Ah, Conscience! If only you were not so ever-present, then maybe I wouldn’t have as many compunctions about buying those lovely books. The books in question, in case any of you are wondering, are the Austen classics – yes, I know, I know, WHY? I’ve only recently gotten into reading classics, but it’s been wonderful, to say the least.

Jane Austen Classics - from http://www.tollhouse-bookshop.co.uk/uploaded_images/austen-738508.jpg

I am normally not one to resist the lure of blissfully thick books, but right now I’m on a self-imposed ban on buying books, clothes, shoes, and the like. After blowing a ridiculously huge amount on something I don’t want to admit is such a trivial thing (hee…gorgeous, strangely comfortable ankle booties, anyone?), I felt that it was only right.

That is, until I innocently strolled into a bookstore and caught sight of the ‘Classics’ section, and my traitor feet brought me straight to it, and my traitor eyes started drinking up all the titles, and my traitor mind urged me to throw the ban off a twentieth-floor window and just frigging buy the books. However, after about ten agonizing seconds of deliberation, Conscience decided to step in with her annoying-as-hell voice and remind me of my promise. Oh, for the love of…

Yours,
Ink

]]> http://vincentloy.wordpress.com/2009/11/30/beyond-the-realm-of-conscience-ended/ Mon, 30 Nov 2009 06:06:30 +0000 vincentloy http://vincentloy.wordpress.com/2009/11/30/beyond-the-realm-of-conscience-ended/

The highly-anticipated TVB anniversary series of year 2009, Beyond the Realm of Conscience (宮心計) finally ended last Sunday. I do not buy Astro on Demand package here in Malaysia, so I have to wait intensely for today to watch the last two episodes of the series.

My comment on it;

Thrilling

Exciting

Interesting

Fantastic

BEST!!!

Nothing more I can say, overall the plot is very nice, touching and unforgettable scenes, excellent actors and actresses, good directors, capable staff, fantastic theme songs, etc…no doubt that this series will win the TVB 42nd anniversary awards (Best Series Award), overwhelming Rosy Business. Honestly, Rosy Business is nice, but not as exciting as Beyond the Realm of Conscience.

One more thing, best actress should go to Tavia Yeung. Her performance especially in the last few episodes of the series are awesome, thrilling…her facial and eyes expression are super cool, and make you to love her evilness. This is the first time she acted as the villain (main villain somemore) and she portrayed the character well. Sheren Tang from Rosy Business might win the Most Favourite Female Character one. Great improvement and performance by Tavia.

Some screenshots showing the evilness of Tavia in the series:

Cool, isn’t it…what a fantastic series…this series recorded the highest ever TVB ratings, the final episodes achieved 46 rating points, peaking at 50, similar to Moonlight Resonance (TVB series) and Jewel In The Palace (non-TVB series). These three series share the same title of series with highest ranking points. Honestly, this time the series is aired in Malaysia and Brunei on the same time too (under Astro on Demand package), hence to be exact, this series has won it, if includes Malaysian and Brunei viewers.

Will TVB make this kind of exciting series again? Hope so…now waiting for 4th of December to watch the TVB 42nd anniversary awards, it would be a birthday present for me if Tavia win best actress, and this series win best series…since that day is exactly my birthday date too…so coincidence…

From Kansans for Life advisory board member, Cathy McDonnell:
If you are interested in signing the Manhattan Declaration, you can go to The Manhattan Declaration.  The Manhattan Declaration is a statement from a group of Catholic and Protestant leaders, as well as lay people, publicly supporting the dignity of life, the family and freedom of conscience.

You can read about the declaration at the site.  The gist is that Christians will not participate in ethical issues which go against their faith and –if need be– will practice civil disobedience.

The declaration is signed by many prominent Catholic leaders which include Roman Catholic Archbishops Joseph Naumann (KCK), Donald Wuerl (Washington D.C.) and Timothy Dolan (NYC), Bishop Charles Chaput (Denver) and many other bishops and clergy.

Many conservative evangelical leaders have signed the original statement, including James Dobson and Chuck Colson (who termed this the most important document he has ever signed!)

Other original signatories from Kansas include Antiochian Orthodox Christian Bishop Basil Essey of Wichita, and Senior Pastor Tom Nelson, of Christ Community Church in Leawood.

Study the Bible to show yourselves a true workman of God able to rightly divide the word of truth.  Remember, coveting is strictly against the Ten Commandments; and Jesus said, if you break the least of my commandments (which include the ten commandments) you are guilty of breaking them all.

The Gentile Christians are guilty of coveting the Jews.  In short, apply the teachings of good judgment and justice, as recorded in the Bible, and testified to by Jesus, and you shall be saved.

Now, if there be anyone else out there, that is struggling with Christianity, or Judaism, or right from wrong, or any other philosophy, or religion, and you feel you must understand more, then get in touch with us.  We will not demand you convert to anything, nor do anything, but if your spirit is searching for the truth, then you will know the truth when you hear it, because your conscience (who is Jesus the Holy spirit) will let you know it is the truth.

It then becomes your responsibility to the God who created you to accept that truth and reject whatever old idea is contrary to the truth and you shall be saved!  Even if the ideas in your head are part of the religion you inherited from birth.

And if anyone troubles you, pray to God, who is the avenger of all who call upon Him in their time of need.  Pray they would be saved also.  I will leave you Christians with this thought, whether you are a Jew or Gentile.

If you are moved toward hatred or disgust toward anyone who will not receive your religious message and believe they can only be saved by saying they believe in Jesus, then you had better realize that the spirit in you is different than the spirit who was in Jesus.  Then you need to focus on 2 Corinthians Chapter 11 verses 1 to 4, which explains how you got the wrong spirit.

Jesus was never angered or disgusted by the people who refused His message to believe in God; neither did Jesus wish them any harm when they nailed him to the cross; but He prayed to God for their sin to be forgiven.  In fact, His teachings were just the opposite.

Therefore, if you experience feelings to the contrary when your message is rejected, it is you who need the physician.  For Jesus said, the day will come when they will kill you and believe they do God a service, but I have not taught you such…

Remember what the Lord told Abraham: I will bless him that blesses you, and I will curse him that curses you.

Argus Joseph Thompson, insane, presents the following on MBS. Its veracity as well as its merit are, as always, subject to question.

