Month: June 2015

Why Christians Should Listen to the Pope's Encyclical on Climate Change

The Pope’s encyclical on climate change will probably change the conversation among religiously conservative people.
Writing on the Biologos website, Katherine Hayhoe and Edwin Maurer argue that religiously conservative Christians should heed and follow the encyclical.
Biologos’ press release begins:

INTRO: Yesterday saw the release of “Laudato Si’,” an encyclical letter from Pope Francis. Although the massive document provides counsel on many contemporary issues, its primary focus is the worldwide ecological crisis caused by modern human activity. It explicitly affirms the reality of human-induced climate change, and urges Christians to move beyond debating the causes to stopping the damage. Today, we feature a response by world-renowned climate scientist and evangelical Christian Dr. Katharine Hayhoe, along with her colleague Dr. Ed Maurer. Look next week for further thoughts by the BioLogos staff as well as scholars in our community.

Hayhoe and Maurer agree with the pope and add a good bit more:

The Pope is not alone; the 2006 Evangelical Climate Initiative , the 2011 National Association of Evangelicals report, “ Loving the Least of These ,” and the 2013 letter from 200 evangelical scientists to Congress all state in clear and unmistakable terms that the basis for caring about climate change is nothing less than love—a fundamental Christian value espoused by any believer from any denomination. So whom should we believe? As scientists, we know the importance of evidence; whether revealed through God’s written word or through creation. There is nothing in the Bible that says human-induced climate change isn’t possible. And there is plenty in creation that tells us that it is.

In my opinion, Hayhoe and Maurer are bringing good information to Christians. The work I have seen certainly indicates a human element to the elevation of temperatures, as well as other problems.
Read the entire article here.

Daily Jefferson: June 19, 1802 Letter to Joseph Priestley on Jefferson's Role in the Constitution

In this June 19, 1802 letter, Jefferson wrote to Joseph Priestley to correct his understand of Jefferson’s role in shaping the Constitution.  Jefferson wrote:

one passage, in the paper you inclosed me, must be corrected. it is the following. ‘and all say that it was yourself more than any other individual, that planned & established it.’ i.e. the constitution. I was in Europe when the constitution was planned & established, and never saw it till after it was established. on receiving it I wrote strongly to mr Madison urging the want of provision for the freedom of religion, freedom of the press, trial by jury, habeas corpus, the substitution of militia for a standing army, and an express reservation to the states of all rights not specifically granted to the union. he accordingly moved in the first session of Congress for these Amendments which were agreed to & ratified by the states as they now stand. this is all the hand I had in what related to the Constitution.

Of course, Jefferson was not the only one who wanted a Bill of Rights in the new Constitution, but he was influential with Madison.
Priestley, the discoverer of oxygen and Unitarian pioneer, was one of Jefferson’s favorite religious figures. Jefferson praised Priestley’s work and wrote that his own religion owed much to Priestley’s views. Although he thought Jesus was on a divine mission from God, Priestley did not believe in the deity of Jesus. Jefferson wrote a flurry of letters to Priestley on religion while president. In his book The Jefferson Lies, David Barton suggests that Jefferson did not question orthodoxy until 1813. Jefferson’s correspondence with Priestley contradicts Barton’s assessment.
For more on Jefferson’s religion, see Getting Jefferson Right.

Charleston Shooter Targeted Blacks During Prayer Meeting (UPDATED – Wanted to Start Race War)

There are many bizarre and horrid aspects to the Charleston massacre of eight black church members. This post brings together some of the coverage of the tragedy with links to the poisonous words of white supremacists by the alleged shooter, Dylann Roof.
Roof sat in the prayer meeting for about an hour before he began shooting.
According to a CNN report, Roof said he was at the church “to shoot black people” and he wanted to start a “race war.”
White supremacists are worried this makes them look bad.
They should be worried given the rhetoric their leaders engage in.  Here is the League of the South’s president Michael Hill opining on an American race war (chilling in light of Roof’s purpose of starting a race war).  Hill claims desegregation has been a failed policy and calls for re-segregration.  Hill calls for his followers to fight and die for the Southern nationalist cause.

