What "Biblical Inerrancy" Means

Al Mohler does a knockout job of explaining what it means to believe that the Bible is literally true.

Christians, on the other hand, look to the Bible as the word of God, but acknowledge the human dimension of Scripture as well as its divine inspiration. Of course, nothing should be taken for granted in these postmodern times, so let me identify myself as one who believes in the inerrancy, infallibility, authority, and sufficiency of the Bible. Further, I believe and teach what is known as the "verbal plenary" understanding of the Bible's inspiration -- a model which holds that the very words of the Bible are inspired, and that every word (in the original manuscripts) was fully inspired. Yet, this is not the equivalent of divine dictation. We believe that God inspired the human authors of Scripture so that they desired to write exactly what God wanted them to write, and that God used the different personalities of the human authors to help us to understand His message, even as what they wrote was fully inspired.

So, even as I am now preaching through the book of Romans, Paul's first-century letter to the Christians in Rome, I often talk about "what Paul tells us" and speak of Paul's own life experiences as related to the specific text from the letter. Of course, I believe and teach that every single word Paul wrote was fully inspired by the Holy Spirit. I follow that evangelicals have long called the "historical-grammatical" method of biblical interpretation, a method that gives attention to the historical circumstances revealed in the text (these circumstances are indeed part of the revelation of God) and a careful grammatical interpretation of the text.

For Muslim interpreters of the Qur'an, the first part of that method is irrelevant, and the second is based on something far closer to a dictation model of inspiration...

One final thought: The rise of modern historical-critical methods of interpreting the Bible, common among theological liberals, represents an effort to use various interpretive devices in order to revise the Bible's message or deny it's authority. This violates the historic Christian understanding of the inspiration and authority of the Bible.

You see the mention of Islam in there. Mohler is answering a question by Hugh Hewitt on the blog called One True God, where Hewitt raises questions and has Christian theologian friends answer. The interview with Father Joseph D. Fessio, who is the Provost of Ave Maria University in Naples, Florida, and knows the pope personally, mentioned and linked to in Hewitt's question, is a fascinating interview about Europe and the future of Islam.

Can Islam peacefully co-exist?

Pope Benedict apparently thinks not, according to one Father Joseph D. Fessio, who is the Provost of Ave Maria University in Naples, Florida, and knows the pope personally. This is a transcript from the Hugh Hewitt show.

This is another reason to read the Koran for myself. Keep in mind here that Cardinal Ratzinger is the same guy as Pope Benedict, so you're not confused.

Also, the context of much of this conversation is what will happen to Europe, where large waves of immigrants from Northern Africa and the Middle East are displacing white Europe, which is not reproducing at a level high enough to keep up. For more on that, read this Mark Steyn piece.

JF: Well, Joseph Ratzinger as professor was very, very popular, and had many, many graduate students. And as part of the graduate program, you'd have these seminars called Hauptseminare, major seminars, or Proseminaren, and there'd be eight or ten or twelve of us graduate students with Cardinal Ratzinger. Then, he was Father Ratzinger leading it. And they were so rich, so fruitful, that when he became archbishop of Munich in 1977, the students decided that they would want to try and continue some kind of regular meeting to discuss theological issues. And he was very happy to do that. So from that point on, every year, we have met for a weekend, usually at a monastery. We'll pray together, we'll read scripture together, we'll do fellowship together, we will study together, we will eat together, and have a couple of presentations from scholars on a particular topic, and we'll discuss it. They've always been very, very enriching and very beautiful. And so, we had planned last year, in 2004, that in 2005, we would discuss Islam. And it was all agreed upon. We had two people picked out to come. When he was elected Pope, we figured well, it's going to be all off now. But he said no, no. He said I'm Pope, but I want to keep my relationships with my friends in the past, and I want to continue this. That's why we had it again.

HH: And the other speaker, who would that have been?

JF: That was another Jesuit, actually, from Germany, a Father Christian Troll, who is an expert on Islam in Europe.

HH: And what were the natures of their presentations? That it is an ominous time for Christendom, because it simply cannot keep pace, either population or with zeal, compared to the reach of Islam?