On the tenth of November, S. B. Hemmingsford was arrested by the FBI. A 47-count indictment handed down by a New York Federal Grand Jury charged Hemmingsford and three Wall Street brokerage house executives with insider trading in the stock of General-O Dynamics and 14 of its subsidiaries. The New York Times reported that Hemmingsford and his three co-defendants had allegedly amassed illegal profits exceeding $3.5 billion. All four defendants were immediately released on their own bonds.

Although the government claimed Hemmingsford was a criminal, the government saw him as a special kind of criminal entitled to special privileges. If you’ve illegally hoarded large sums of money before being caught illegally hoarding more, the presumption exists that you are responsible and can be turned loose on your signature to await trial…while Leroy, who is penniless and homeless and who robbed the 7-11 for $23 to get a quick fix, has his bond set at a $100,000, which he; his twelve brothers and sisters; and all of their known spouses; offspring; current and discarded soul mates and their pushers; along with their friends on Twitter and Facebook collectively could not gather.

Crime is a sport reserved for the rich.

Persons of equal loot, moolah and scratch are equal—that’s what Jefferson should have written if he was going to be truthful about it, not that worn out aphorism that he dumped in the Constitution —All (not including women) men are created equal. But why should some wino whose total assets never exceeded half a bottle of cheap Tokay and a three-month growth of whiskers have the same rights as me?

I once knew a rich man who I thought wasn’t a criminal. He bought a second-hand mattress at Orville’s Store for the Homeless, and when he was looking for bedbug larvae he found where the mattress had been sewn up. When he cut it open he found $423. Since wealth is always comparative, compared to me, he is rich. I am not mentioning names because this man did not pay taxes on his windfall. Once more that proves the age-old truth that behind every great wealth is great crime.

Anyway, a few days after Hemmingsford was released he appeared with his lawyer, Rutherford P. Benyon, before the federal magistrate where he entered pleas of “Not guilty,” and “Not guilty by reason of insanity.”

The Times filed a follow-up story, the headline of which read:

HEMMINGSFORD ACCUSES TERRORISTS

An attorney for S. B. Hemmingsford, chairman of the board of General-O Dynamics, today claimed his client was the latest victim of the newly discovered personality disorder known as Moral Burnout Syndrome (MBS), a disease said to plague high-ranking corporate and public officials operating under extreme stress and recently described by the Nobel Prize winner, Solomon P. Goldberg.

Benyon said his client was a victim of MBS and has been in the acute throes of the disease since the recent attacks on his company’s logging operations by a radical environmental organization known as The Children. Benyon said Hemmingsford took The Children’s invasion of the company’s timber sale, where thousands of trees were spiked to prevent their harvest, as an assault levied against him personally. It was the classic “final stressor-straw,” a term invented by Goldberg to denote an identifiable last emotional trauma, which, when combined with prior stresses, at last pushes the victim into the disorder.

Benyon said, “The action of these terrorists was allegedly to save trees, but their true motivation was to shove my client over the edge into the full throes of Moral Burnout Syndrome.”

The Times’ cover story recorded the history of Goldberg’s discovery of MBS, a breakthrough lauded by social scientists as the long-sought connecting link between science and morality. In part the article read:

Already some experts are proclaiming Goldberg’s identification of the disease as a contribution to modern psychology comparable only to Freud’s The Ego and the Id. Goldberg discovered that wealthy or powerful self-made men approaching the summit of their careers often suddenly plummet into the gaping hole of moral decadence. At the time of the onset of the disease most of the victims have already achieved what Goldberg called “their three primary P’s—power, prestige and position, and their secondary P’s, their plethora of playthings—their Porsches, their private psychiatrists, their personal pushers and their sultan’s assortment of blond pubescents.”

In short, the victims have it all. Yet quite without warning, many inexplicably leap over the edge into a life of crime.

The Times writers observed that the victims’ crimes were pathetically unimaginative—common thefts, ordinary bribery, artless payoffs, embezzlements, even mundane murders for hire. They embezzled when they didn’t need the money and illegally manipulated the markets when they didn’t know what to do with the cash they already had.

The Goldberg article asked by its subtitle, “Is Moral Burnout a Crime?” A picture of the distinguished professor receiving the Nobel Prize from the Royal Caroline Medico-Chirurgical Institute in Sweden accompanied the lead story in which the Times writers, in their usual imperious style, traced the psychological progression of the disorder as described by Dr. Goldberg :

The archetypical MBS victim, the high- pressure executive, having existed under fire for years, is one day heard to begin screaming, “It’s war out there, man! War! Your competitors want to kill you. Your customers want to kill you. Your board of directors wants to kill you. Your employees want to kill you. And when you get home, the old lady wants to kill you. It’s war, and it’s hell!” The victim begins to complain of autonomic anal tightening and other vague symptoms that are often precursors of the disorder.

Goldberg likens the disease to a soldier in combat who, after suffering extreme stress from fear and physical exhaustion, gets a letter from home saying John Wayne, his hero, was the secret lover of Rock Hudson. It’s the “final stressor-straw” that pushes the soldier over the edge into post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

MBS is a disease in the full sense of the word, Goldberg claims. “We would never permit the criminal courts to punish our leaders for having suffered a heart attack. To the same extent we cannot allow our criminal justice system to deal with this subtle and complex syndrome.” When asked about his willingness to testify in Hemmingsford’s case, Dr. Goldberg said, “It will be my privilege to convince the jury that this man was not responsible for his crimes but was, instead, a helpless victim of the insidious side effects of MBS.”

Argus concluded his presentation on MBS by claiming that MBS was merely collateral damage in a system engaged in the eternal and holy wars of American capitalism.

I find his logic and his conclusions unsupported by fact or logic but fully in support of his claim that he is insane.

IV. – Rappelle-toi depuis combien de temps tu remets à plus tard et combien de fois, ayant reçu des Dieux des occasions de t’acquitter, tu ne les as pas mises à profit. Mais il faut enfin, dès maintenant, que tu sentes de quel monde tu fais partie, et de quel être, régisseur du monde, tu es une émanation, et qu’un temps limité te circonscrit. Si tu n’en profites pas, pour accéder à la sérénité, ce moment passera ; tu passeras aussi, et jamais plus il ne reviendra.