But it is not natural for us Southerners to sit idle against threats. We are fighting men. We are not comfortable claiming victimhood and begging that some human right be created for us. Instead, we are bound up in a long community of blood, and that blood has often been shed in defense of itself. 

A commenter at Occidental Dissent said this in reaction to the shootings:

I don’t believe in a lot of things. You’re going to have to be more specific when you talk about murder and which people truly are considered innocent. The anti-White establishment gives itself an extremely wide berth when it factors in the collateral damage caused by its policies and rhetoric. To them, most of us [White people] are expendable. Were Spartans deterred from defending their families and territories because the Persian army consisted of many slaves, mercenaries and those forced to fight? You’d have to be batshit crazy to lose sleep over people losing their lives while playing at least some kind of role in your demise. Not that I condone that type of killing, I just don’t give a shit about the lives of those who don’t give a shit about me.
I would also assume you don’t believe in handing over the keys to your survival and the survival of your family to a growing number of brown and black people who have an insatiable desire to “murder” White society. How confident are you that you are doing something adequate enough to counter their agendas? What if they are “Christian” black people? Are you okey dokey with them spreading their social experiments into your neck of the woods then? You sure as hell can’t vote your way out of this predicament, so what’s left?

 

Daily Jefferson: June 18, 1799 Letter to a Student on the Study of Math, Science and Human Nature

Jefferson believed science and education would take mankind to a new level of progress. In this June 18, 1799 letter to student William Munford, Jefferson answers a question about the usefulness of studying math and science. He then expands on his view that human nature is generally good. The entire letter follows:

