I have to applaud the Catholics for their unflinching devotion to protecting the unborn. Here is a commercial that CatholicVote.com recently released.
HT:Religion and Morality
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Cornwall Alliance
I recently read a paper by the Cornwall Alliance entitled "A Call to Truth, Prudence, and Protection of the Poor: An Evangelical Response to Global Warming". It is written in response to the Evangelical Climate Initiative's "Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action" which I have never read and know almost nothing about. I found the Cornwall Alliance paper to be very interesting. I would like to share some quotes from it, but invite you to read the whole thing here.
Recently sixty topic-qualified scientists asserted that "global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural noise."
It is very unlikely that warming in that range [5.4 degrees F] would cause catastrophic consequences. Why? Among other reasons, because CO2-induced warming will occur mostly in winter, mostly in polar regions, and mostly at night. But in polar regions, where winter night temperatures range far below freezing, an increase of 5.4 degrees F is hardly likely to cause significant melting of polar ice caps or other problems.
Even if the recount strong warming trend (at most 1 degree F in the last thirty years) is entirely manmade (and it almost certainly is not), and even if it continues for another thirty years (as it might), global average temperature will only be at most 1 degree F warmer then than now.
Through the twentieth century [1900's] it [sea level] rose about 0.18 meter (7.08 inches), and there is no reason to think the natural forces driving that rise will cease.
Further, "Of the costs to the Netherlands, Bangladesh and various Pacific islands [i.e., the places at greatest risk], the costs of adapting to changes in sea level are trivial compared with the costs of global limitation of CO2 emissions to prevent global warming."
Further, those who warn of more frequent heat waves should even more fervently herald less frequent severe cold snaps. The death rate from severe cold is nearly ten times as high as that from severe heat, implying that global warming (assuming that it reduces coldsnaps as much as it increases heat waves) would prevent more deaths from cold than it causes from heat.
Malaria was common throughout Europe and even into the Arctic Circle even during the Little Ice Age and continued common through the end of World War II in Finland, Poland, Russia, around the Black Sea, and in thirty-six of the United States, including all northern border states from Washington through New York. It is not temperatures that are most important for malaria control but elimination of suitable breeding grounds and the use of pesticides to lower the population of malarial mosquitoes and keep them out of homes.
The resurgence of malaria in some African and Asian countries correlates not with changing temperatures but with the banning of DDT and shifts to less effective disease control methods, and it costs over a million premature deaths annually.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) concluded in a study announced in November 2005 that "the tropical multi-decadal signal is causing the increased Atlantic hurricane activity since 1995, and is not related to greenhouse warming."
Rising CO2-presumably what drives global warming-enhances agricultural yield. For every doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration, there is an average 35 percent increase in plant growth efficiency. . . . Consequently their ranges and yields increase.
In 2004 Science published the results of a study by Naomi Oreskes claiming that "without substantial disagreement, scientists find human activities are heating the earth's surface." But an attempt at replicating the study both found that she had made serious mistakes in handling data and, after re-examining the data, reached contrary conclusions.
Because energy is an essential component in almost all economic production, reducing its use and driving up its costs will slow economic development, reduce overall productivity, and increase costs of all goods, including the food, clothing, shelter, and other goods most essential to the poor.
Rather than focusing on theoretically possible changes in climate, which varies tremendously anyway with El Nino, La Nina, and other natural cycles, we should emphasize policies-such as affordable and abundant energy-that will help the poor prosper, thus making them less susceptible to the vagaries of weather and other threats in the first place.
The world's poor are much better served by enhancing their wealth through economic development than by whatever minute reductions might be achieved in future global warming by reducing CO2 emissions.
By condemning the world's poor to slower economic development by raising energy prices, the ECI asks the poor to give up or at least postpone their claims to modern technology that is essential for a better future for themselves and their children. It tells them they must not expect to have fossil fuels, electricity, or even eco-tourism (because jets emit greenhouse gases and cause climate change). Other environmental activists tell them they must not use hydroelectric or nuclear power to generate electricity, because of fears of damming rivers and risks from handling nuclear wastes. So the world's poor must remain indigenous, traditional, and poor- or as Leon Louw has put it, must continue living in "human game preserves," so that affluent Westerners can visit them in their quaint villages.
