'Responding to your message'

Yesterday I got a message from my Senator who wrote—again—in reply to one of the many surveys, polls, letters, etc. I've sent expressing my commitment to Life from conception to natural death. Here is what he wrote:

'Dear Ms. Booklady:

Thank you for contacting me regarding abortion services in the debate on health care reform. As your voice in Washington, I appreciate being made aware of your concerns.

Throughout my service in public office, I have taken an ardent stand protecting the life of the unborn. I will continue to oppose all legislation supporting unrestricted abortion. Legalized abortion takes the lives of more than one million unborn children each year, robbing this nation of vast potential. Moreover, it destroys some of our nation's most cherished values: family, responsibility, and commitment.

As you know, the issue of federal and taxpayer funds being used to provide abortions has been raised during the current debate on health care reform. There is no explicit guarantee in any current proposals that public funds will not be used to pay for abortions or abortion-related services.

I am adamantly against the use of taxpayers' dollars for abortion or abortion referral services. The taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize abortion or programs that promote them. As the Supreme Court ruled in 1980 (Harris v. McRae), "Abortion is inherently different from other medical procedures because no other procedure involves the purposeful termination of a potential life." Clearly, the government should not be required to fund programs that explicitly encourage the destruction of human life.

The Declaration of Independence affirms all people are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The right to life is a foundational right, fundamental to the strength and vitality of this great nation. I believe in the value and dignity of human life at all stages of life.

As your Senator, I will join you in speaking up for those who cannot speak for themselves. I will continue to be a supporter of pro-life legislation as it is brought before the Senate for consideration and will work to defeat pro-abortion legislation, such as the Freedom of Choice Act. Our government has both a moral and constitutional obligation to protect the sanctity of human life.

Thank you again for your correspondence. Be assured that I will continue to work to transform health care for Oklahomans and all Americans to ensure that affordable health care is available to all in a fiscally responsible manner with the most choices available while upholding the sanctity of human life.'

God bless you Senator Inhofe, and all those who speak up on behalf of the unborn, the voiceless, and helpless, those who only want a chance to live. Thank you for all you do and please know how much I admire and support you and politicians of principal and integrity!

Theology For Beginners

This is my second reading of Theology For Beginners -- mostly because I can barely remember the first. What I do remember was at the time (probably sometime between '02-'04) it didn't seem a book 'for beginners'. This time, perhaps due to the reading I've done in the interim, it was much easier to understand. It's still very theoretical. Theology, after all, being 'the study of' God -- the most impenetrable mystery of all time -- it now amazes me Mr. Sheed has made this book as accessible as he has.

There were many things I liked about this book including the explanation of spirit/soul/body and their relationship(s) to each other. The whole spirit-soul 'thing' actually made sense after reading this explanation, spirit being not only a key word, but the key word. It 'is the element in us by which we know and love, by which we therefore decide.' Souls, on the other hand are marvellous and they animate the bodies, the life-principles, of all living things including plants and animals. So my cat has soul, but not a spirit, if I understand Mr. Sheed correctly. However, the human soul not only animates the body, it has powers of its own, powers utterly outside the possibilities of matter. (p. 62)

And then there were other pearls of Wisdom scattered throughout which I tried to collect (highlight) and add to memory, such as:

- . . . evolution and creation. These are answers to two totally different questions. Creation answers the question why does anything exist, why isn't there nothing? Evolution is a theory as to how the universe did develop once it existed. Upon how it came to exist, evolution sheds no light whatever. (p. 58)

- We are born without sanctifying grace. That is what is meant by being born in original sin, which is not to be thought of as a stain on the soul, but as the absence of that grace without which we cannot . . . reach the goal for which God destined man. (p. 80)

- It is by the saints, and not by the mediocre . . . that the Church is to be judged. A medicine must be judged not by those who buy it but by those who actually take it. (p. 116)

Theology For Beginners is really very basic theology. For some it will just whet the appetite. For others, it will saturate. Whichever is the case, as Mr Sheed says in his Foreword, 'you cannot love someone you do not know. You cannot love God well if you know Him poorly.'

"While it is obvious that an ignorant man can be virtuous, it is equally obvious that ignorance is no virtue." ~~Frank Sheed

Check out my books on Goodreads!