JF: Let me divide my answer into two parts, and you can interrupt me at any time, because I realize it's your show. I'm taking all the time.

HH: Oh, no. I'm fascinated.

JF: But as background, I want to say without exaggeration, and without trying to become histrionic here, I see the trends...I've seen them for years, in Europe, of depopulation as you've mentioned. And their immigration is coming from the South, which is mainly Islamic. And there are, I think there are 98 Islamic countries in the world, and 97 of them do not have religious freedom. The only one that does is Mali, where Timbuktu is, you know. It's in a desert, so you can hardly count it. Sorry about any Malians who are listening to this program. And that's what's going to happen to Europe. Once there's an Islamic majority, it is going to not...it's going to eliminate religious freedom. However...and therefore, Western civilization as we know it. However, in the United States, we also are not having children. There's abortion. There's contraception. There's the ideal of a one or two child family. But where is our immigration coming from? From Ecuador, from Mexico, from Cuba, from Guatemala. And these people are Christians. And so, I believe without being...you know, having hubris as an American, I believe that Christians in the United States are the ones who will be able to save not just Christianity, but Western civilization, if we maintain our fidelity to the scriptures, our fidelity to Christ, our fidelity to family life, and our fidelity to fertility and fruitfulness in marriage. So I believe we are in a world historical century, which is going to depend upon the strength of Christianity in these United States. I say I think that's...I may raise my voice. I may get excited. I might waive a Bible or something like that, but I believe this is the hard facts, unless God...He could always...He's in charge. He could perform a miracle. He could do something we can't possibly have foreseen. But I see that as what's happening. Now, that's part one. The second part is shorter. The main presentation by this Father Troll was very interesting. He based it on a Pakistani Muslim scholar names Rashan, who was at the University of Chicago for many years, and Rashan's position was Islam can enter into dialogue with modernity, but only if it radically reinterprets the Koran, and takes the specific legislation of the Koran, like cutting off your hand if you're a thief, or being able to have four wives, or whatever, and takes the principles behind those specific pieces of legislation for the 7th Century of Arabia, and now applies them, and modifies them, for a new society which women are now respected for their full dignity, where democracy's important, religious freedom's important, and so on. And if Islam does that, then it will be able to enter into real dialogue and live together with other religions and other kinds of cultures.

HH: Is he an optimist about that happening?

JF: He is, but interesting, Hugh, you know, all the seminars I recall with Joseph Ratzinger, Father Ratzinger, he'd always let the students speak. He'd wait until the end, and he would intervene. This is the first time I recall where he made an immediate statement. And I'm still struck by it, how powerful it was.

HH: We only have thirty seconds, Father Fessio.

JF: Oh, I can't do it.

HH: Then I want to come back after the break.

JF: Okay. Hugh, we've got to come back to this after the break.

HH: That's the greatest bridge ever.

JF: That'll keep your listeners.

HH: You betcha. No one's going to go away. And here's what the Pope said...

---

HH: Father Fessio, before the break, you were telling us that after the presentation at Castel Gandolfo by two scholars of Islam this summer with Benedict in attendance, as well as his former students, for the first time in your memory, the Pope did not allow his students to first comment and reserve comment, but in fact, went first. Why, and what did he say?

JF: Well, the thesis that was proposed by this scholar was that Islam can enter into the modern world if the Koran is reinterpreted by taking the specific legislation, and going back to the principles, and then adapting it to our times, especially with the dignity that we ascribe to women, which has come through Christianity, of course. And immediately, the Holy Father, in his beautiful calm but clear way, said well, there's a fundamental problem with that, because he said in the Islamic tradition, God has given His word to Mohammed, but it's an eternal word. It's not Mohammed's word. It's there for eternity the way it is. There's no possibility of adapting it or interpreting it, whereas in Christianity, and Judaism, the dynamism's completely different, that God has worked through His creatures. And so, it is not just the word of God, it's the word of Isaiah, not just the word of God, but the word of Mark. He's used His human creatures, and inspired them to speak His word to the world, and therefore by establishing a Church in which he gives authority to His followers to carry on the tradition and interpret it, there's an inner logic to the Christian Bible, which permits it and requires it to be adapted and applied to new situations. I was...I mean, Hugh, I wish I could say it as clearly and as beautifully as he did, but that's why he's Pope and I'm not, okay? That's one of the reasons. One of others, but his seeing that distinction when the Koran, which is seen as something dropped out of Heaven, which cannot be adapted or applied, even, and the Bible, which is a word of God that comes through a human community, it was stunning.