V. – A tout moment, songe avec gravité, en Romain et en mâle, à faire ce que tu as en mains, avec une stricte et simple dignité, avec amour, indépendance et justice, et à donner congé à toutes les autres pensées. Tu le leur donneras, si tu accomplis chaque action comme étant la dernière de ta vie, la tenant à l’écart de toute irréflexion, de toute aversion passionnée qui t’arracherait à l’empire de la raison, de toute feinte, de tout égoïsme et de tout ressentiment à l’égard du destin. Tu vois combien sont peu nombreux les préceptes dont il faut se rendre maître pour pouvoir vivre d’une vie paisible et passée dans la crainte des Dieux, car les Dieux ne réclameront rien de plus à qui les observe.

VI. – Injurie-toi, injurie-toi, ô mon âme ! Tu n’auras plus l’occasion de t’honorer toi-même. Brève, en effet, est la vie pour chacun. La tienne est presque achevée, et tu n’as pas de respect pour toi-même, car tu mets ton bonheur dans les âmes des autres.

VII. – Les accidents du dehors te distraient-ils ? Donne-toi le loisir d’apprendre quelque bonne vérité, et cesse de te laisser emporter par le tourbillon. Évite aussi désormais cet autre égarement. Insensés, en effet, sont ceux qui, à force d’agir, sont fatigués par la vie, et n’ont pas un but où diriger tout leur élan et, tout à la fois, leur pensée tout entière.

I. – Dès l’aurore, dis-toi par avance : « Je rencontrerai un indiscret, un ingrat, un insolent, un fourbe, un envieux, un insociable. Tous ces défauts sont arrivés à ces hommes par leur ignorance des biens et des maux. Pour moi, ayant jugé que la nature du bien est le beau, que celle du mal est le laid, et que la nature du coupable lui-même est d’être mon parent, non par la communauté du sang ou d’une même semence, mais par celle de l’intelligence et d’une même parcelle de la divinité, je ne puis éprouver du dommage de la part d’aucun d’eux, car aucun d’eux ne peut me couvrir de laideur. Je ne puis pas non plus m’irriter contre un parent, ni le prendre en haine, car nous sommes nés pour coopérer, comme les pieds, les mains, les paupières, les deux rangées de dents, celle d’en haut et celle d’en bas. Se comporter en adversaires les uns des autres est donc contre nature, et c’est agir en adversaire que de témoigner de l’animosité et de l’aversion. »

II. – Tout ce que je suis, c’est une chair, avec un souffle et un principe directeur. Renonce aux livres ; ne te laisse pas absorber : ce ne t’est point permis. Mais, comme un homme déjà en passe de mourir, méprise la chair : sang et poussière, petits os, tissu léger de nerfs et entrelacement de veines et d’artères. Examine aussi ce qu’est le souffle : du vent qui n’est pas toujours le même car à tout moment tu le rends pour en avaler d’autre. Il te reste, en troisième lieu, le principe directeur. Pense à ceci : tu es vieux ; ne permets plus qu’il soit esclave, qu’il soit encore comme tiré par les fils d’une égoïste impulsion, ni qu’il s’aigrisse contre son sort actuel, ou bien qu’il appréhende celui qui doit Venir.

III. -Les œuvres des Dieux sont pleines de providence ; celles de la Fortune ne se font pas sans la nature ou sans être filées et tissées avec les événements que dirige la Providence. Tout découle de là. De plus, tout ce qui arrive est nécessaire et utile au monde universel, dont tu fais partie. Aussi, pour toute partie de la nature, le bien est-il ce que comporte la nature universelle et ce qui est propre à sa conservation. Or, ce qui conserve le monde, ce sont les transformations des éléments, aussi bien que celles de leurs combinaisons. Que cela te suffise et te serve de principes. Quant à ta soif de livres, rejette-la, afin de ne pas mourir en murmurant, mais véritablement apaisé et le cœur plein de gratitude envers les Dieux.

L’éthique

L’éthique stoïcienne est en accord avec cette physique.

Nous connaissons plusieurs divisions de l’éthique stoïcienne :

« [Ils] divisent la partie éthique de la philosophie en plusieurs lieux : de l’impulsion, des biens et des maux, des passions, de la vertu, de la fin, de la valeur première et des actions, des fonctions propres, de ce qu’il faut conseiller et ce qu’il faut déconseiller. » (Diogène Laërce, VII, 84).

Diogène indique que cette division n’appartient pas au stoïcisme le plus ancien (Zénon de Kition et Cléanthe qui en ont traité, selon lui, de manière plus simple), mais à Chrysippe, Apollodore, Posidonios, etc. Sénèque (Lettres, 89, 14) nous apprend une tripartition de l’éthique stoïcienne :

« [...] vient en premier la valeur que tu attribues à chaque chose, en second l’impulsion, ordonnée et mesurée, que tu as vers les choses, en troisième la réalisation d’une convenance entre ton impulsion et ton acte, de façon qu’en toutes ces occasions tu sois en accord avec toi-même. »

Épictète indique trois sujets de l’éthique (Entretiens, III, 2), mais qui se rapportent aux exercices que l’on doit suivre pour devenir homme de bien :

• les désirs et les aversions : ne pas manquer ce que l’on désire, ne pas tomber sur l’objet de l’aversion ;
• les impulsions et les répulsions, i.e. ce qui concerne la fonction propre (agir avec ordre, raisonnablement et sans négligence) ;
• éviter l’erreur et la précipitation, i.e. ce qui concerne l’assentiment.

Les fonctions propres

L’expression fonction propre traduit le grec kathèkon, qui signifie « convenable », « devoir » (officium en latin). Ce mot a été utilisé pour la première fois en ce sens par Zénon, vraisemblablement dans un ouvrage nommé De la fonction propre (Diogène Laërce, VII 107). Selon Diogène, ce terme est dérivé de kata tinas hêkein, « convenir à certains » ; il définit la fonction propre comme une activité qui est appropriée aux constitutions conformes à la nature (Ibid.). Cette notion est le fondement de l’éthique stoïcienne ; en effet :

« Archédème disait que la fin consiste à vivre en amenant les fonctions propres à leur perfection. » (Diogène Laërce, VII, 88).

Stobée (II, 85, 13 – 86) donne cette définition de la fonction propre :

« La conséquentialité dans la vie, quelque chose qui, une fois qu’il a été accompli, a une justification raisonnable. »

Les fonctions propres s’appliquent aux plantes, aux animaux comme aux hommes. Les Stoïciens distinguent deux types de fonctions propres, celles qui sont parfaites, et celles qui sont intermédiaires.