The Contraception of Grief

Not an easy book to read nor absorb, although I did technically-speaking "finish" it in under two hours. It can be purchased from Priests For Life or read entirely on-line.

The difficulty in the first chapter stems from the historical framework, medical language and theological background necessary to place this work in its proper perspective. So while I'd love to be able to just hand it to my teen-age daughters the way my own mother handed me a book on "The Facts" when I was about twelve, it wouldn't be advisable.

In one of the subheadings, "The Manipulation of Language" I was again reminded of Josef Pieper's Abuse of Language, Abuse of Power where he talks about lies, the crafting of well-reasoned arguments and whether the writer is seeking to convey the truth or deceive his audience. When such is the case, 'from that moment on (the author/artist) no longer considers the other as partner, as equal. In fact, he no longer respects the other as a human person.' Pieper says this 'becomes a speech without a partner, since there is no true other; such speech, in contradiction to the nature of language, intends not to communicate but to manipulate.'

This section of the book examines popular methods of birth “control” – commonly used even by those who consider themselves pro-life – which in effect do more than just prevent conception. Subtle shifts in definition, lack of full information and pressure from significant others have led to life-changing choices by women with disastrous results.

Chapter 2, A Collection of Personal Testimonies, is the longest; while less challenging methodologically it is more draining emotionally. Families – and women in particular – who are still trying to come to grips with their own Contraception Grief are encouraged to begin the process of healing. One place where understanding and compassion may be assured is at Janet Moreno’s website Silent No More.

Subsequent chapters offer other positive solutions, stories and redeeming outpourings to flow from this holocaust of sorrow, including: Contraceptive Evangelization; acknowledging the challenges of living this Truth; the virtue of Chastity; the healing power of the Eucharist and the power of the Marital Covenant. So while the first two chapters can be overwhelmingly difficult to read, especially for anyone between the ages of sixty and twenty who has been a victim of this disinformation campaign, there is hope to be found in this book and honestly, it’s the only true Hope to be had anywhere, redemption through Jesus Christ.

Important book!

Check out my books on Goodreads!

Silence

I wrote the book review below just after I finished reading Silence. It was the end of a long and very fruitful Lent which culminated in the finishing of Father Neuhaus' great work, Death on a Friday Afternoon, our neighborhood fire and, most importantly, Holy Week leading up to the Easter Triduum. Bearing this in mind, this review seems a bit out of place now in the light of the Resurrection. And yet, in a recent discussion on the Via Dolorosa with my friend, Sharon*, she helped me to understand that 'sometimes when it seems that all around us are celebrating, this may not be true joy in the Lord.' Sharon referred me to a selection in Sister Faustina Kowalska's, Divine Mercy in My Soul, where that saint writes about the happiness of the crowd on Palm Sunday, 'But Jesus was very grave, and the Lord gave me to know how much He was suffering at the time. And at that moment, I saw nothing but only Jesus, whose heart was saturated with ingratitude.'

Here is my review:

Silence is a modern classic by Shusaku Endo. On the cover a crucified Jesus hangs from Japanese writing characters. My friend, Carol, recommended this book to me awhile back and I've had it sitting on my bookshelf. Then during Holy Week while I was finishing Fr. Neuhaus’ Death on a Friday Afternoon, he mentions the heroic struggles of the European missionaries who gave their all to travel around the world to share the Gospel message. Sometimes it just seems appropriate to leave off one book and seek out another, as if you are being led to it.

Silence tells a fictionalized story of what may have happened to two Portuguese priests who ventured onto mainland Japan during the persecution of the Christians around 1643. The story is told – brilliantly and poignantly – through the eyes of one Sebastian Rodrigues. The all important thing was to suffer and die a glorious martyr’s death. It was unthinkable that those who did not know Christ could devise any suffering, whether it be physical, mental, emotional or even spiritual which would lead the true believer to recant—but then this was before the days of Vietnam and the Japanese POW camps. Then it was believed no pain, deprivation, imprisonment, torture of oneself or one’s fellows—however prolonged, could ever be so bad it couldn’t be endured for love of God. It was simply a matter of one’s faith and will.

Silence is about the silence of God. I was 96 pages into the book before it occurred to me to keep track of all the times Shusaku Endo used the word, ‘silence’, ‘silent’ or ‘silently’, as well as words about sound. I had a feeling it was central to the story. From then until the end of the book (page 191) I counted fifty-one more times; I may have missed a few. It might have been a silly exercise—like something a high school English teacher would have you do—but I didn’t mind. And it focused my reading just when plot action came almost to a halt and most everything which was ‘happening’ was in the main character’s mind, or as experienced through his senses.