HH: And so, is it fair to describe him as a pessimist about the prospect of modernity truly engaging Islam in the way modernity has engaged Christianity?

JF: Well, the other way around.

HH: Yes. I meant that.

JF: Yeah, that Christianity can engage modernity just like it did...the Jews did Egypt, or Christians did to Greece, because we can take what's good there, and we can elevate it through the revelation of Christ in the Bible. But Islam is stuck. It's stuck with a text that cannot be adapted, or even be interpreted properly.

HH: And so the Pope is a pessimist about that changing, because it would require a radical reinterpretation of what the Koran is?

JF: Yeah, which is it's impossible, because it's against the very nature of the Koran, as it's understood by Muslims.

HH: And so, even the dialectic that was the Reformation is not possible within Islam?

JF: No. And then a second thing which he did not say, but which I would have said, I might have said at the time, is that...and this is from a Catholic point of view, there's no one to interpret the Koran officially. the Catholic Church has an official interpretor, which is the Holy Father with the bishops.

HH: Right. Well, let me ask you then. If, in fact, that reformation within Islam is not possible in the eyes of the Pope, and the demographics do not change, as they are unlikely to change in Europe, the last time Christendom went under the waves, so to speak, in Europe, there were the monasteries, beseiged as they were by the barbarians, sacked as they were by the Vikings, they endured.

JF: Yeah.

HH: That doesn't happen in modernity, because of the technology of oppression. And you've just noted the reluctance of Islam to accept religious pluralism, or to embrace it and celebrate it.

JF: Yes.

HH: And so what happens in Europe?

JF: Well, Hugh, I've got one of the very few things that I've said, which I'm proud of, because it's become kind of almost a slogan to some, is that home schools are the monasteries of the new dark ages. That is...and you non-Catholic Christians have a lot more of them than we Catholics do, but we've got a lot. And I think that is where families are having children. They're passing on the faith to their children. They're giving them wisdom and the knowledge of our culture. And we have an advantage here, because the homosexuals, and the pro-abortionists, and the pro-contraception people, are not having children by definition.

HH: That's in the Steyn article as well.

Sharlett Letters

In my recent post on Bob Smietana, who wrote about Al Mohler, I mentioned Jeffrey Sharlett, who is a rising young star in journalism, with big pieces in Rolling Stone and Harpers Magazine this year, not to mention his book "Killing the Buddha," and his outstanding, though quite far left, religion website, The Revealer.


I probably overstepped my bounds by stating that I thought that Jeff is "often...very mistaken." Here is the full text of how I described Mr. Sharlett.

Jeff Sharlett, a hugely talented and smart young writer who is at times very insightful on religion, but often also very mistaken, because he is trying to write mostly about Christianity as if he is a dispassionate observer, when actually he believes in his secular humanism/materialism as strongly as any Christian does in Christ.

Well, Jeff posted a comment on that post, and then I emailed him, and he responded, and I emailed him back. It was an interesting dialogue, to me at least, with Jeff showing off his tenacious debating skills and razor sharp mind, and me simply getting an opportunity to articulate an idea that I think is very relevant to our modern debates over religion and the separation of church and state.

Here is the comment Jeff left on the post.

This is a digression, since the real discussion here is about Bob and Mohler. But still, I can't help asking: How did you manage to peek in my secret secular humanism/materialism diary? I thought I had adequately disguised it by writiing "Protocols of the Youngers of Brooklyn" on the cover, but you've outed my nefarious humanistic/materialistic plan!!!

