James Cameron’s film about the “Tomb of Jesus” has caused an uproar among the “faithful.”
Christians who claim their faith is based on history, like J. Hankins of Bob Jones University, say even investigating a tomb that may contain the remains of Jesus is to “travel down a dangerous road.”
Weird. One would think those who put faith in historical accounts would welcome learning more through archeology, not deny it.
Of course, the usual players in various denominations deny without investigation any possibility that the tomb might contain the remains of Jesus, likening the tomb’s discovery by moviemaker Cameron to “The Da Vinci Code” and the Judas Gospel.
More Christians should learn of the richness of their faith, especially the early teachings in the century after Christ died, and the many gospels repressed at that time.
The version of Christianity that has come down to us is not the full meal. Read up on the Gnostic traditions. How our Bible came to be is a fascinating story in itself.
We don’t know if Cameron found the tomb of Jesus. We don’t know how anyone could ever be sure, since DNA testing is probably not an option. The whole discovery may be hype, a sales pitch, an exploitation. It would not be the first in the name of god, even by the “godly.”
But we disagree with those who say that this can not be, should not be, must not be, who have no excitement about the potential of the discovery.
We can even pity the Rev. Rob Schenk, president of the National Clergy Council, who said “The resurrection is at the core of the faith. It’s the bedrock of my understanding of Christianity,” he says. “Without it I’m left with an empty philosophy, which could be traded for any other philosophy.”
We submit that the Rev. Schenk’s faith is already empty, that he plants “trees without fruit, in my name, in a shameful manner..." He is welcome to his beliefs, but there are others who also have rights to the claim of being “Christian.”
For many the power of Christ is not in the immaculate conception or the resurrection, it is in the power of great words heard past and present, warnings to the greedy, arrogant, and cruel, solace for the humble, for seekers of a better life and understanding.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Lies, damn lies, and politics
In a story in The Oregonian this morning, written by Don Colburn, there was nice exposure of lies greased into the public debate by Maribeth Healey, executive director of the union-backed Oregonians for Health Security.
Ms. Healey did acknowledge that her job includes helping "witnesses" in the debate on health care to develop their testimony.
One of those witnesses, Sarah Bacon of Medford, testified via speakerphone to lawmakers that her daughter Molly died for lack of health coverage, from a virus that would have been discovered if only Molly had had insurance.
Except Molly was living in Palm Desert California at the time. Except Molly probably died of bleeding in the brain caused by head trauma. A boyfriend was charged and acquitted.
In politics, it doesn't matter if we lie, if our cause is just. Thank you, Ms. Healey of the union-backed Oregonians for Health Security.
Ms. Healey did acknowledge that her job includes helping "witnesses" in the debate on health care to develop their testimony.
One of those witnesses, Sarah Bacon of Medford, testified via speakerphone to lawmakers that her daughter Molly died for lack of health coverage, from a virus that would have been discovered if only Molly had had insurance.
Except Molly was living in Palm Desert California at the time. Except Molly probably died of bleeding in the brain caused by head trauma. A boyfriend was charged and acquitted.
In politics, it doesn't matter if we lie, if our cause is just. Thank you, Ms. Healey of the union-backed Oregonians for Health Security.
Failure of leadership
If governance wasn't so important, the circus in Salem would be laughable. But it is, so it's not.
Democrats and Republicans could not agree yesterday on putting money aside for a "rainy day fund." This story in The Oregonian, by Betsy Hammond, explained that Republicans killed a bill that was supported by most of the major business groups in this state.
Follow the money, Betsy. Democrats say that Republican Wayne Scott of Canby tried to slide a capital gains tax break into the rainy day fund legislation. Now, Wayne Scott owns many millions of dollars of real estate. He is not one to be dealing impartially with these issues.
Scott says Democrats never talked to him. We'll let others decide who they believe on this one, but it is very odd that Republicans turned their back on legislation favored by most of the major business groups in this state.
What should have been a pretty straightforward operation of leadership and legislating will now go to the people as a ballot measure, there to face heavy anti-tax advertising paid for by Howard Rich out of New York.
Thank you, Oregon Legislature, for failing the people. If we are going to legislate by ballot measure, you can just go home. Leave your pay check, perks and honor at the door.
Democrats and Republicans could not agree yesterday on putting money aside for a "rainy day fund." This story in The Oregonian, by Betsy Hammond, explained that Republicans killed a bill that was supported by most of the major business groups in this state.