Silence is a powerful book. It seems to have as much to say about East meets West as it does about evangelization, martyrdom and the true voice of God. It is one Christian man’s search for the meaning of ‘the mud swamp Japanese in me’. ‘Japan is a mud swamp because it sucks up all sorts of ideologies, transforming them into itself and distorting them in the process.’ (p. xv) Sound like another country we all know and love?

Silence will leave you different than it found you. 'Be still (silent?) and know that I am God.' (Psalm 46:10)

Check out my books on Goodreads!

* Thank you Sharon!

A Severe Mercy

The true value of many things can only be seen in retrospect. Indeed, Sheldon Vanauken probably would not have called what he went through 'a severe mercy' at the time. As it was, he didn't write this book until many, many years after it occurred. The autobiographical story covers the years in Van's life from 1937 to 1955; A Severe Mercy wasn't published until 1977.

In fact, A Severe Mercy can almost be called a foreshadowing of A Grief Observed,* the Christian apologist C. S. Lewis's famous tribute to his own wife, Joy's death or how he discovered and dealt with the silence of God. But of course that is only from our perspective looking back on the four lives involved.

Sheldon Vanauken wrote A Severe Mercy about the love of his life, Jean "Davy" Palmer Davis. It's a beautiful love story, one of the most idyllic I've ever read, perhaps too idyllic, but poignant and breathtaking all the same. The book traces their relationship from courtship through the early pagan (the author's term) years of marriage to the meeting and eventual friendship with C. S. Lewis who was instrumental in their eventual conversion to Christianity. It is therefore no small irony that Vanauken and Lewis became friends, were both college dons, converted to Protestantism and lost their beloved spouses, first the former and then the latter, both eventually writing best-selling books on the subject.

While I enjoyed A Severe Mercy very much, as a woman and a mother, I did constantly wonder—as I read it—at their decision not to have children. The author announces this fact early on in their pagan years which the couple dubbed, "The Shining Barrier", presumably a barrier of love which they erected around themselves to protect themselves from the outside world. Later, however, when they converted to Christianity, there was no mention they ever revisited this decision. Davy was still young enough at the time to bear children. I couldn't help thinking and wondering if – as time went by – the desire to become a mother didn't occasionally tug at her heart. Vanauken never mentions it and at the end of the book he describes burning her diaries.

In an interesting aside however, Lewis does chastize his friend, and very severely too, for the couple's decision to exclude children from their marriage, but only some time after Davy's death.

Two of the many delights in this book are numerous beautiful poems the author wrote to his beloved bride and a large collection of letters from C.S. Lewis.

An excellent autobiography of Love. Beautifully written tribute to Davy as well; I only wish I heard more of her voice.

Check out my books on Goodreads!


* I regret not having a more current review of this book to offer, but I plan to reread it soon and update this.

Dereliction

'Early and often did the LORD, the God of their fathers, send his messengers to them, for he had compassion on his people and his dwelling place. But they mocked the messengers of God, despised his warnings, and scoffed at his prophets, until the anger of the LORD against his people was so inflamed that there was no remedy.' ~~selection from Reading 1, 2 Chr 36:14-16, 19-23, for Lætare Sunday, Fourth Sunday of Lent

As I was listening to those words read during Saturday evening Vigil Mass, I thought they are as true today as when they were written over two thousand years ago. It seems the more things change, the more they remain the same.

Our book group, Benedict's Book Club is currently reading Death on a Friday Afternoon, Chapter 4, Dereliction. Each chapter is devoted to one of the Seven Words of Jesus on the Cross:

1. "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do." Luke 23:34

2. "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise." Luke 23:43

3. "Jesus said to his mother: "Woman, this is your son". Then he said to the disciple: "This is your mother." John 19:26-27

4. "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Matthew 27:46 & Mark 15:34

5. "I thirst." John 19:28

6. "It is finished." John 19:30

7. "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit." Luke 23:46

In Chapter 1, Coming To Our Senses, Father Neuhaus focuses on the gravity of our sinfulness and His great love for us which consequentially led to Good Friday, and hopefully will bring us 'to our senses'.