Oh, wait a minute -- I was just smoking crack. Your kind words are genuinely appreciated, but A)you've got me all wrong; B)you characterize my views without asking me about them -- and in direct contradiction to my lengthiest writing on the subject, Killing the Buddha.

Then I emailed him this:

Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005
From: "Stan Wastren"
Subject: your secular humanism
To: the.revealer@nyu.edu

Jeff

Thanks for leaving the comment. I'm flattered.

As for my comment about you, my praise was heartfelt,
and as for my characterization of you as "often
mistaken," perhaps that was too harsh. I guess that,
without going into hundreds of words, I feel like you
miss the main point of what you're writing about
because you have a very different belief system.

There is nothing spooky or conspiratorial about saying
you firmly believe in secular humanism. It's just
common sense that all of us have religion, because all
of us have a god or gods. All of us put our hope in
something or someone, and that is our god. I don't
presume to have any idea what kinds of things you put
your hope in. For me, I worship the God of the Bible,
but I do sin on a regular basis by placing other
things ahead of him in my heart and in my actions. One
of the main reasons I worship this God, however, is
that he forgives me when I acknowledge my sin and he
gives me strength when I ask his help to stop sinning
in that way.

You are right, I haven't read most of "Killing the
Buddha." I have tried to, but gotten sidetracked,
through no fault of the book's. I am judging you from
your magazine work in the last year. It's been well
written, insightful, and often far more sensitive of
any other secular religion writer. But it's also
assumed certain things--such as the fact that most of
what people at the mega church in Colorado believe is
not true, or irrelevant, or not really most important
to them. From that, I can only gather that you view
the material world as most real and meaningful. From
your focus on "rights" and issues common with some of
the most vocal "suppressed" groups, it seems you have
been heavily influenced, like most of us, by the
modern intellectual currents in the university and
major metro centers that seems to be mostly political
correctness masquerading as progress.

All right, I've got finances to do. I don't make the
big bucks freelancing like you, so I've got to figure
out how to pay the bills this month.

But merry Christmas, and happy New Year! I celebrate
these holidays, and I respect your right to not
celebrate them, but I still greet you with joy because
of my celebration, hoping that my celebration and joy
will bless or benefit you in some way.

If any of my critique or opinion comes across as too
harsh, I apologize. I have been reading Doris Kearns
Goodwin's new Lincoln bio, and I am inspired to be
principled AND gracious and humble, to stand for
something and to honor those who think differently
than I.

God bless

Stan

Hours later, Mr. Sharlett send me back my email after slicing and dicing it.

From: Jeffrey Sharlet
To: Stan Wastren
Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005
Subject: Re: your secular humanism


Stan,

Thanks for your thoughtful message. Nonetheless,
it's a study in assumptions. My first instinct is to explain it away
via the popular persecution narratives of Christian conservatism,
but I'll try to tread carefully and simply point out you below where you
assume knowledge of my intentions. And do so very inaccurately.

you miss the main point of what you're writing about
because you have a very different belief system.

I may miss the main point of how you'd like me to
represent Christian conservatism, but I don't miss the main point of
what I'm writing about. Indeed, when I write about free market economics and
Ted Haggard's church, I'm making an argument that what is only one
aspect of his belief system is, in fact, one of the more
significant elements as far as outsiders are concerned. Think of it a like a
venn diagram. Ted and I share economic space, even if we don't share much
theological space. That overlap is therefore of concern -- indeed, it
is the public sphere.

There is nothing spooky or conspiratorial about
saying you firmly believe in secular humanism.

No, there certainly isn't. As the old saying goes,
some of my best friends are secular humanists. Only, I'm not, not by
a long shot. And I can't imagine why you'd suggest that I am.
Everything I write proceeds from the argument that secularism is itself a myth.
I'm persuaded by the arguments of Radical Orthodoxy, the Anglican
theological movement, that secularism is a surface beneath which supernatural
belief roils. I happen to have quite a few supernatural beliefs. You
might say I'm a muddled polytheist. I don't worship many gods, but
I'm concerned that there are quite a few out there, not all of them
friendly. That doesn't play much of a role in my magazine writing, but it's
the core premise of Killing the Buddha.

