. And the view I take tomorrow is not contrary, as it would seem, but actually the fulfillment of what I say today, don't you see?

Don't bother with what they tell you is truth; you believe those radicals?