Cicéron, dans Des termes extrêmes des biens et des maux (III), nous livre une analyse détaillée de cette notion par la bouche de Caton. Nous aimons les premiers objets qui sont appropriés par nature ; ainsi préférons-nous que les parties de notre corps soient bien disposées et entières plutôt qu’affaiblies et déformées. Nous savons donc de manière spontanée distinguer ce qui est conforme à la nature de ce qui lui est contraire : le premier penchant de l’homme le porte vers les choses qui sont conformes à la nature. De là, cette distinction : ce qui a de la valeur est en accord avec la nature et, pour cette raison, est digne d’être sélectionné. Le contraire est dépourvu de valeur et doit être rejeté.

La première des fonctions propres est de nous conserver nous-mêmes. Ainsi notre corps se développe-t-il en appropriant ses propres facultés.

Le bien

Les premiers biens sont la santé, le bien-être et tout ce qui peut nous être utile. Mais ce ne sont pas des biens au sens absolu. Le bien absolu se suffit à lui-même, il est le suprêmement utile. Il est découvert rationnellement par notre assentiment spontané à nos inclinations. Et c’est en considérant la nature universelle, en saisissant la volonté de la nature totale à se conserver que l’on comprend le bien comme raison universelle.

La vertu

Pour les Stoïciens, vertu et bien sont identiques. La vertu est désirable pour elle-même et est parfaite : elle est donc atteinte d’un coup, d’une manière complète, i. e. avec toutes ses parties. Ses parties sont, selon Zénon de Citium, des aspects d’une vertu fondamentale, la prudence. Qui a une vertu, les a toutes.

Les passions

Mais les inclinations naturelles se pervertissent, sous l’influence du milieu social, et troublent l’âme : ce sont les passions. Pourtant, si l’âme est rationnelle, toute inclination n’est possible que si elle reçoit l’assentiment de la raison. Comment expliquer les passions ? La passion est une raison irrationnelle, un jugement qui nous dépossède de notre maîtrise : l’habitude et l’éducation nous persuadent par exemple que toute douleur est un mal. Mais ressentir la douleur physique et en éprouver de la peine (mal moral) sont deux choses différentes. Ainsi le stoïcisme montre que les passions sont de mauvaises raisons de croire. L’opposition radicale entre raison et passions qu’on lui attribue n’est donc pas exacte : si les passions sont mauvaises, ce n’est pas en tant qu’elles sont différentes par nature de la raison, mais parce qu’elles sont plutôt des raisons égarées ; à l’inverse, la raison peut-être vue comme une passion droite.

Finalité de l’éthique

La morale stoïcienne peut donc se résumer ainsi :

• le fondement de la vie morale, c’est la vie des instincts, qui nous font agir suivant l’utile ;
• la fin de cette morale, c’est de vivre par des choix conformes à la raison universelle : vivre en suivant la nature, puisque tout arrive par la raison universelle.

Le sage

Article détaillé : sage.

À partir de là, les Stoïciens définissent un modèle parfait de conduite, incarné par le sage :

• le sage choisit ce qui est conforme à la nature ;
• il accomplit un devoir parfait ; i. e. il accomplit sa fonction propre ;
• le sage est parfait en toute chose ;
• tous les autres hommes sont des insensés (stulti en latin)

Il n’y a pas de nuance entre la perfection du sage et le caractère insensé de la vie de tous les hommes. On peut donc dire que le stoïcisme recherche une transformation de l’homme dans sa totalité : un homme purement rationnel, non pas parce que ses passions seraient éteintes, mais parce qu’elles seraient elles-mêmes raison.

La politique

Marc Aurèle

Dans la section sur les divisions de la philosophie, nous avons vu que Cléanthe faisait de la politique une division à part entière de la philosophie. Nous savons également que Zénon de Kition écrivit un livre sur la République particulièrement célèbre et admiré dans l’Antiquité. Plutarque nous en donne une idée par la description du but visé dans cet ouvrage perdu :

« La République, ouvrage très admiré de Zénon, tend à ce point principal unique, que nous ne devrions pas vivre répartis en cités ni en peuples, chacun défini par ses propres critères de la justice, mais que nous devrions considérer tous les hommes comme des compatriotes et des concitoyens, et qu’il y ait un mode de vie et un monde uniques, comme pour un troupeau nourri ensemble dans le même pâturage sous une loi commune. Zénon a écrit cela comme s’il avait brossé le tableau d’un songe ou d’une image représentant une bonne législation et une république philosophiques. » (De la fortune d’Alexandre, 329 A – B).

Influence du stoïcisme

L’influence du stoïcisme sur les cultures grecque et romaine est considérable, rares furent les penseurs antiques à ne pas critiquer cette doctrine.

Cette influence continua même après la conversion de l’Occident au christianisme, certains monastères ayant ainsi érigé le manuel d’Épictète, quelque peu modifié, en règles intérieures.

Le stoïcisme se perpétua aussi à travers des philosophes français tels Descartes, qui déclara que « il vaut mieux changer ses désirs plutôt que l’ordre du monde »^[15], Pascal et, plus proche de nous, Émile Bréhier.

Principales périodes du stoïcisme

• Ancien stoïcisme (Zénon de Kition, le fondateur, Cléanthe, Chrysippe, …)
• Moyen stoïcisme (Panétius, Posidonius…)
• Stoïcisme impérial (Sénèque, Epictète, Marc Aurèle, …)

Massive consumerism dressed up as good will and genuine affection pulled out of the Black Friday haze yesterday. Once-a-year feedings from guilt-ridden citizens who need to get in their last minute good deeds of the year before the accounting is closed showed up as well.  Fake Santas with fake stories about quasi-idols rolled out into the streets, too.  The pagan-rooted folk tales co-mingled with intense commercialism make for a bitter seasonal soup. As believers, it’s a bit too easy to poke fun at the holidays.

So what should we think about it all?  Should we become isolated purists who refuse to emerge from our Keebler tree until everyone practices things according to our regulations? Should we just ignore all the hype and boycott everything?  Should we rebuke anyone who dare put up a Druid-inspired evergreen with all the fancies? Scrooge certainly would approve.

