Fred Clark, self-avowed liberal evangelical Christian and one of my all-around favorite bloggers, has posted about a series of ‘snapshots’ of experiences with creationists that he has had over the years (read posts one, two and three). In the latest one, he shares a good insight into the mind of Biblical literalists:

The most dangerous thing about fundamentalism is not that it sometimes teaches wacky ideas, like that the world is barely 6,000 years old or that dancing is sinful. The most dangerous thing is that it insists that such ideas are all inviolably necessary components of the faith. Each such idea, every aspect of their faith, is regarded as a keystone without which everything else they believe — the existence of a loving God, the assurance of pardon, the possibility of a moral or meaningful life — crumbles into meaninglessness.
My classmate’s church taught him that their supposedly “literal” reading of Genesis 1 was the necessary complement to their “literal” reading of the rest of the Bible, which they regarded as the entire and only basis for their faith. His belief in 6-day, young-earth creationism was not merely some disputable piece of adiaphora, such as …
Well, for such fundamentalists there is no “such as.” This is why they cling to every aspect of their belief system with such desperate ferocity. Should even the smallest piece be cast into doubt, they believe, the entire structure would crumble like the walls of Jericho. If dancing is not a sin, or if the authorship of Isaiah turns out to involve more than a single person at one time, or if the moons of Jupiter present a microcosm that suggests a heliocentric solar system, then suddenly nothing is true, their “whole groundwork cracks, and the earth opens to abysses.”

I’ll try to keep this in mind next time I’m inclined to try to persuade a literalist of the fallacy of his views on a particular topic.

On Friday, I completed the unabridged audio edition of The Absence of Nectar by Kathy Hepinstall. I found it to be both poetic and deeply disturbing. I highly recommend it.

I’ve fallen off the face of cyberspace the last two days. I was in San Antonio because my mother had surgery to implant a device that will hopefully reduce her Parkinson’s disease symptoms. The surgery went very well, but they won’t turn the device on for six weeks, so we have to wait until then to know how much it helps with her symptoms.

In honor of U.S. Independence Day, Matt Haughey posted the entire Declaration of Independence to his blog. I hadn’t read it in years, and when I did so this morning, I was struck by two points: first, what a prime example of Enlightenment thinking the document is, and second, in a related matter, how it refers directly to “Nature’s God”–the god of the Enlightenment–not the Judeo-Christian god.
Re-reading the document makes me proud to live in a country that was founded on such high ideals, even if we so frequently don’t live up to them.

This blogger has created his own religion.

A friend from church forwarded to me this recent New York Times op-ed piece by former Senator, and now ordained Episcopal priest, John Danforth. He characterizes my view of religion and politics very well. One good snippet:

To assert that I am on God’s side and you are not, that only I know God’s will, and that I will use the power of government to advance my understanding of God’s kingdom is certain to produce hostility. By contrast, moderate Christians see ourselves, literally, as moderators. Far from claiming to possess God’s truth, we claim only to be imperfect seekers of the truth.

The National Council of Churches issues a call to pursue peace and justice in Iraq. Well put–both the political and social justice parts.

I just completed the abridged audio edition of Gates of Fire by Steven Pressfield, and I thoroughly enjoyed it.
The protagonist Xeo recounts his life story among the Spartans in order to give the Presian King Xerxes an insight into the Spartans’ unique character and bravery. The novel uses the stilted language of ancient epic, which made the audio edition particularly enjoyable.

This Business Week article attempts to answer a question that I’ve wondered about:

One of the more puzzling aspects of the current housing boom is that mortgage lenders have been offering ever-sweeter deals on loans. These days it’s increasingly easy to qualify for a loan with little or no money down. . . Why have lenders been so liberal when they run the risk that many of their marginal customers will go into default?

The answer, according to the article, is just shortsighted greed:

Many lenders are just plain desperate for business, according to some experts. In a bid for market share, mortgage lenders are offering highly favorable terms to borrowers. That’s forcing the rest of the industry to match their terms or lose customers.

I find this answer believable, but incomplete. Still searching…