I have to acknolege the reciept of your favor of May 14. in which you mention that you have finished the 6. first books of Euclid, plane trigonometry, surveying & algebra and ask whether I think a further pursuit of that branch of science would be useful to you. there are some propositions in the latter books of Euclid, & some of Archimedes, which are useful, & I have no doubt you have been made acquainted with them. trigonometry, so far as this, is most valuable to every man, there is scarcely a day in which he will not resort to it for some of the purposes of common life. the science of calculation also is indispensible as far as the extraction of the square & cube roots; Algebra as far as the quadratic equation & the use of logarithms are often of value in ordinary cases: but all beyond these is but a luxury; a delicious luxury indeed; but not to be indulged in by one who is to have a profession to follow for his subsistence. in this light I view the conic sections, curves of the higher orders, perhaps even spherical trigonometry, Algebraical operations beyond the 2d dimension, and fluxions. there are other branches of science however worth the attention of every man. astronomy, botany, chemistry natural philosophy, natural history, anatomy. not indeed to be a proficient in them; but to possess their general principles & outlines, so as that we may be able to amuse and inform ourselves further in any of them as we proceed through life & have occasion for them. some knowlege of them is necessary for our character as well as comfort. the general elements of astronomy & of natural philosophy are best acquired at an academy where we can have the benefit of the instruments & apparatus usually provided there: but the others may well be acquired from books alone as far as our purposes require. I have indulged myself in these observations to you, because the evidence cannot be unuseful to you of a person who has often had occasion to consider which of his acquisitions in science have been really useful to him in life, and which of them have been merely a matter of luxury.
I am among those who think well of the human character generally. I consider man as formed for society, and endowed by nature with those dispositions which fit him for society. I believe also, with Condorcet, as mentioned in your letter, that his mind is perfectible to a degree of which we cannot as yet form any conception. it is impossible for a man who takes a survey of what is already known, not to see what an immensity in every branch of science yet remains to be discovered, & that too of articles to which our faculties seem adequate. in geometry & calculation we know a great deal. yet there are some desiderata. in anatomy great progress has been made; but much is still to be acquired. in natural history we possess knowlege; but we want a great deal. in chemistry we are not yet sure of the first elements. our natural philosophy is in a very infantine state; perhaps for great advances in it, a further progress in chemistry is necessary. surgery is well-advanced; but prodigiously short of what may be. the state of medecine is worse than that of total ignorance. could we divest ourselves of every thing we suppose we know in it, we should start from a higher ground & with fairer prospects. from Hippocrates to Brown we have had nothing but a succession of hypothetical systems each having it’s day of vogue, like the fashions & fancies of caps & gowns, & yielding in turn to the next caprice. yet the human frame, which is to be the subject of suffering & torture under these learned modes, does not change. we have a few medecines, as the bark, opium, mercury, which in a few well defined diseases are of unquestionable virtue: but the residuary list of the materia medica, long as it is, contains but the charlataneries of the art; and of the diseases of doubtful form, physicians have ever had a false knowlege, worse than ignorance. yet surely the list of unequivocal diseases & remedies is capable of enlargement; and it is still more certain that in the other branches of science, great fields are yet to be explored to which our faculties are equal, & that to an extent of which we cannot fix the limits. I join you therefore in branding as cowardly the idea that the human mind is incapable of further advances. this is precisely the doctrine which the present despots of the earth are inculcating, & their friends here re-echoing; & applying especially to religion & politics; ‘that it is not probable that any thing better will be discovered than what was known to our fathers.’ we are to look backwards then & not forwards for the improvement of science, & to find kit amidst feudal barbarisms and the fires of Spital-fields. but thank heaven the American mind is already too much opened, to listen to these impostures; and while the art of printing is left to us science can never be retrograde; what is once acquired of real knowlege can never be lost. to preserve the freedom of the human mind then & freedom of the press, every spirit should be ready to devote itself to martyrdom; for as long as we may think as we will, & speak as we think, the condition of man will proceed in improvement. the generation which is going off the stage has deserved well of mankind for the struggles it has made,[3] & for having arrested that course of despotism which had overwhelmed the world for thousands & thousands of years. if there seems to be danger that the ground they have gained will be lost again, that danger comes from the generation your cotemporary. but that the enthusiasm which characterises youth should lift it’s parracide hands against freedom & science, would be such a monstrous phaenomenon as I cannot place among possible things in this age & this country. your college at least has shewn itself incapable of it; and if the youth of any other place have seemed to rally under other banners it has been from delusions which they will soon dissipate. I shall be happy to hear from you from time to time, & of your progress in study, and to be useful to you in whatever is in my power; being with sincere esteem.

Ten Years of Blogging: The Trail of Tears Remembered

One of the most popular posts ever is this one about the Trail of Tears. It showed up on the top ten most popular posts for the years 2011, 2012, and 2013.  I wrote about the Trail of Tears in response to the American Family Association’s spokesman Bryan Fischer’s incendiary comments about Native Americans. Fischer said English settlers were morally superior to Native Americans which justified cruel and dishonest treatment of native people by whites. Later, David Barton made similar arguments. Below is the first part of the article; to read the whole thing, click through to the 2011 post.

The Trail of Tears was a low point in American history when the United States government brutally carried out a systematic removal of Native Americans from locations throughout the South to the Indian Territory (now eastern Oklahoma). Broadly the forced removal began in 1830 with the signing of the Indian Removal Act and culminated in the forced death march of the Cherokee in 1838 and 1839 where 4,000 of an estimated 17,000 travelers died. The last Cherokees arrived in present day Oklahoma in March, 1839.

The Trail of Tears has been obscured in the retelling of American history. It seems obvious that the American Family Association does not grasp the significance of the event and has spread misinformation to their millions of listeners and readers about the relationship of the United States and native peoples.

This is not a partisan issue. In 2004, conservative Senator Sam Brownback authored a resolution apologizing to the Cherokee and other native people for the Trail of Tears. It was not passed until 2009 and signed by President Obama on December 19, 2009. According to the American Family Association and Bryan Fischer, the US had nothing to apologize for.

To read the rest of this post, click here.