inkbluesky

yellow train 3209

update: the train photo link should be fixed. please remember that the images here are rights managed and they are only for your personal use as wallpaper or to experiment with in photoshop.

Articles like these are brain bombs for certain people. They’ve backed themselves into an ideological corner based on dogma trumping rationalism or even simple humanity for that matter. Now the same people will somehow have to fit another bend into their pretzel to rationalize old positions when faced with new choices made possible through science, Genetics and gays – A theologian’s article raises issues of faith on two major fronts

The issues of man’s link to global warming and a genetic link to homosexuality have this in common: While they are each debatable, the preponderance of scientific evidence and thought supports both claims.

The issues also have this in common: Some evangelical Christians accept both theories.

High-profile ministers like Rick Warren and groups like the Evangelical Environmental Network have accepted man’s responsibility for increasing global warming and want to address it. Many other evangelicals see things differently. But this isn’t a make-or-break issue of faith.

Whether homosexuality is genetic, rather than learned, behavior, however, is a defining issue of faith for many. And that’s what makes a recent article by the Rev. Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, so unexpected. Mohler says Christians must be prepared to accept scientific data that homosexual predispositions are genetically engendered.

As you can imagine, this has caused furor in some circles.

And so has Mohler’s related pronouncement: If science can find ways to “treat” homosexuality prenatally, it’s something Christians should consider.

Mohler’s argument produces a plethora of problems for fundamentalist Christians far beyond any genetic cause.

If it is genetically produced, does this mean God countenances it?

Can fundamentalists who oppose stem-cell research acquiesce to prenatal genetic manipulation? What’s the difference?

Is there a difference between treating physical ailments, such as autism, genetically as opposed to socially debatable activities, like homosexuality? Most people would say “yes” in a heartbeat.

Kind of a part two to what liberal media? The Many Man-Crushes of Chris Matthews

Matthews’s man-crush on Bush continued longer than that of most of the mainstream media, leading him, for instance, to assert that “everybody sort of likes the President, except for the real whack-jobs,” at a moment when the percentage of Americans telling New York Times/CBS pollsters that they “liked” Bush had fallen to 37 percent.

But nobody, save Fred Barnes, thinks Bush is cool anymore, and so Matthews has had to go cruising for a new crush. For a while it looked as if he and John McCain would hook up. “A lot of people,” he explained coyly, naming no names, “like the cut of John McCain’s jib, his independence, his maverick reputation.” This led Matthews to declare the election all but over, announcing that as far as he was concerned, McCain “deserves the presidency.”

That Matthews passes for a centrist is testament to how far far Right the national punditry has moved. The biggest problem with Matthews isn’t man-love for Republicans with “swagger”  it’s a pathetic lack of insight into culture, politics and last but not least what a representative liberal democracy like ours is supposed to be. The only values that Chris seems to have are the ones written into his lucrative contracts. I get the impression he doesn’t care what he says as long as he generates controversy which in turn gets viewers. Its not punditry or insight, its devil’s advocate for fun and profit. That he hurts rather then helps America isn’t even part of Chris’s calculations.