The second chapter, Judge Not, is long and complicated; reading it often seemed like following a rabbit trail. Eventually however, after several readings, what I took away from it was the following, ‘It would seem to be the unanimous experience of Christian thinkers and mystics that, the farther they travel on the roads of thought and contemplation, the more they know that they do not know. The most rigorous thought and the most exalted spiritual adventure bring us, again and again, to exclaim with St. Paul, “O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgements and how inscrutable his ways!” Therefore it is rightly said that all theology is finally doxology. That is to say, all analysis and explanation finally dissolves into wonder and praise.’

Chapter 3, A Strange Glory, reflects on Mary, Christ's gift of her to us from the cross and (what is often forgotten) our gift to her.

Which brings us to Chapter 4, Dereliction. A 'derelict' is someone deserted by an owner or keeper; abandoned and/or run-down; dilapidated. That certainly describes Our Lord. Does it also refer to us?

'And about three o'clock Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"' Matthew 27:46

Have you ever prayed like that? Have you ever felt so abandoned, so deserted, especially by the very one you look to for support? I know I have. There are many times I've cried out to God, with far less provocation than Jesus, but still with great anguish. I suspect most people have.

However, what I appreciated most in this chapter was Fr. Neuhaus’s treatment of the complexity of sin, the struggle we all face in trying to fight it, how often we fail, why we fail, the futility of the struggle when we 'go it alone', and most of all, the fact that he refuses to compromise to the triteness of 'just do it' or 'be good', as if those remedies haven't been thought of (and tried) by almost every human being who ever lived.

Whereas the rest of the book thus far has been more informative, this chapter, for me, has been the most helpful as a reflection on humanity’s hardhearted sinfulness, as well as its helplessness without God. His observations about dualism fit perfectly with this Sunday’s readings. In the first reading from Second Chronicles, we learn how God loved His people and how He tried to help them. He loved every person He created then as He loves each of us now, but humanity was as sinful in days gone by as in the present. And they had prophets then as we do now: our own dear Pope is a living, breathing prophet; so was Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta.

And then there is that scary mindset so popular today of “feel good” religion, sometimes called New Age religion, referred to by Father Neuhaus as, “spirituality”, in quotes. True spirituality doesn’t need to be put in quotes. The type of spirituality Father Neuhaus is talking about, however, is the type found and heard everywhere and really thinly veiled self-aggrandizement. As he puts it on pages 129 through 130, ‘…dualism is today's dirty word in the view of many people. Consult those hundreds of books under the category of “spirituality” in your local bookstore and you will discover the preferred language is all about wholeness, unity, coherence, harmony, synchronicity and the good feelings of being “at one with All.” By way of the sharpest contrast, Paul speaks of the Christian life in terms of conflict, tension, antagonism and jarring dissonance.’ He goes on to talk about who is the true self, the “I of myself”. Is it the “I” who serves the law of God with my mind, or the “I” of the flesh who serves the law of sin? Paul believes both are the “I” of him. ‘There is no deliverance from the intolerable contradiction of this conflicted “I” unless there is another “I”. Which brings us back to Galatians. There is another “I”. “It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me.” The complexity on the far side of which such simplicity is found might be described as the transposition of the ego.’ (p. 130) We can’t do it alone. We can’t overcome sin, or anything else for that matter, without Him Who is all-in-all, the Alpha and Omega, without this Cross, this Death on a Friday Afternoon.

The exclamation Jesus cries out from the cross, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” is the opening words of the beautiful lamentation Psalm 22. Beautiful lament? Isn’t that a contradiction in terms? It would be if there was no one to hear, no one to answer, no one to respond. But just as everyone smiles at the first cries of a newborn, knowing that he (or she) lives, it truly is beautiful when we cry out to God, for only then do we truly LIVE in Him.

'God, who is rich in mercy, because of the great love he had for us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, brought us to life with Christ — by grace you have been saved —, raised us up with him, and seated us with him in the heavens in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God.' ~~selection from Reading 2, Eph 2:4-10, for Lætare Sunday, Fourth Sunday of Lent

This is only the fourth chapter and the Fourth Sunday in Lent. Our journey continues...

Check out my books on Goodreads!