I think a simple solution is found in our liberty under Christ. While we should never go against our conscience in matters of practice (1Timothy 1:5) nor should we attempt to bind others by our own, as Paul wrote to the Corinthians, “… why is my freedom judged by another’s conscience? If I partake with thankfulness, why am I slandered concerning that for which I give thanks?” (1Cor. 10:29b-30)

It is completely possible to participate in our cultural holiday festivities without being trapped in consumerism. One can put up holiday decorations without bowing to them and we can certainly sing songs about reindeers and elves as part of the ‘being all things to all people’ without automatically worshipping mini-gods and animals.

In fact, as one who did refrain from holiday practices for almost five years, I can say that taking such an extreme view of non-participation actually does more harm for the cause of Christ than it helps. Let me explain.

Because I adamantly refused anything to do with Christmas, I was constantly being looked at as if I were some cultist or Jehovah’s Witness. Why, in their mind, would my protest of ‘CHRIST’mas, somehow make me a better Christian? My boycott had the opposite result. Piety fail.

The same effect was felt regarding my family and friends. Not one single ear was open to my attempted adherence to a more faithful life.  In fact, being so tightly wound up only made me angry and mostly useless. I know that one can adhere to abstaining from holiday participation and not be angry all the time, but I have rarely seen it. No one wanted to talk to me about anything biblical, let alone listen to the gospel. I wasn’t preaching it either.

We should be in the world, just not of the world. Openly embracing the cultural holiday within the limits of moderation will present far more genuine opportunities to win someone to Christ then choosing to stay home or show up with a grimace.

Take advantage of the common grace given to us during this holiday season. Rejoice in the birth of Christ! Show your love to family and friends and enemies alike! Preach the truth in season.

Pollock, Number One (1948)

« Nous ne pouvons découvrir qu’en autrui comment dispose de nous l’exubérance légère des choses. A peine saisissons-nous la vanité de notre opposition que nous sommes emportés par le mouvement ; il suffit que nous cessions de nous opposer, nous communiquons avec le monde illimité des rieurs. Mais nous communiquons sans angoisse, pleins de joie, imaginant ne pas donner prise nous-mêmes au mouvement qui disposera pourtant de nous, quelque jour, avec une rigueur définitive.

« Sans nul doute, le rieur est lui-même risible et, dans le sens profond, plus que sa victime, mais il importe peu qu’une faible erreur – un glissement – déverse la joie au royaume du rire. Ce qui rejette les hommes de leur isolement vide et les mêle aux mouvements illimités – par quoi ils communiquent entre eux, précipités avec bruit l’un vers l’autre comme les flots – ne pourrait être que la mort si l’horreur de ce moi qui s’est replié sur lui-même était poussée à des conséquences logiques. La conscience d’une réalité extérieure – tumultueuse et déchirante – qui naît dans les replis de la conscience de soi – demande à l’homme d’apercevoir la vanité de ces replis – de les « savoir » dans un pressentiment, déjà détruits – mais elle demande aussi qu’ils durent. L’écume qu’elle est au sommet de la vague demande ce glissement incessant… »

Georges Bataille, « L’expérience intérieure ».

Rarement  livre ne m’aura autant divisée que celui-ci. Tantôt ravie, emportée par les fulgurances d’une pensée visionnaire, subjuguée par la phrase tortueuse mais précise,  aiguisée d’un énoncé cruel et cependant voluptueuse  dans la façon dont elle se donne, je parcours les pages avec une fièvre  qui m’oblige sans cesse à  revenir en arrière, alors même que je me trouve déjà à l’intérieur du texte, dans son corps, et que la compréhension intime que j’en ai me dispense réellement d’en avoir une intelligence critique. Tantôt c’est le contraire qui se produit. Le livre me tombe des mains, me fâche, me dégoûte. La contradiction est-elle en moi ou dans le livre ? Impossible de décider.  Seules la profondeur de jugement de l’auteur, et son incontestable érudition, semblent à mes yeux le préserver de la folie furieuse, et je voudrais faire taire son délire, déchirer ce vocabulaire pompeusement doloriste, cette infecte complaisance masochiste qui étouffe l’intelligence, qui l’étrangle avec son pathos inutile et entrave sa progression. (Aussi va-t-il jusqu’à afficher, en italiques, ses ruptures, ses crises. Il  brise le plan dès que possible, la structure ne vacille pas, elle n’a pas lieu – autant dire que cet autosabotage me plaît infiniment). Suivant le désordre du livre, ma lecture est dépourvue de nuances, accidentée, haut, bas – dents de scie. Ce qui me met en colère, ce n’est pas, au premier degré,  la promotion de la souffrance – cela, je l’ai souvent rencontré ailleurs avant de passer mon chemin – mais le fait que cette vaine affliction prenne la place d’une pensée saine, adroite et surprenante, capable de se déployer au-delà de ce que j’attends, de ce que j’imagine même, alors oui, ma colère est à hauteur de la déception. – Ou devrais-je en rire?

Coincidență sau nu, George Orwell tot din UK vine…

Christians are hearing about the Manhattan Declaration with great excitement.  It is a tremendous document with tremendous support from some tremendous Christian figures.

The actual declaration (linked to above) is some 4,000 plus words long, and is available to read at the link above.  But here is the nutshell version:

Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.

We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are:

1. the sanctity of human life
2. the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
3. the rights of conscience and religious liberty.

Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

I hope you stand with me – and with (at last count as of November 24, 2009) 106,738 other believers – and sign this declaration.

It reminds me of another time, and another declaration: the Barmen Declaration of 1934, which was a point-by-point denunciation of the fascist and racist ideological doctrines of Nazism and a positive expression of true Christian faith against a government and a culture that had become evil.

Adolf Hitler attempted to redefine – or “Nazify” – the Church and transform it into a component of his ideological agenda.  At one point in its history Germany had been the seat of the Protestant Reformation, and while Germany had since become the most secular humanist nation in Europe, there was still a vestige of Christianity remaining.  And Hitler wanted to harness that still-influential vestige toward his own ends.  The government thus passed resolutions to limit the influence or dictate the agenda of the church.  One demanded the purging of all pastors who rejected “the spirit of National Socialism.”  Another resolution categorically rejected the very foundations of Judeo-Christian transcendent morality even as it tried to conflate “being a German” with “being a Christian”:

“We expect that our nation’s church as a German People’s Church should free itself from all things not German in its services and confession, especially from the Old Testament with its Jewish system of quid pro quo morality.”