It's just common sense that all of us have religion, because
all of us have a god or gods.

Not so at all. For instance, I don't "have" a god or gods, even though I
suspect they may exist. Meanwhile, a great many people truly, truly
don't give a damn.

All of us put our hope in something or someone, and that is our god.

Doubly not so. Not all of us hope (though I do), and much of what we put
our hope in is not divine. For instance: putting one's hope in the
democratic process, a fairly common move, is only
religious if one supposes that the process proceeds from some
supernatural basis. Once you start capitalizing Democracy and the Democratic
Spirit, you're on your way to religion. But if for you it means sitting through ward
meetings, it's just democracy, a means of organization. Calling it
religion would be like calling a card catalogue a god.

I don't presume to have any idea what kinds of things you
put your hope in. For me, I worship the God of the
Bible,

That's nice. Which one? I'm not being glib -- the Hebrew Bible is pretty
clear that Yahweh is THE god, but it's also clear that there are other,
no good gods. And even Yahweh has enough faces to populate a pantheon.

I am judging you from your magazine work in the last year. It's been
well written, insightful, and often far more sensitive
of any other secular religion writer. But it's also
assumed certain things--such as the fact that most
of what people at the mega church in Colorado believe
is not true, or irrelevant, or not really most
important to them.

This is genuinely confusing. As it happens, I don't believe that gay men
are possessed by demons with cat's eyes, but I kind
of left it to the reader to decide what to make of that claim. As for
irrelevant -- uh, did you notice that I spent 11,000 words arguing
that this is one of the most influential belief systems in the world. "Not
that important to them"? Huh? I think it's very important to them. And
as for whether or not it's true -- well, that's a case by case. But I
left it pretty plain. You can read my short biographical sketch of
Ted Haggard and assume it's all true, the prophecy and the witches.
I don't say otherwise, a point Ted readily conceded. I'm not
particularly interested in whether or not there are witches. I'm more
interested in the fact that for Ted there are, and that he draws certain
conclusions from this. Other elements of his beliefs -- that the Bible
endorses free market capitalism -- are, in fact, simply not true. One may
be a capitalist and a Christian, but don't lean on the Bible just
because you haven't read your Adam Smith.

From that, I can only gather that you view
the material world as most real and meaningful.

This is utterly perplexing. I spend 10 years writing
about the spiritual beliefs of people and you conclude that I think only
the material world is meaningful? I don't even know what the material
world is.

From your focus on "rights" and issues common with some
of the most vocal "suppressed" groups, it seems you
have been heavily influenced, like most of us, by the
modern intellectual currents in the university and
major metro centers that seems to be mostly
political correctness masquerading as progress.

Nope. I've been heavily influenced by fists, those
of the kids who beat me about once a month when I was little because they
thought I was a Jew (sort of) and my mother was a lesbian (she wasn't).
I don't like knuckle sandwiches. Is that politically correct? I did not
grow up near a university or in a major metro center. I grew up in
a working class Republican town of 5,000. As for race, I'm permeated
by bigotry, although I try to think otherwise. Not because of
the university -- I only went to college, and a very strange one at that
-- but because that's what I learned growing up in a union family.
My grandparents -- Tennesseans, neither of whom went to college --
learned racism stinks by working with people of many races, and passed that
lesson down.

All right, I've got finances to do. I don't make
the big bucks freelancing like you, so I've got to
figure out how to pay the bills this month.

Uh, ok. Freelancing for Harper's works out at around
$18 an hour, but whatever.

But merry Christmas, and happy New Year! I
celebrate these holidays, and I respect your right to not
celebrate them,

What are you talking about? What do you know about
what holidays I celebrate? Christmas, if you care to know, with
midnight mass. Holy Jesus, indeed.

If any of my critique or opinion comes across as
too harsh, I apologize. I have been reading Doris
Kearns Goodwin's new Lincoln bio, and I am inspired to be
principled AND gracious and humble, to stand for
something and to honor those who think differently
than I.

