Jonathan's blog

There was an interesting editorial by Dan Shea in the NY Times titled "Left Behind," describing how we're failing to support our troops' families when a soldier dies in combat. You can pay the NY Times to see the full article, but here is the summary from The Week, the Moore family's favorite mag:

My brother was killed by a rocket attack in Fallujah on Sept. 14, 2004, said Dan Shea in The New York Times. Kevin "knew the risks" when he enlisted in 1989. He also assumed that if he sacrificed his life for his country, the government would take care of his wife, Amy, and two children. "Sadly, that's not the case." War widows are covered by two federal programs - a Pentagon survivors plan, which pays 40 percent of a soldier's monthly salary, and a Veterans Affairs program that provides $1,033 a month, plus a modest amount for every dependent. That may sound generous enough, but there's a catch - what insiders call a "widowâ's tax." Under the current law, the payment from the Pentagon is reduced "dollar for dollar" by the VA payment. After that adjustment, Amy, who put her own career on hold to accommodate Kevin's military career, gets all of $1,817 a month - less than $24,000 a year to raise a family whose father gave his life for his country. Kevin held the rank of lieutenant colonel; the wife of a low-ranking soldier gets even less money. In a nation where every politician claims to "support our troops," this is a disgrace. "if President Bush really wants to honor the men and women fighting this war - and dying Like my brother - then he should call on Congress to eliminate the widow's tax. It's the least he can do."

Finn came home from the hospital today. He's obviously doing much better...pretty much back to his normal self, though the cough still lingers. He's on breathing treatments and antibiotics.

From an AP article by Rachel Zoll "Disagreements over global warming hinder evangelical movement to confront climate change" in The Detroit News:

A top environmental advocate called it "a historic tipping point" when the Rev. Rick Warren and other prominent evangelicals joined a new drive to get their community to fight global warming. But activists banking on a quick shift in President Bush's environmental policies will be disappointed -- support from just any evangelical figure won't do. The movement is a diverse one, and some its most politically influential leaders still question the science behind climate change. Analysts agree that the new push, called the Evangelical Climate Initiative, is at least a noteworthy development. Years of activism culminated in the release Wednesday of the statement, "Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action," which was signed by many leading conservative Christians including Warren, author of "The Purpose Driven Life," the president of evangelical Wheaton College, the national commander for The Salvation Army and heads of seminaries and megachurches nationwide. Several prominent black and Hispanic pastors were among the signers. The statement frames environmental protection as a Christian imperative, fulfilling a biblical command to care for God's creation. It urges federal lawmakers to approve mandatory cuts in carbon dioxide emissions, but to do so in a way that doesn't hurt businesses. Among the funders of the initiative, which includes TV and print ads, is the Pew Charitable Charitable Trusts. However, Christian leaders with close ties to the Bush administration have expressed skepticism about the initiative through their own group, called the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance. They said in a statement that "the science is not settled on global warming," and argued that most U.S. evangelicals do not back the call for regulating greenhouse emissions. Among the religious leaders who support the Stewardship Alliance are James Dobson of Focus on the Family, Charles Colson of Prison Fellowship Ministries and the Rev. Richard Land, head of the public policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, the nation's largest Protestant group.

On the Net:

Evangelical Climate Initiative

Interfaith Stewardship Alliance

Get ready for the next controversy. "The Da Vinci Code" film is set to be released May 19th starring Tom Hanks. An article by Mark I. Pinsky from The Orlando Sentinel describes the preparation of various evangelicals to provide a response.

From an article by Stephanie Simon in the LA TImes:

Those who believe in creationism -- children and adults -- are being taught to challenge evolution's tenets in an in-your-face way.

"Boys and girls," Ham said. If a teacher so much as mentions evolution, or the Big Bang, or an era when dinosaurs ruled the Earth, "you put your hand up and you say, 'Excuse me, were you there?' Can you remember that?"

The children roared their assent.

"Sometimes people will answer, 'No, but you weren't there either,' " Ham told them. "Then you say, 'No, I wasn't, but I know someone who was, and I have his book about the history of the world.' " He waved his Bible in the air.

"Who's the only one who's always been there?" Ham asked.

"God!" the boys and girls shouted.

"Who's the only one who knows everything?"

"God!"

"So who should you always trust, God or the scientists?"

The children answered with a thundering: "God!"

A former high-school biology teacher, Ham travels the nation training children as young as 5 to challenge science orthodoxy. He doesn't engage in the political and legal fights that have erupted over the teaching of evolution. His strategy is more subtle: He aims to give people who trust the biblical account of creation the confidence to defend their views - aggressively.

He urges students to offer creationist critiques of their textbooks, parents to take on science museum docents, professionals to raise the subject with colleagues. If Ham has done his job well, his acolytes will ask enough pointed questions - and set forth enough persuasive arguments - to shake the doctrine of Darwin.

The science Ham finds so dangerous holds that the first primitive scraps of genetic material appeared on Earth nearly 4 billion years ago. From these humble beginnings, a huge diversity of species evolved over the eons, through lucky mutations and natural selection.

The vast majority of scientists find no credible evidence to dispute this account and a tremendous amount to support it. They've identified thousands of transitional fossils, such as a whale that lumbered on land; a bird with reptilian features; and "Lucy," a remote cousin of modern man who walked on two legs but swung from trees like a chimp.

Still, millions of Americans find evolution preposterous. Polls consistently show that roughly half of Americans believe the biblical account instead.