Abuse of Language, Abuse of Power

In Abuse of Language, Abuse of Power Joseph Pieper begins building his case against sophistry by showing what Plato most deplored about the sophists of his day: their wealth (no surprise) and physical beauty and how the former is gained through the corruption of the latter as well as the manipulation of language. Pieper includes quotes from Hegel and Nietzsche -- both separated from the Father of Philosophy by more than a millennium -- which assure us of the pervasive continuity of sophistry from then until now, as if we needed any.

'Human words and language accomplish a two-fold purpose... First, words convey reality. We speak in order to name and identify something that is real, to identify it for someone, of course--and this brings us to the second aspect in question, the interpersonal character of human speech.'

We are then led to look at lies, the crafting of well-reasoned arguments and whether the author is seeking to convey the truth or deceive his audience. When such is the case, 'from that moment on (the author/artist) no longer considers the other as partner, as equal. In fact, he no longer respects the other as a human person.' Plato, through Socrates, calls this "flattery". Pieper says this 'becomes a speech without a partner, since there is no true other; such speech, in contradiction to the nature of language, intends not to communicate but to manipulate.'

The rest of the essay goes on to examine the loss of character in our language through slogans, advertising, propaganda, and mass media--just different forms of deceptive trickery and mental bondage.

Plato's three statements about the necessity of truth to the health of human society are summarized and as true today as ever: 1.) the good of man and meaningful human existence consists in perceiving, as much as possible, things as they really are; 2.) all men are nurtured by the truth; 3.) the natural habitat of the truth is found in interpersonal communication.

Pieper calls for 'an area of truth, a sheltered space for the autonomous study of reality, where it is possible, without restrictions, to examine, investigate, discuss, and express what is true about anything--a space, then explicitly protected against all potential special interests and invading influences, where hidden agendas have no place, be they collective or private, political, economic, or ideological.' His mentor, Plato, would no doubt agree with this necessity, recognize the description of his own Academie and be proud. Who indeed would disagree? And yet, where can such a place be found? Thankfully for this booklady at least, such a sanctuary still exists in my own home.

Profound essay! Never more relevant than it is today.

Check out my books on Goodreads!

We're going to miss him . . .

He was classy.

Magnanimous.

A gentleman.

Ripped for being out of touch, he chose just the right touch.

A man who critics say only mangled his words.

Conjured just the right ones.

I'm not talking about John McCain yesterday...

I'm talking about President Bush today.

McCain gave a classy speech.

The president made a classy gesture.

Offering only good words for the man who repudiated his run of the White House.

But going one better -- inviting Barack and Michelle Obama to the White House.

To see the place, and talk about the place, and the pressures of the place, in private.

These were not empty words.

The president took care months ago to put a transition team in place, so that a smooth transfer of power could take place.

President Bush wasn't so lucky when he was coming in.

Maybe things were different then.

A lot of ill will then.

Lots of hurtful words since then.

He wasn't even running this year but it seemed everyone, including his own party's nominee, was running against him all year.

If he minded, he didn't show it.

I remember even talking to the president on the White House south lawn about it.

"Does it all bug you?," I asked.

"Nah," he said, shrugging his shoulders and adding simply, "I understand."

A man at peace with a nation seemingly at war… with him.

Some for good reason, others apparently lacking reason.

He took nothing personally, always handling himself with dignity.

Not by what he said, but precisely what he did not.

I've read that the president is as kind to the elevator operator at the White House as he is a visiting head of state to the White House.

I've seen it myself.

Every time I've interviewed him, he sticks around and personally shakes the hands of each member of my crew, and then hangs out for pictures.

Lots of pictures.

I know, little things.

But to me, big things.

That bespeaks of a man far bigger than the petty things I see in the press.

Or hear in a harsh campaign year.

That ended today, with a quiet gesture today.

From a president who'd be in his right to wag a finger.

But instead, simply offered his hand.

by Neil Cavuto, Fox news


Check out my books on Goodreads!

Obama/McCain Girl

8th Grader Learns Lesson About Intolerance

by Marcia Segelstein

Catherine Vogt is an 8th grader in Oak Park, Illinois. Just before the election, Catherine, with the approval of her history teacher, decided to conduct an experiment about tolerance at her school.