You call wildly inaccurate declarations about what I
believe based on no evidence humble? Man, I thought humility had
somethign to do with not presuming to know it all.

Best,
Jeff

I don't think he likes me very much. :) So here is my response.

Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005
From: Stan Wastren
Subject: Re: your secular humanism
To: Jeffrey Sharlet

Jeff

I'm not sure why you called my email thoughtful.
Yours was much more full of thought, and the thought was
on a much higher level than my own. I am not flattering
here. I may not be humble (I don't presume to be,
but rather want to be, and do attempt, daily, to be),
but the quality of your response is humbling.

I want to address only one point. I said all of us
have a god or gods, because all of us hope in
something. You wrote in some detail why you
disagree. I was very happy to see you expound your thought on
that. I wanted to push further in on this, to
clarify my thinking on this.

The key term here, in my mind, is hope. You wrote,
"Not all of us hope (though I do), and
much of what we put our hope in is not divine."

You went on to say that a political activist would
only be worshipping at the throne of politics if
their hope sprung from a supernatural basis, and if they
capitalized Democracy and the Democratic Spirit.

I agree wholeheartedly with you that many people do
not have hope. They are pessimists. Or they are
depressed. Or they have given up and given
themselves over screwing people over, and doing wrong. The list
is long.

But perhaps the word hope does not fully capture
what I was trying to say. I will try to round out the
portrait.

I do believe that each of these hopeless people puts
their trust in something. They find pleasure in
something. They make choices that reflect what is
most important to them.

Trust
Pleasure/delight
Priority/importance

I think all three of these words, along with hope,
give a fuller picture of what it means to worship.
There are other terms, but these will do for now.

I argue that whatever we worship is our god. And
just because we worship something doesn't mean it is an
actual, supernatural god. But we treat it as such.
It is our functional god. And all our important
decisions, and many smaller ones, are shaped by our
god or gods.

When you say that "putting one's hope in the
democratic process, a fairly common move, is only
religious if one supposes that the process proceeds
from some supernatural basis," you are speaking of
truly supernatural gods. (The Bible does say there
are many gods, but that there is one creating, ruling,
sovereign, true God.)

I am saying that even the atheist has a god. He has
put his trust in something. Often it may be himself.
He may say, "I have surveyed all around me and
inside me, and I choose to depend on myself, come what
may."

He may not be absolutely sure that his choice is
going to work, but that is why he is placing FAITH in
himself.

By the way, I didn't mean to sound like I begrudged
your success in the magazines. You deserve it. It
was more of a self-pitying remark than anything else.

And sorry for the Christmas remark. That was stupid.
I am full of those. But I like what Ray Bradbury wrote
in "Fahrenheit 451": “If you hide your ignorance, no
one will hit you and you’ll never learn.”

I guess what I like about you is that you still hit
in a day where many are afraid to say what they really
think.

Thanks

Stan

So far I haven't heard back from Jeff. But it was fun while it lasted.

Cause or effect?

Most medical and mental health professionals would agree that there is a link between depression and sexual and drug using behavior in adolescents. However, it is commonly assumed that depressed teens use sex and drugs to “medicate” their depression. Thus, when faced with a depressed, sexually active teen, adults may overlook sexual or drug using behavior with the hope that the risky behavior will cease once the depression is gone.

Although the depression followed by sex and drugs link seems to make sense, a new study, which followed over 13,000 middle and high school students for two years in a row, found that depression did not predict risky sexual or drug using behavior.

Instead, the study found that depression often follows risky behavior. Lead author of the study, Dr. Denise Hallfors told me in an interview that her research team found evidence that heavy drug and alcohol use significantly increased the likelihood of depression among boys. For girls, the findings are stunning: Even low levels of alcohol, drug or sexual experimentation increased the probability of depression for girls.

So writes Dr. Warren Throckmorton, a psychologist at Grove City College in Pa. Click hereto read the whole piece and see the actual stats.

Throckmorton concludes:

Whatever we think about the morality of sexual behavior, can't we agree that teens should be given a clear and consistent message that it best to wait to engage in sex until they are ready to accept the financial, relationship and emotional consequences of making that choice? For nearly all teens, this would be adulthood.