A program that can only be done by government mandate is by definition not a program that the market deems cost effective. We believe the market is a better judge of cost effectiveness than bureaucrats and politicians.
The very fact that such higher-cost technologies are not widely used in rich countries testifies that they cannot be widely used in poor ones. Fossil fuels, then, should be seen as a proper stage in energy development, far safer than burning wood and dung (smoke from which claims 1.6 million lives per year), and a means of enabling the economic growth that eventually can make even cleaner technologies affordable.
Recently sixty topic-qualified scientists asserted that "global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural noise."
It is very unlikely that warming in that range [5.4 degrees F] would cause catastrophic consequences. Why? Among other reasons, because CO2-induced warming will occur mostly in winter, mostly in polar regions, and mostly at night. But in polar regions, where winter night temperatures range far below freezing, an increase of 5.4 degrees F is hardly likely to cause significant melting of polar ice caps or other problems.
Even if the recount strong warming trend (at most 1 degree F in the last thirty years) is entirely manmade (and it almost certainly is not), and even if it continues for another thirty years (as it might), global average temperature will only be at most 1 degree F warmer then than now.
Through the twentieth century [1900's] it [sea level] rose about 0.18 meter (7.08 inches), and there is no reason to think the natural forces driving that rise will cease.
Further, "Of the costs to the Netherlands, Bangladesh and various Pacific islands [i.e., the places at greatest risk], the costs of adapting to changes in sea level are trivial compared with the costs of global limitation of CO2 emissions to prevent global warming."
Further, those who warn of more frequent heat waves should even more fervently herald less frequent severe cold snaps. The death rate from severe cold is nearly ten times as high as that from severe heat, implying that global warming (assuming that it reduces coldsnaps as much as it increases heat waves) would prevent more deaths from cold than it causes from heat.
Malaria was common throughout Europe and even into the Arctic Circle even during the Little Ice Age and continued common through the end of World War II in Finland, Poland, Russia, around the Black Sea, and in thirty-six of the United States, including all northern border states from Washington through New York. It is not temperatures that are most important for malaria control but elimination of suitable breeding grounds and the use of pesticides to lower the population of malarial mosquitoes and keep them out of homes.
The resurgence of malaria in some African and Asian countries correlates not with changing temperatures but with the banning of DDT and shifts to less effective disease control methods, and it costs over a million premature deaths annually.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) concluded in a study announced in November 2005 that "the tropical multi-decadal signal is causing the increased Atlantic hurricane activity since 1995, and is not related to greenhouse warming."
Rising CO2-presumably what drives global warming-enhances agricultural yield. For every doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration, there is an average 35 percent increase in plant growth efficiency. . . . Consequently their ranges and yields increase.
In 2004 Science published the results of a study by Naomi Oreskes claiming that "without substantial disagreement, scientists find human activities are heating the earth's surface." But an attempt at replicating the study both found that she had made serious mistakes in handling data and, after re-examining the data, reached contrary conclusions.
Because energy is an essential component in almost all economic production, reducing its use and driving up its costs will slow economic development, reduce overall productivity, and increase costs of all goods, including the food, clothing, shelter, and other goods most essential to the poor.
Rather than focusing on theoretically possible changes in climate, which varies tremendously anyway with El Nino, La Nina, and other natural cycles, we should emphasize policies-such as affordable and abundant energy-that will help the poor prosper, thus making them less susceptible to the vagaries of weather and other threats in the first place.
The world's poor are much better served by enhancing their wealth through economic development than by whatever minute reductions might be achieved in future global warming by reducing CO2 emissions.