The German Confessing Movement was a reaction against the German government’s attempt to impose its agenda upon the Christian Church in Germany.  As Gene Edward Veith put it in his book Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview:

The Barmen Declaration thus sets itself against not only the German Christian aberration but against the whole tradition of modernist syncretism that made it possible.

[Article 1 affirmed Christ as the transcendent authority and source of values (as opposed to the German race, the Nazi revolution, or the person of Adolf Hitler)].  Article 2 asserts the sovereignty of Christ over all of life.  Article 3 asserts Christ’s lordship over the church and rejects “the false doctrine, as though the Church were permitted to abandon the form of its message and order to its own pleasure or to changes in prevailing ideological and political conventions.”  That is to say, the world does not set the agenda for the church.  Article 4 teaches that church offices are for mutual service and ministry, not for the exercise of raw power.  Article 5 acknowledges the divine appointment of the state, but rejects the pretensions of the state to “become the single and totalitarian order of human life, thus fulfilling the Church’s vocation as well.”  Article 6 affirms the church’s commission to proclaim the free grace of God to everyone by means of the Word and the sacraments.  “We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church in human arrogance could place the Word and work of the Lord in the service of any arbitrarily chosen desires, purposes, and plans [pp. 60-61].

One article, entitled “Hitler’s Theologians: The Genesis of Genocide,” takes time to describe how various key German liberal theologians systematically tore apart the Bible and orthodox Christianity – and in so doing systematically undermined the ethics and morality of the German people in preparation for the hell to come.  The author begins with Friedrich Schleiermacher, called “the founder of Liberal Protestantism,” and profiles the “contributions” of Friedrich Nietzsche, Julius Wellhausen, and Adolf von Harnack.

Georg Lukacs has observed that tracing the path to Hitler involved the name of nearly every major German philosopher since Hegel: Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Dilthy, Simmel, Scheler, Heidegger, Jaspers, and Weber [page 5, The Destruction of Reason].  And Max Weinreich produced an exhaustive study detailing the complicity of German intellectuals with the Nazi regime entitled Hitler’s Professors: The Part of Scholarship in Germany’s Crimes Against the Jewish People.  Ideas have consequences, and it was the ideas of these liberal theologians, philosophers and scholars who provided the intellectual justification and conceptual framework for the Holocaust.  Thus Nazism did not merely emerge from a liberal theological system, but from a distinguished secular humanist intellectual tradition as well — a distinguished intellectual tradition that had repudiated all the moral and spiritual values inherent to the orthodox Christianity of the Confessing Church.

Josef Hromadka wrote that:

“The liberal theology in Germany and in her orbit utterly failed.  It was willing to compromise on the essential points of divine law and of “the law of nature”; to dispose of the Old Testament and to accept the law of the Nordic race instead; and to replace the “Jewish” law of the Old Testament by the autonomous law of each race and nation, respectively.  It had made all the necessary preparation for the “Germanization of Christianity” and for a racial Church.”

Veith subsequently says, “in deciding whether or not to sign the Barmen Declaration … the dividing line was clear.”  And he states, “The German Christian theologians predictably denounced the confessional movement as being ‘narrow’ and ‘fundamentalist.’”  He rightly described the opponents of the Barmen Declaration as being “modernists,” “existentialists,” and “dialectical” in their thinking.  The theologians who rejected Barmen were men like Emanuel Hirsch, who taught that the resurrection of Christ was only a spiritual vision, and that the idea of a physical resurrection distorted Christianity by focusing attention to the hereafter rather than to the culture and community of the present.

In short, it was Christians who thought like the evangelicals and fundamentalists of today who signed the Barmen Declaration and openly opposed Nazism, and it was “Christians” who thought like the mainline liberals of today who stood for the German Christian Nazification of Christianity and for the resulting Nazification of German ethics and morality.

Confessing Church pastors and priests who resisted this Nazification of the church paid dearly.  Thousands of clergymen were hauled away to the concentration camps.  According to the Niemoller archives, 2,579 clergymen were sent to Dachau alone – and 1,034 of them died in the camp.  And that only refers to the priests and pastors – not the untold thousands of devout Christians such as the Ten Booms who perished in the death camps for their opposition to Nazism.

An article entitled “Asking ‘Why Nazism?’” reviewing a book by Dr. Karla Poewe has this:

“One of the dangers of liberal Christianity, where all sorts of interpretations are permitted, is that it can easily slip into becoming a new religion,” Poewe says. “This is what happened. In a bid to rid Germany of what it saw as Jewish Christianity, several home-grown practices sprang up, including some that incorporated Icelandic and pre-Christian sagas, as well as ideas from German Idealism.”

Although initially these new religions were separate and disorganized entities, they eventually came under the umbrella of what was known as the German Faith Movement. Hitler saw in it a mechanism for transmitting and reinforcing the National Socialist worldview. “He shaped its followers into a disciplined political force but dismissed its leaders later when they were no longer needed,” Poewe says.

We’re clearly not to the point where Jews, or Christians, or anyone else are being gathered by the thousands and placed in death camps.  But we’re beginning to see a trend that is frightening, as government, with the assistance of liberal “Christian” churches and organizations, are trying to impose their will upon the church and its agenda.

We’ve had a “hate crimes” law imposed upon us that makes homosexuality a protected behavior.  And one evangelical expresses the Confessing Church position in a nutshell:

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said in a written statement the bill “is part of a radical social agenda that could ultimately silence Christians and use the force of government to marginalize anyone whose faith is at odds with homosexuality.”

In another recent case, a Christian mother who has homeschooled her child is being forced to put her ten-year old child in public school, not to improve her academic education, but to limit her exposure to Christianity and forcibly expose her to a government-approved “public” point of view:

According to the court order, the guardian concluded that Amanda’s “interests, and particularly her intellectual and emotional development, would be best served by exposure to a public school setting in which she would be challenged to solve problems presented by a group learning situation and…Amanda would be best served by exposure to different points of view at a time in her life when she must begin to critically evaluate multiple systems of belief and behavior.”

This is a shocking case, in which the government is usurping both parental and religious freedoms.  And there are many similar usurpations today, in which our government is actively opposing Christian values.