As John Kass wrote in the Chicago Tribune, “She noticed that fellow students…overwhelmingly supported Barack Obama for president. His campaign kept preaching ‘inclusion,’ and she decided to see how included she could be.” So one day she wore a T-shirt to school on which she’d written “McCain Girl.” She carried a journal with her to record the reactions she got. And what was the response? She was called stupid, very stupid, and told that she shouldn’t be wearing it. Then fellow students told her to “go die.” In fact, she reports that she was told many times she should be killed. One student told her she should be “crucifixed” for wearing the shirt. Catherine found it almost funny that he didn’t even know the word “crucified.” One teacher also remarked on the shirt, telling Catherine that she wouldn’t judge her for her choice, but “she was surprised that I supported McCain.”

Catherine got very few even remotely positive comments. One girl privately told her that she liked the shirt. The next day, Catherine wore a T-shirt on which she’d written “Obama Girl.” The response to that? “People liked my shirt. They said things like my brain had come back, and I had put the right shirt on today.” After the experiment was revealed, her history teacher engaged her class in a debate. “I said, here you are, promoting this person [Obama] that believes we are all equal and included, and look what you’ve done? The students were kind of like, ‘Oh, yeah.’ I think they got it.”

And the teacher who had expressed “surprise” when Catherine wore the McCain shirt? When she found out about the experiment “she was embarrassed because she knew I was writing down what she said.”

Catherine turned the experiment into a report for her history class and got extra credit. (booklady note: well we are sheep afterall, right?)

Check out my books on Goodreads!

Inspiration . . . never give up

God bless you Elisabetta!

In Cold Blood

It’s chilling.

The cover. The title. The story. And worst of all its true.

In Cold Blood, Truman Capote’s 1965 book about the murder of a Kansas family reads like a novel. Well, at least it does in some places. At other times, it seems more like an enigmatic theological puzzle: are there actually human beings completely devoid of conscience? Well there are human beings born without physical body parts, so I suppose it is possible we can be conceived without whole psyches.

When my daughter told me she was reading this for her high school English 3 class, I was surprised. In Cold Blood? It seemed a strange choice for a literature class; it’s not even a work of fiction. Even so it is a masterpiece.

Capote constructs the story deliberately to build and hold the reader’s attention from beginning to end. I remember first reading the book as a teenager myself—although I’m sure it wasn’t a school assignment. Back then, I couldn’t read the book after dark and didn’t like being alone for weeks after reading it.

This read was quite different, however. I was more detached from the crime this time—knowing what it was, how it was performed and who did it. Therefore, I could read the book from the perspective of an amateur sociologist/psychologist and armchair theologian. Oh, and I also read it from a literary vantage as well.

It’s from each of these hilltops, I’ll offer the view. I must state at this point though, my writing will contain spoilers from now on; so if you have NOT read the book, I highly recommend you stop and read the book instead!

WARNING: SPOILER ALERT!

It does seem silly to put a spoiler alert in a work of non-fiction, but that is to Capote’s credit in the construction of this book. He begins with the time period leading up to the day of the crime—both for the victims and their assassins. Then he abruptly cuts to the aftermath and the discovery of the crime and the beginning of its investigation. By using this technique, our author manages to create and maintain a heightened sense of suspense and uncertainty. What happened? How exactly did it happen? Who did what? When? How do they know this? Questions were buzzing around my head like annoying flies as I struggled along with the frustrated investigators in the unsettled weeks after the murders. I knew they would eventually solve the riddles, so I had that much more admiration for Capote’s incredible outline of events.

From the socio-psychological perspective, I sat in amazement of the description’s of the killers, Richard "Dick" Hickock and Perry Smith. I have a Bachelor of Science in Administration of Justice and a M.E. in Human Relations. Where do “people” like this fit in? Are they “people”? In fact, I found the personality descriptions of the killers almost more chilling than the crimes themselves. They rob, torture, kill and have no remorse. They don’t even see why they should feel sympathy for their victims. In some ways. And yet in another separate area, one of the killers, concerns himself with making the victims comfortable. Comfortable? Huh? It is as if the separate parts of their brains aren’t connected.

So that leads to the theological side of things.

What is the moral responsibility of such men? Are they even morally responsible? Can we hold them accountable for their actions? And if not, what do we do with them—which leads back into the social arena again. Maybe I shouldn’t even attempt to separate out all these sub-areas with arbitrary designations and classifications.

In this sad case, our society solved its problem on the gallows. In effect we said, “Look what a horrible thing they did—killing innocent people. But these men certainly aren’t innocent! They are going to pay for their crime and we’re going to show them by sending them back where they came from.” So we did.