Fleeing Boredom

"Man nurtures the suspicion that God, at the end of the day, takes something away from his life, that God is a competitor who limits our freedom and that we will be fully human only when we will have set him aside.

"There emerges in us the suspicion that the person who doesn't sin at all is basically a boring person, that something is lacking in his life, the dramatic dimension of being autonomous, that the freedom to say 'no' belongs to real human beings."

That's from Pope Benedict. Some very profound insights there. I find it interesting that the pope comes off as such a stiff, archaic, irrelevant figure, but that Benedict's papers and speeches have been remarkably relevant, cutting edge, and power-packed with spiritual truth that touches reality.

Breitbart reports that "in remarks after Mass, Benedict urged people to 'overcome the temptation of a mediocre life, made of compromises with evil.'"

Missing the Point

I left a comment on the blog of Bob Smietana, who writes for Christianity Today, and has written at least one column for the Revealer, which is a religion news blog run by Jeff Sharlet, a hugely talented and smart young writer who is at times very insightful on religion, but often also very mistaken, because he is trying to write mostly about Christianity as if he is a dispassionate observer, when actually he believes in his secular humanism/materialism as strongly as any Christian does in Christ.

Smietana was angry over an Al Mohler column, and I wrote a few words in Mohler's defense, but also in protest of Smietana's apparent willingness to miss the main point. Click here to read his post and my comment below.

Cindy Sheehan: The Musical.

Hilarious.

Intelligent Design in College

The Wall Street Journal reports, albeit somewhat reluctantly it seems, that intelligent design is making inroads in the universities.

Thank God. Maybe it will return a measure of sanity and reason to those places.

Reading in New York

While in New York, I scrounged around a few area publications, and found some interesting stuff.

The Village Voice looks at all the ways that abortion is already being limited and restricted by laws and court rulings put in place since Roe v. Wade.

The L Magazine, a little glossy that as far as I can tell has nothing to do with lesbianism, bemoans the "civil rights" record of SCOTUS nominee Sam Alito, which they call "so narrow it would make John Ashcroft blush."

Two other interesting points from this fairly well-written and interesting piece:

1. Author Noam Biale (nbiale@thelmagazine.com) says that overturning Roe is "the central aim of the radical Christian movement that now controls the bulk of our government, save the courts." Riiiiggghhht. Sheesh, it sure is interesting to see the histrionics in the big L when they realize that Christians aren't just staying in church praying for Jesus to come back soon. The way they react, you'd think a bunch of pedophiles had been let out.

2. Biale screeds for 1,209 words and ends by saying,

"If the Democrats can stay on message and not allow the indictments, the cronyism, the scores of casualties at home and abroad caused by this administration to be forgotten, then they stand a good chance at winning back some ground in Congress, maybe even the White House."

This is the only hint of a point in Biale's piece. It is typical, I think, of Gen X communication. Increasingly, along with Gen Y and Z, we are more focused on cleverness and being "interesting" than on making a substantive point.

Biale basically complains, cleverly, about Alito for over 1,000 words, and then ends with the above statement. But what is the Democratic "message" he refers to, the proactive thrust of the big L's ideology? He mentions none. He only advises that the Democrats continue to harp on things they don't like about Bush, which are shaky, shaky criticisms at best.

End of News(papers)

The New York Review of Books looks at the present state of a media that is being revolutionized. I am wondering myself what the future of newspapers is--I think that in their present form they are doomed but will undergo some sort of reinvention. What that will be and whether there are many desirable jobs in that new form I do not know.

Who is lying about Iraq?

Norman Podhoretz wrote yesterday in Commentary magazine, which I think is part of the Wall Street Journal, that it is the left liberals among the Democrats who are lying, not Bush. Avoid the "no, he did" syndrome by actually reading through the piece before you talk about this topic with your friends.

European Jihad?

Newsweek wonders if the riots in France are the beginning of what Mark Steyn is calling a new intifada, or Muslim holy war in Europe.