Nearly fifty million babies have been killed in this country by a government-sanctioned “pro-choice” system.  Gene Edward Veith addresses the “pro-choice” movement and its philosophical underpinnings:

Existential ethics brackets the objective issues on abortion entirely.  At issue is not some transcendent moral law, nor medical evidence, nor a logical analysis.  The content of that choice makes no difference.  If the mother chooses to have the baby, her action is moral.  If she chooses not to have the baby, her action is still moral.  If she bears a child against her will or aborts a child against her will — then and only then is the action evil.  Those who believe that abortion should be legal do not consider themselves “pro-abortion.”  They are “pro-choice.”  The term is not only a rhetorical euphemism but a precise definition of existential ethics.

Existentialism is also reflected in those who are “pro-choice” but personally oppose abortion.  They do not believe in abortion for themselves, but refuse to impose their beliefs on others.  In this view, a belief has no validity outside the private, personal realm of each individual.  Moral and religious beliefs are no more than personal constructions, important in giving meaning to an individual’s life, but not universally valid.  Or, to use another commonly accepted axiom, “what’s true for you may not be true for me.”

Such a view of truth flies in the face of all classical metaphysics, which sees truth as objective, universal, and applicable to all” (page 96, Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview).

We can return to the historical analysis of Nazism presented by Karla Poewe, and what happened when such “anything goes” belief systems were allowed to rule.  [I am writing an article describing how existentialism became a primary component of Nazism, and will link to it here when I am finished writing it].

Before we leave the issue of abortion as a vile violation of Christian ethics and morality, let us consider one more voice:

“But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child – a direct killing of the innocent child – murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?” — Mother Teresa

Christians should fight for life.  And allowing a human being to live should not be a “choice,” but a duty.

In 2003 one David Allen Black wrote an article bearing the question, “Do We Need A New Barmen Declaration?“  No Christian with a knowledge of history can answer any other way than, “YES!“

The Barmen Declaration was written in 1934, but in many ways it was already too late: The Nazis were already in power.  Hitler was in his second year of power; and the ideas of the liberal theologians, the existentialist philosophers, and the amoral intellectuals were already firmly in place.

It is my fervent hope that we finally have that “New Barmen Declaration” to answer the evils of our own day.  If we already should have written one, then every day that passes is one more day wasted; if we are acting pro-actively, then let us thank God that we acting before it is too late.

From the UK Telegraph:

At last, Christians draw a line in the sand against their PC secularist persecutors

By Gerald Warner UK Last updated: November 24th, 2009

At long last, Christian leaders have faced up to their persecutors in the secularist, socialist, One-World, PC, UN-promoted axis of evil and said: No more. In the popular metaphor, they have drawn a line in the sand. For harassed, demoralised faithful in the pews it will come as the long-awaited call to resistance and an earnest that their leaders are no longer willing to lie down supinely to be run over by the anti-Christian juggernaut. This statement of principle and intent is called The Manhattan Declaration, published last Friday in Washington DC.

It is difficult to believe that so firm an assertion of Christian intransigence in the face of persecution will not have some beneficial effects even here. For this Declaration is no minor affirmation by a few committed activists: on the contrary, it is signed by the most important leaders of three mainstream Christian traditions – the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church and Evangelical Protestants. For an ecumenical document it is heroically devoid of fudge, euphemism and compromise.

The Manhattan Declaration states that “the lives of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly are severely threatened; that the institution of marriage, already buffeted by promiscuity, infidelity and divorce, is in jeopardy of being redefined to accommodate fashionable ideologies; that freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are gravely jeopardized by those who would use the instruments of coercion to compel persons of faith to compromise their deepest convictions”.

For Barack Obama, the PC lobby, the “hate crime” fascists and, by implication, their opposite numbers in Britain, the signatories have an uncompromising message: “We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence.” That is plain speaking, in the face of anti-Christian aggression by governments. The signatories spelled it out even more unequivocally: “We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, but we will under no circumstances render to Caesar what is God’s.”

In a world where a Swedish pastor has been jailed for preaching that sodomy is sinful, similar prosecutions have taken place in Canada, the European Court of Human Rights (sic) has tried to ban crucifixes in Italian classrooms, Brazil has passed totalitarian legislation imposing heavy prison sentences for criticism of homosexual lifestyles, Amnesty International is championing abortion, David Cameron has voted for the enforced closure of Catholic adoption agencies, and Gordon Brown’s government has just been defeated in its fourth attempt to abolish the Waddington Clause guaranteeing free speech – this robust defiance is more than timely.

The signatories are unambiguously expressing their willingness to go to prison rather than deny any part of their religious beliefs. Those signatories are heavyweight. On the Catholic side they include Justin Cardinal Rigali, Archbishop of Philadelphia; Adam Cardinal Maida, Archbishop Emeritus of Detroit; the Archbishops of Denver, New York, Washington DC, Newark, Saint Paul and Minneapolis, Kansas City, and Louisville; and other Bishops. The Orthodox include the Primate of the Orthodox Church in America and the Archpriest of St Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary. There are also the Anglican Primates of America and Nigeria, as well as a host of senior Evangelical Protestants.

In terms of influence on votes and public opinion, this is a formidable coalition. It has served notice on the US government that further anti-Christian legislation will provoke cultural trench warfare and even civil disobedience. As regards the sudden stiffening of resistance among the usually spineless Catholic leadership, it is impossible not to detect the influence of Benedict XVI.

We need more declarations like this, on a global scale, and the requisite confrontational follow-up. This is Clint Eastwood, make-my-day Christianity – and not before time. From now on, any governments that are planning further persecution of Christians had better make sure they have a large pride of lions available for mastication duties. The worm has turned.

As a young Christian, I was inspired by the music, lyrics, and album cover of Keith Green’s album, No Compromise.  The cover says it all:

The Manhattan Declaration – like the Barmen Declaration – calls for Christians who are willing to stand up and be singled out even in the face of persecution or punishment.

I hope you are willing to be one of those Christians.

Top Catholic Cardinal Says ‘No Way’ Catholic Members of Congress Can Support Senate Health Care Bill That Funds Abortion

Tuesday, November 24, 2009
By Karen Schuberg

(CNSNews.com) -  A top Roman Catholic cardinal told CNSNews.com that there is “no way” Catholic members of Congress can support the Senate health care reform bill as long as it includes a provision that allows tax dollars to go to insurance plans that cover abortion.