By condemning the world's poor to slower economic development by raising energy prices, the ECI asks the poor to give up or at least postpone their claims to modern technology that is essential for a better future for themselves and their children. It tells them they must not expect to have fossil fuels, electricity, or even eco-tourism (because jets emit greenhouse gases and cause climate change). Other environmental activists tell them they must not use hydroelectric or nuclear power to generate electricity, because of fears of damming rivers and risks from handling nuclear wastes. So the world's poor must remain indigenous, traditional, and poor- or as Leon Louw has put it, must continue living in "human game preserves," so that affluent Westerners can visit them in their quaint villages.
A program that can only be done by government mandate is by definition not a program that the market deems cost effective. We believe the market is a better judge of cost effectiveness than bureaucrats and politicians.
The very fact that such higher-cost technologies are not widely used in rich countries testifies that they cannot be widely used in poor ones. Fossil fuels, then, should be seen as a proper stage in energy development, far safer than burning wood and dung (smoke from which claims 1.6 million lives per year), and a means of enabling the economic growth that eventually can make even cleaner technologies affordable.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Commuted
Hat tip to JR at a Keyboard and a .45 for letting me know that Pres. Bush commuted the sentences of Boarder Patrol agents, Ramos and Compean. Their sentence will end in March of this year. I know their families are so happy. I am glad, too.
I think that this also speaks about Pres. Bush. It shows his moderate-ness. He didn't pardon them, he commuted their sentence. He didn't commute it until the very last day he was in office. So to President Bush I say, "Thank you" with a little" good grief" mixed in.
JR also has posted this very good video about the US Republic. I really enjoyed it, and I hope that you will to even though it has little to do with the rest of this post.
I think that this also speaks about Pres. Bush. It shows his moderate-ness. He didn't pardon them, he commuted their sentence. He didn't commute it until the very last day he was in office. So to President Bush I say, "Thank you" with a little" good grief" mixed in.
JR also has posted this very good video about the US Republic. I really enjoyed it, and I hope that you will to even though it has little to do with the rest of this post.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Dallas March for Life
Today I participated in the Dallas March for Life. This is the first time I have participated in a march of any kind (except band). It was very interesting and I was glad that I went. It started outside the Catholic cathedral in downtown Dallas. There were lots of people of all ages. I would say that the majority were Catholic. From there we walked to the courthouse where Jane Roe filed her case that became the infamous Roe vs. Wade. There was a time of prayer at the site. Then we walked to a first baptist church building and had lunch and looked at pro-life booths that were set up in the atrium. It was estimated that about 5000 people participated. I can verify that they took up about 1/2 a mile of 3-lane road. The reaction from the people in cars was mostly pleasant with several honks and thumbs up. The whole march was escorted by the Dallas police. I really enjoyed eating lunch and getting to meet and chat with other pro-life people. I am also looking forward to looking over the information that I got from the booths. I took some pictures that I will try to share, but right now I am having trouble up-loading them.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Rewards
I occasionally tell my children if you do "x" you will receive "y" as a reward. For example, my son is currently reading a book on the high end of his reading ability for a guinea pig harness. (for his soon to be purchased guinea pig) The whole reason that I told him about the reward was to motivate him to tackle something he would have not likely done on his own.
That got me thinking about rewards in the Bible. Here are some examples from Jesus' teaching:
1. Giving to the poor in private will be rewarded by God (Matthew 6:4)
2. Receiving a righteous person will receive reward of righteous person (Matthew 10:41, Mark 9:44)
3. Reward from Jesus based on what you have done in this life (Matthew 16:27)
4. Suffering for Christ will receive great reward (Luke 6:24)
5. Doing good for enemies will receive great reward (Luke 6:35)
6. Faithful servant in charge of many things (Matthew 25:21)
7. Do well before the king comes back to be entrusted with more when he returns (Matthew 25)
I am sure that there are more, but you get the idea.
So my question is this:
Why do so many Christians believe that it is wrong to work toward a reward? I understand that we should be motivated by love. But if God didn't want us to think about a reward at all then why mention it? Jesus does rebuke people for working toward a reward from people. But I can't remember anywhere that teaches against working toward a reward from God. I think God mentions rewards so that we will work toward them. What do you think?