Follow the money, Betsy. Democrats say that Republican Wayne Scott of Canby tried to slide a capital gains tax break into the rainy day fund legislation. Now, Wayne Scott owns many millions of dollars of real estate. He is not one to be dealing impartially with these issues.
Scott says Democrats never talked to him. We'll let others decide who they believe on this one, but it is very odd that Republicans turned their back on legislation favored by most of the major business groups in this state.
What should have been a pretty straightforward operation of leadership and legislating will now go to the people as a ballot measure, there to face heavy anti-tax advertising paid for by Howard Rich out of New York.
Thank you, Oregon Legislature, for failing the people. If we are going to legislate by ballot measure, you can just go home. Leave your pay check, perks and honor at the door.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Housing, health care and the minimum wage
Now that Democrats are back in control of government in Oregon, we are seeing a resurgence of the “liberal agenda.” It’s too bad the right squandered their time in power on meaningless rhetoric about life, death and god that twisted their historical advocacy of liberty and responsibility.
Recent news reports describe efforts to create affordable housing, secure a “living” wage and provide health care.
We favor universal health care: it makes sense socially, economically, morally. Sen. Ben Westlund’s plan is the best, by far. It’s sustainable, it’s attainable. Kulongoski and Kitzhaber need to support it.
We do not feel the same about “living wage” and “affordable” housing. These are different from health care for many reasons, the primary one being an element of choice. We can agree, possibly even in strident times, that the woman down the street did not make a choice to get ovarian cancer, her son did not choose to break his leg.
Universal health care is just insurance, folks. We want our neighbors insured because we will be picking up the bill in any case. We don’t have the same incentive for their housing, or their wage.
As a janitor making the minimum wage, Elvira may have a problem with housing, or with her income. She may or may not be able to get a better job. But I am not paying that price with her. I am not making her choices for her. We may want to do a number of things for Elvira individually. Improve her education, help her with a job search, repair her car, maybe even get her a better place to live.
But passing misdirected laws for a higher wage for all janitors will not help the group of Elviras over the long run.
The trap here is a subtle change of scale, from looking at the problems of individuals, then crafting solutions for an entire “class.” Such laws will give all the Elviras a short shot of cash, good for them, bad for those who give them the cash, an income shift.
If consumers resist giving up their income, some Elviras will actually lose their jobs, replaced by new robotic floor polishers.
If consumers can not resist, they will use whatever power they have to charge Elvira more for the burgers or the tires she buys from them. That will eat the wage increase Elvira received.
Differences are good. They create the dynamic of society. Most of us don’t want the hard life of Elvira and will do what we can to avoid it. We will create value in our skill set, will try to learn a new job. Or we won’t, will sit watching reality TV and slurp a Big Gulp. We will make a choice.
The same is true about “affordable housing.” It is horrible to see the conditions some of our neighbors occupy. But the solution often lies with them, not society. To try to change that for all may have a short term benefit, but it often comes at a greater, hidden cost.
This is hard to see and hard to accept. It is difficult to believe that we can’t wave a wand and change the laws of economics, since those laws are concerned with human behavior and we like to believe that as humans, we can change our behavior. That is probably true on an individual scale.
But just as human behavior on the freeway can be described by the laws of fluid dynamics, the laws of economics are really the laws of scarcity and change.
There are sub issues that need to be addressed: true homelessness, mental illness, worker safety. There is a role for government, which brings social values to the marketplace.
But the left needs to focus on what can be done, what really needs to be done, that which will truly improve the lot of the helpless. If government resources are limited, and they are, we need to focus on opportunity, not on safety nets.
Overreaching will earn the left just what it earned the religious right: failure and being pushed to the margins.
Recent news reports describe efforts to create affordable housing, secure a “living” wage and provide health care.
We favor universal health care: it makes sense socially, economically, morally. Sen. Ben Westlund’s plan is the best, by far. It’s sustainable, it’s attainable. Kulongoski and Kitzhaber need to support it.
We do not feel the same about “living wage” and “affordable” housing. These are different from health care for many reasons, the primary one being an element of choice. We can agree, possibly even in strident times, that the woman down the street did not make a choice to get ovarian cancer, her son did not choose to break his leg.
Universal health care is just insurance, folks. We want our neighbors insured because we will be picking up the bill in any case. We don’t have the same incentive for their housing, or their wage.