At the National Press Club on Nov. 20, CNSNews.com asked Cardinal Justin Rigali, the archbishop of Philadelphia: “The Senate health care bill that Majority Leader Reid released this week permits tax dollars to go to insurance plans which cover abortion.  And my question is: Would it be a mortal sin for a Catholic member of Congress to vote for this bill knowing that this provision is in it?”

read the entire article at: http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=57615

When Religious Beliefs Play a Role in Medical Care

Columbia Law School Hosts Debate on Conscience Objections in the Medical Profession

New York, Nov. 23, 2009 — Under the First Amendment, a healthcare provider’s religious beliefs should be accommodated, but the question remains to what extent.

 

Steve Aden, senior legal counsel of the Alliance Defense Fund, and Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, staff attorney in the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project, tackled this question in a recent debate at Columbia Law School.

 

The issue of conscience objections in the medical profession gained increased attention when the Bush Administration, in its final days, promulgated a provider refusal rule. It expanded the right of health care workers and institutions to refuse to provide medical care, counseling, and referrals for religious or moral reasons.

A good friend and whom I believe is a good person at heart once told me that “Kindness is a great thing” when he saw me doing an act of kindness to another human being. His words inspires me to be keep the values of humanity alive.

However there’s times when I don’t understand why I do the things I do. Like sometime back, while walking back to school with a friend, I noticed an old lady on a wheelchair trying to flag a taxi. She was waiting anxiously and all I did was watched out for her. After walking passed her, I kept looking back to see if she had board any taxi. She was still there, waiting. I wanted to help her but I thought to myself, “What if she don’t want my help?” and “What if she don’t like sympathy?” when all I wanted to do is simply help her out. In the end, my conscience failed me and I did not help her. I spend the rest of the day thinking about it. It was on my conscience all along.

Recently, I was out shopping for some stuffs and I saw a disabled man selling tissues. I looked at him and smile. I wanted to buy tissues from him but I realised I pitied him. What I felt was sympathy. I don’t want to do something out of pity. I want to do something out of empathy. I don’t like it when people give me sympathy. It makes me uneasy. If I don’t like sympathy from other people, I’m sure there are people out there who cannot stand sympathy either, right? To me there’s a big difference between sympathy and empathy.

Am I selfish to hang on to my principles?

A strictly Catholic argument against such a false view.

OC,  I think

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P5S.HTM

and I think:

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.
1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.”59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.
1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P62.HTM

and I think:

1903 Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it. If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience. In such a case, “authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse.”23

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P6J.HTM

and further I think:

1907 First, the common good presupposes respect for the person as such. In the name of the common good, public authorities are bound to respect the fundamental and inalienable rights of the human person. Society should permit each of its members to fulfill his vocation. In particular, the common good resides in the conditions for the exercise of the natural freedoms indispensable for the development of the human vocation, such as “the right to act according to a sound norm of conscience and to safeguard . . . privacy, and rightful freedom also in matters of religion.”27

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P6K.HTM

On the topic of “settled science” there was a recent (illegal) release of internal communications among the “humans have caused global warming” set.  The dialog appears to be more than just doubting and laughing at the “global warming doubters” set.  It appears to be a scheme amounting to a conspiracy to suppress science that they don’t agree with.

What does this have to do with Abortion?  I’m referring to the Abortion Breast Cancer link where one commenter here has declared “with a few exceptions, the big, well-designed, robust studies say no link, and the studies which report a link are small, design-flawed, and biased.” With the kind of suppression of science that the global warming types are doing that’s exactly what you’d see and get.  I’m no conspiracy theorist; however this revelation in the debate over Global Warming points out that people – scientists included – can see what they want to see and call their opponents names rather than seeking truth.

BEST OF THE WEB TODAY | NOVEMBER 23, 2009

Settled Science?

Computer hackers reveal corruption behind the global-warming “consensus.”

By JAMES TARANTO

“Officials at the University of East Anglia confirmed in a statement on Friday that files had been stolen from a university server and that the police had been brought in to investigate the breach,” the New York Times reports. “They added, however, that they could not confirm that all the material circulating on the Internet was authentic.” But some scientists have confirmed that their emails were quoted accurately.

The files–which can be downloaded here–surely have not been fully plumbed. The ZIP archive weighs in at just under 62 megabytes, or more than 157 MB when uncompressed. But bits that have already been analyzed, as the Washington Post reports, “reveal an intellectual circle that appears to feel very much under attack, and eager to punish its enemies”:

Read the entire article at:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704779704574552533758682774.html#printMode

referenced articles are at the New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?_r=1

and the Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/21/AR2009112102186.html

There is an old saw that says, “Laws are made to be broken.”  I think this is true.  Think about it: If  laws are not made to be broken, why would there be any need for laws?  In a society of robots, no laws are necessary since behavior is already programmed in.  It wouldn’t occur to robots to go against their programming; they simply follow their programming, no questions asked.

Laws that restrict behavior are written for one of two purposes: to outlaw certain behaviors that are already frowned upon by society; and to affect changes in behavior within society.  Murder would fall into the first category; smoking into the second.

From time to time, society moves to outlaw activities or actions that are presently perfectly legal, but for some reason have been now deemed a detriment to society.  Laws do not easily change behavior, but they do “bend” behavior.  Over time, the bend becomes permanently fixed, and extremely difficult to undo.

I am in total agreement that we should obey laws as they exist; but we also have every right to protest what we don’t agree with and try to change it. That is certainly the American way, and it is actually part of our obligation as freedom-loving American citizens.

Also part of the “American way” is this: When a law so strongly violates our conscience, or our understanding of scripture that we hold sacred, or morality that we understand as absolute, we can choose to violate the law. However, in so doing, we should be prepared to accept the consequences that will surely result from our violation of the law—even to the extent that we could be jailed for our flouting of the law.  This is sometimes necessary, however, to affect change when unjust laws have been so strongly entrenched in society.  It is also necessary when government attempts to impose new laws that are unjust or unsupported by society at large.  One need only look at the American Revolution and, later, the American civil rights movement to understand this.

Some famous law-breakers from American history include George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and all of the founders of our country;as well as Harriet Tubman, Susan B. Anthony, Tatanka Iyotaka (Chief Sitting Bull), Rosa Parks, and Martin Luther King, Jr.  I think most of us would be proud to be found in the company of any of these lawbreakers.  For they are lawbreakers who all had a strong hand in shaping the country as we know it, and in making it better.