Guess we showed them.

If you haven’t read In Cold Blood in awhile, you need to. No rating, but the highest recommendation.

Exposing Darwinism's Weakest Link: Why Evolution Can't Explain Human Existence

It's June 15th, time for the Non~FIRST blog tour!(Join our alliance! Click the button!) Every 15th, we will featuring an author and his/her latest non~fiction book's FIRST chapter!

The feature author is:

Kenneth Poppe

and his book:

Exposing Darwinism's Weakest Link: Why Evolution Can't Explain Human Existence

Harvest House Publishers (March 1, 2008)

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

A career biology instructor, Kenneth Poppe holds a doctorate in education and taught in secondary schools for more than 25 years. He is now senior consultant with the International Foundation for Science Education by Design (www.ifsed.org). In addition to working in teacher education and assisting in DNA research of stream ecology, he has authored Reclaiming Science from Darwinism.

Product Details:

List Price: $14.99
Paperback: 304 pages
Publisher: Harvest House Publishers (March 1, 2008)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0736921257
ISBN-13: 978-0736921251

AND NOW...THE FIRST CHAPTER:

The majority is not trying to establish a religion or to teach it—it is trying to protect itself from the effort of an insolent minority to force irreligion upon the children under the guise of teaching science.

—WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN


BRYAN WAS THE ATTORNEY FOR THE PROSECUTION AT THE 1925 “SCOPES MONKEY TRIAL” IN DAYTON, TENNESSEE THAT MADE EVOLUTION A HOUSEHOLD TERM. THE ABOVE WORDS ARE FROM HIS
WRITTEN CLOSING STATEMENT, WHICH WAS NEVER READ IN COURT.

1

EXAMINING YOUR FAMILY TREE

A Monkey for an Uncle?

Consider your biological father. He is responsible for half of the genetic codes that shaped your body, and probably some of your personality as well. Now consider his father, your grandfather. If typical, I would guess at least a couple of your body traits are more grandpa’s than dad’s—having somehow skipped a generation. And how about your great-grandfather? Were you lucky enough to know him, even if just like me, through those vague and shifting memories as a very
small boy? Dare I throw in a great-great-grandfather—in my case known only through legend and those grainy black-and-white photos of a roughly dressed man beside a horse and buggy?

Consider that when your great-great-grandfather was your age, for surely he once was, he could try to reconstruct his lineage just as you have done. What names and faces would he have recalled? And if you could piece great-great-granddad’s and your recollections together, that would create a timeline taking you back eight generations—perhaps 250 years or so! Where would you find your ancestors then? In my case, I’m told, the Hamburg, Germany, area. And would my ancestors then be traced to the nomadic Gaelic stock that inhabited Western Europe before formal countries were established there? And then to where? Ancient Phoenicians, Sumerians, Egyptians? And how about yours?

Now to get to the main point. If you kept traveling back in time in this manner, generation after generation, where would you end up? Where would your dad’s ancestors have been living 1000 years ago? 2500 to 5000 years ago? And so on? Those who believe in strict Darwinism would say an extended family schematic would show your ancestors going back several million years ago where they first evolved on the African continent. And on this reverse journey you would see slowly reappearing total body hair, steadily shrinking brains, increasingly sloping foreheads and jaw protrusions, and extending arms whose knuckles would eventually be dragging the ground, assisting a clumsy, bent-over gait. In other words, strict evolutionists say if you could backtrack your family tree for, say, 5 million years, your ancestors would now be closer in appearance to a chimp than a human. And if you continued farther back in time, the coccyx bone at the bottom of your pelvis would extend into a prehensile tail, and the reappearing grasping toes on your feet would send you back to swinging in the trees from whence you came some 10 to 15 million years ago.

Stop and ponder your supposed family tree in this way—a videotape in rewind. Is this really how it went down? Did humans come from monkeys? (Often a Darwinist will answer no to this question by saying it wasn’t a direct path of evolution. But monkeys have to be on the path before apes, right? And apes would have to be on the path before humanoids, right? So it most absolutely is, in theory, “monkey to man”—no matter how crooked the line.) Now if this isn’t the truth, what’s the alternative? Unless you consult primitive worship superstitions, I’ve stated before that the world’s five major religions give you one origin—Genesis—and it includes a tantalizing tale of an innocent man Adam and his companion woman, Eve, in a pristine garden. But for so many, that’s a fairy tale of bigger proportions than monkeys becoming humans. So what is the truth?