As a janitor making the minimum wage, Elvira may have a problem with housing, or with her income. She may or may not be able to get a better job. But I am not paying that price with her. I am not making her choices for her. We may want to do a number of things for Elvira individually. Improve her education, help her with a job search, repair her car, maybe even get her a better place to live.
But passing misdirected laws for a higher wage for all janitors will not help the group of Elviras over the long run.
The trap here is a subtle change of scale, from looking at the problems of individuals, then crafting solutions for an entire “class.” Such laws will give all the Elviras a short shot of cash, good for them, bad for those who give them the cash, an income shift.
If consumers resist giving up their income, some Elviras will actually lose their jobs, replaced by new robotic floor polishers.
If consumers can not resist, they will use whatever power they have to charge Elvira more for the burgers or the tires she buys from them. That will eat the wage increase Elvira received.
Differences are good. They create the dynamic of society. Most of us don’t want the hard life of Elvira and will do what we can to avoid it. We will create value in our skill set, will try to learn a new job. Or we won’t, will sit watching reality TV and slurp a Big Gulp. We will make a choice.
The same is true about “affordable housing.” It is horrible to see the conditions some of our neighbors occupy. But the solution often lies with them, not society. To try to change that for all may have a short term benefit, but it often comes at a greater, hidden cost.
This is hard to see and hard to accept. It is difficult to believe that we can’t wave a wand and change the laws of economics, since those laws are concerned with human behavior and we like to believe that as humans, we can change our behavior. That is probably true on an individual scale.
But just as human behavior on the freeway can be described by the laws of fluid dynamics, the laws of economics are really the laws of scarcity and change.
There are sub issues that need to be addressed: true homelessness, mental illness, worker safety. There is a role for government, which brings social values to the marketplace.
But the left needs to focus on what can be done, what really needs to be done, that which will truly improve the lot of the helpless. If government resources are limited, and they are, we need to focus on opportunity, not on safety nets.
Overreaching will earn the left just what it earned the religious right: failure and being pushed to the margins.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Oregon sales to China
Great story in this morning’s Oregonian, by Richard Read, about the increase in sales from Oregon companies to China.
The story outlined a nearly perfect example of why free trade works, why the law of comparative advantage proves that trade benefits all trading partners, raises the standard of living in each trading center.
Closing borders or raising barriers to trade is bigoted and ignorant. Sales from Intel, Mentor Graphics and Williams Controls to Asia are nearly a textbook case of how trade benefits each region. China, Viet Nam, South Korea are now rich enough to buy our products. They got that rich by selling us their products, using their cheap labor to upgrade their economies, just like the U.S. did in the last century.
Some laws of economics are like Newton’s laws of motion, and we are far better off understanding and working within their constraints than following knee jerk rhetoric which says we need to protect workers in industries that need to move elsewhere.
The left will point to jobs lost. And though some would say this is the price of progress and refer to jobs lost in the typewriter industry, we are not so callous. There is a place for government, and we need to constantly improve education, provide safety nets and attempt to mitigate tragedy. Act like good neighbors through government action.
But that is not done by attempting to withstand the movement of trade, of computer controls to China or Chinese T-shirts to Wal -Mart. The growing middle class in Asia is a very good thing, trade makes war less likely, it improves lives in China and America, and is the future.
The ascendant left needs to embrace these changes, not resort to polemic of the 1940’s or worse, that which prededed 1929.
The story outlined a nearly perfect example of why free trade works, why the law of comparative advantage proves that trade benefits all trading partners, raises the standard of living in each trading center.
Closing borders or raising barriers to trade is bigoted and ignorant. Sales from Intel, Mentor Graphics and Williams Controls to Asia are nearly a textbook case of how trade benefits each region. China, Viet Nam, South Korea are now rich enough to buy our products. They got that rich by selling us their products, using their cheap labor to upgrade their economies, just like the U.S. did in the last century.
Some laws of economics are like Newton’s laws of motion, and we are far better off understanding and working within their constraints than following knee jerk rhetoric which says we need to protect workers in industries that need to move elsewhere.
The left will point to jobs lost. And though some would say this is the price of progress and refer to jobs lost in the typewriter industry, we are not so callous. There is a place for government, and we need to constantly improve education, provide safety nets and attempt to mitigate tragedy. Act like good neighbors through government action.
But that is not done by attempting to withstand the movement of trade, of computer controls to China or Chinese T-shirts to Wal -Mart. The growing middle class in Asia is a very good thing, trade makes war less likely, it improves lives in China and America, and is the future.