That got me thinking about rewards in the Bible. Here are some examples from Jesus' teaching:
1. Giving to the poor in private will be rewarded by God (Matthew 6:4)
2. Receiving a righteous person will receive reward of righteous person (Matthew 10:41, Mark 9:44)
3. Reward from Jesus based on what you have done in this life (Matthew 16:27)
4. Suffering for Christ will receive great reward (Luke 6:24)
5. Doing good for enemies will receive great reward (Luke 6:35)
6. Faithful servant in charge of many things (Matthew 25:21)
7. Do well before the king comes back to be entrusted with more when he returns (Matthew 25)
I am sure that there are more, but you get the idea.
So my question is this:
Why do so many Christians believe that it is wrong to work toward a reward? I understand that we should be motivated by love. But if God didn't want us to think about a reward at all then why mention it? Jesus does rebuke people for working toward a reward from people. But I can't remember anywhere that teaches against working toward a reward from God. I think God mentions rewards so that we will work toward them. What do you think?
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Of Conjoined Twins and Pink Iguanas
A couple in England is expecting a set of dicephalus conjoined twins. This means that they share at least part of their torso and their legs. In a quote from a LifeSiteNews article the mother, Lisa Chamberlain, said, "Some people might look at me and say 'You're going to give birth to a freak' but I don't care because I feel blessed." Mrs. Chamberlain and her husband are practising Catholics. I am glad that they have the courage to stand against their doctor and family and give these babies a chance at life. (OneMom also has a post about eugenics that shows how many different kinds of "abnormalities" we are willing to snuff out. I imagine that Rex's mom [see post below] would have recommended by many doctors for abortion. This issue hits close to home. My mom was advised to abort me because she had an x-ray when she was only a few weeks pregnant and didn't yet know it. I am vey glad that she told the doctor no way.)
And we have yet another animal that supposedly evolved millions of years before its island home existed: the pink iguanas on the Galapagos Islands. Once again ICR has the story in more detail.
And we have yet another animal that supposedly evolved millions of years before its island home existed: the pink iguanas on the Galapagos Islands. Once again ICR has the story in more detail.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Rex
I just finished an inspiring book. Rex is a book about a blind autistic musical savant told from the perspective of his mother, Cathleen Lewis. I really enjoy books about people overcoming extreme obstacles with the Lord's help. This is definitely one of those books.
Rex starts life blind due to a malformed optic nerve. He makes great progress until autism becomes apparent. He refuses to eat (living on protein shakes). He becomes hyper-sensitive to sound (running water, light switches, etc.) and touch. By the end of the book he is a tween who can travel the world playing music, has begun to make friends, and has learned to ski. Throughout all of his trials joy shines through in a way that many people envy.
The transformation of his mom is also amazing. The story starts with a career-minded newlywed and ends with a Christian single-mom who is devoted to her son and can praise God even for his difficulties. She was a person who depended on mental abilities to survive and understand the world. Now she looks through the lens of faith. She was an unchurched, irreligious woman whose heart softened toward God before God made any breakthroughs in her son's ability to cope in this world. Now she has a strong faith in God in part thanks to her brother who had the guts to say that maybe God had allowed this to happen for his glory.
I recommend this book. It is a great story of two transformations.
Rex starts life blind due to a malformed optic nerve. He makes great progress until autism becomes apparent. He refuses to eat (living on protein shakes). He becomes hyper-sensitive to sound (running water, light switches, etc.) and touch. By the end of the book he is a tween who can travel the world playing music, has begun to make friends, and has learned to ski. Throughout all of his trials joy shines through in a way that many people envy.
The transformation of his mom is also amazing. The story starts with a career-minded newlywed and ends with a Christian single-mom who is devoted to her son and can praise God even for his difficulties. She was a person who depended on mental abilities to survive and understand the world. Now she looks through the lens of faith. She was an unchurched, irreligious woman whose heart softened toward God before God made any breakthroughs in her son's ability to cope in this world. Now she has a strong faith in God in part thanks to her brother who had the guts to say that maybe God had allowed this to happen for his glory.
I recommend this book. It is a great story of two transformations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)