Here’s my response. Regardless of which religious view(s) might supply the answer(s), I will stand firmly on this:

There is absolutely no scientific support for the
monkey-to-man scenario—absolutely none.

On the contrary, science, and even philosophy, validate the title of this book and its overriding message as stated a few pages ago.

Either-Or

If there is an alternative answer to the totally unscientific view that monkeys slowly turned into people, ostensibly it is one of the religious variety. But before we tackle the idea, let me first share the concept I find continually bubbling up from the origins cauldron: Almost every major issue concludes with just two choices—either it could have happened this way, or it couldn’t. So grab a writing instrument and check your choice of one of two for each of the ten statements below.

It Could It Couldn’t
Happen Happen

_______ ______ 1. The most violent accidental explosion ever, the big bang, was sufficiently self-appointed to create the largest and most fine-tuned object ever known, the universe.

_______ ______ 2. The sheer number of planets in the universe, and the number of years these planets have existed, give us a mathematical chance that at least one would become a fully interactive biological world—ours—by accident.

_______ ______ 3. Blind luck had the ability to construct the approximately 80,000 different life-required protein chains of specifically sequenced amino acids (from an “alphabet” of 20 different amino-acid choices)—even those proteins 10,000 amino acids long.

_______ ______ 4. The RNA/DNA molecules, containing information equivalent to all the books in 20 standard libraries, suddenly appeared by chance in the “primordial soup” before the first cell was a reality.

_______ ______ 5. Almost as soon as Earth’s conditions permitted, a functional cell appeared, selfprepared with a wide array of metabolizing and reproductive mechanisms.

_______ ______ 6. A half billion years ago, in the blink of an evolutionary eye, the Cambrian explosion self-generated the completely interactive gene pool of all 32 animal phyla with complex organ systems. Once complex life didn’t exist, then it was all there.

_______ ______ 7. After the Cambrian explosion, random scramblings of genetic information kept producing improved genetic codes. This allowed life to surge forward as animals kept giving rise to improved offspring with which, suddenly
or eventually, they could not mate.

_______ ______ 8. These accidental genetic surges adequately explain a whole host of large-scale advances— for example, straight bones in fins turning into jointed bones in legs, reptile scales turning into bird feathers, photosensitive cells turning into eyes, births from amniotic eggs turning into births from a placenta, and chordates like cows or hippos going back into the ocean to become whales.

_______ ______ 9. While animals randomly surged forward within 32 phyla from sponges to mammals, plants accomplished a similar advance in complexity from moss to cacti, but did it in only 8 steps, often called divisions instead of phyla.

And central to this book:

_______ ______ 10. Primates like monkeys left the trees and kept getting bigger, stronger, and smarter. About 5 million years of natural selection was sufficient time for hominids to adapt to walking on their hind legs, learn to use tools,
fashion clothes to wear, master fire, develop first spoken and then written communication, and finally organize societies in cave homes among maple groves that eventually became cottage homes on Maple Street.

So how did you score on this checklist? The two most extreme scores would be to have all ten checks in the right column of “it couldn’t happen”—like me—or all ten checks on the left column of “it could happen.” Of course, you realize that one single check in the right column dooms Darwinism to immediate failure. All it takes is one legitimate “couldn’t” check in this either-or set-up and natural evolution has no chance to produce me the writer, or you the reader. If you can, actually imagine trying to agree with all ten statements as checked on the left, and I’ll wager you’ll feel the full weight of the folly of “self-made” life. Therefore, if you find evolution insufficient in even one instance, you need to consider a bigger-than-science connection— unless, of course, you want to remain apathetic. So, if evolution or apathy is not the answer, I suggest you begin a quest to come to grips with the “God” who engineered this miracle.

Rejecting statement #10 above reflects this chapter’s opening rejection of the idea that all our ancestral lines slowly become more stooped and stupider as we observe the reverse of totally natural processes. If the world generally rejected that notion and stood on the “God alternative” with confidence, it would dramatically change the debate on the other nine statements. And yet if monkeys are not our uncles then how do you explain human origin? How do you explain the master plan of God the Designer?