The ascendant left needs to embrace these changes, not resort to polemic of the 1940’s or worse, that which prededed 1929.
Friday, February 2, 2007
"Pastor" goes to jail
It took all day on Friday, February 2, 2007, for the jury to come back with a verdict in the trial of “pastor” Shane Hall.
The victim’s family waited for seven hours outside the upstairs courtroom. Hall’s family waited somewhere else.
Everyone worried that the jury might not be able to decide the fate of Shane Hall this day, that deliberations might have to be taken up again after another weekend of waiting, with more time added to a process that began when Shane Hall came home on a Friday night in September 2005 and put his hand inside the clothes and touched inside the body of the 13 year-old baby sitter.
There was too much waiting in this case. It took too long for the girl to tell her parents, too long before parents told police, the trial lasted longer than lawyers thought when it began in January.
After 4 p.m., it was learned that a juror had accidentally erased a portion of taped evidence. It took more time to create another copy.
It was approaching 5 p.m. when word came back, “we have a verdict.”
As they had throughout the trial, Hall’s family assembled behind his seat on the left side of the courtroom. Hall and his new wife leaned against the wall, occasionally talking to Hall’s lawyer.
Family and friends of the victim sat on the right. The judge kept the front row empty. Deputies were posted against the walls.
In a clear, loud, voice, with authority, the judge advised everyone present that contempt carried a penalty, $500 and up to six months in jail, and that he would find anyone who interrupted the proceedings to be in contempt. He wanted order in his courtroom. Then he summoned the jury.
“Has the jury reached a verdict?” he asked.
“We have, your honor,” relied the foreman.
Shane Hall was told by the judge to stand. Families held hands on each side of the courtroom. And the judge read the verdict on all six counts against him.
Guilty. On every one. Five counts of Sex Abuse in the First Degree, one count of Unlawful Sexual Penetration. It was not unanimous. The jury returned the guilty verdict with 11 out of 12 jurors making the call.
There were tears from families on each side of the courtroom. Halls new wife sobbed. The victim’s mother cried softly.
The judged thanked the jury. Hall’s lawyer asked that his client be allowed to remain free until he was sentenced later in the month of February.
The answer took a very short bit of time. Looking down from the bench at Shane Hall, the judge said, “Remanded to custody and held without bail.”
Shane Hall went to jail.
The victim’s family waited for seven hours outside the upstairs courtroom. Hall’s family waited somewhere else.
Everyone worried that the jury might not be able to decide the fate of Shane Hall this day, that deliberations might have to be taken up again after another weekend of waiting, with more time added to a process that began when Shane Hall came home on a Friday night in September 2005 and put his hand inside the clothes and touched inside the body of the 13 year-old baby sitter.
There was too much waiting in this case. It took too long for the girl to tell her parents, too long before parents told police, the trial lasted longer than lawyers thought when it began in January.
After 4 p.m., it was learned that a juror had accidentally erased a portion of taped evidence. It took more time to create another copy.
It was approaching 5 p.m. when word came back, “we have a verdict.”
As they had throughout the trial, Hall’s family assembled behind his seat on the left side of the courtroom. Hall and his new wife leaned against the wall, occasionally talking to Hall’s lawyer.
Family and friends of the victim sat on the right. The judge kept the front row empty. Deputies were posted against the walls.
In a clear, loud, voice, with authority, the judge advised everyone present that contempt carried a penalty, $500 and up to six months in jail, and that he would find anyone who interrupted the proceedings to be in contempt. He wanted order in his courtroom. Then he summoned the jury.
“Has the jury reached a verdict?” he asked.
“We have, your honor,” relied the foreman.
Shane Hall was told by the judge to stand. Families held hands on each side of the courtroom. And the judge read the verdict on all six counts against him.
Guilty. On every one. Five counts of Sex Abuse in the First Degree, one count of Unlawful Sexual Penetration. It was not unanimous. The jury returned the guilty verdict with 11 out of 12 jurors making the call.
There were tears from families on each side of the courtroom. Halls new wife sobbed. The victim’s mother cried softly.
The judged thanked the jury. Hall’s lawyer asked that his client be allowed to remain free until he was sentenced later in the month of February.
The answer took a very short bit of time. Looking down from the bench at Shane Hall, the judge said, “Remanded to custody and held without bail.”
Shane Hall went to jail.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)