A plea for true tolerance

Recently I watched a video in which Benno Schmidt, former president of Yale, was interviewed regarding academic freedom. He had some interesting things to say.

First, he said academic freedom used to be for the protection of faculty from outside influences. Trustees leaned on professors to adhere to a particular “ism,” so the faculty needed protection.

But now the problem is interference from within the university. Suppression has come from faculty members themselves. Teachers have had their careers ruined, their tenures postponed or never established, their names besmirched because their ideology didn’t match what others wanted it to be.  In addition, speakers representing unpopular views have been heckled or refused the chance to share their ideas.

Students themselves have become targets. Faculty often punish them or make fun of them for views their professors don’t agree with. Many teachers try to indoctrinate those in their classrooms.

Schmidt sees the need for trustees to defend academic freedom from the new totalitarians in administration and the faculty. It’s ironic that those on the left who espouse tolerance are the ones behind most of these new witch hunts. Schmidt ends by asking for true tolerance, rather than blind adherence to the fad of the day.

I say, “Good luck.” The left will never agree to this because they are right, don’t you see. It’s not a struggle of two viewpoints to them—it’s right versus wrong. I don’t see this changing soon. The American university is now firmly in the hands of leftists with a serious agenda to wipe out all dissent. 

Stephen Hawking and M-Theory

I love studying astronomy. The last few years have brought some comforting news in this field for theists (those who believe there's a God).

Consider the beginning of the universe. All research points to the truth of the Big Bang as the starting point for everything--space, time, matter, and energy. First there was nothing--absolutely nothing. Then, the universe exploded into being. Doesn't that suggest Genesis?

But I love the reaction of God-doubters. They now have to create a story that eliminates God from this picture. Here's where Stephen Hawking, a brilliant physicist, enters the scene.

In a desperate attempt to explain how a finally tuned, infinitely complex universe with highly intelligent, mindfully self-aware human beings can “appear spontaneously from nothing,” Hawking latched on to something called “M-theory,” which argues that multiple universes are created out of nothing with many possible histories and many possible states of existence. In only a few of these states would life be possible, and in fewer still could something like humanity exist. In a recent speech, Hawking mentioned that he felt "fortunate to be living in this state of existence.”

This is also known as the “multiverse” theory. There are so many problems with this idea. First, there's no proof for it--none, absolutely none. Secondly, there can't be any proof since these other universes can't be seen or detected from our universe. Third, even if the theory proved true, you haven't solved the problem. What is throwing off these universes? the creator of all the universes still has to be beyond the physical, natural world. Let's see . . . that makes the creator a part of (watch this) the supernatural world. Hmm . . . what have we been talking about over the last couple of thousand years as inhabiting the supernatural world? Oh yeah--God.

A ray of sunshine (or several)

It’s so easy to be upset at all the bad news today. As a conservative, I’m especially concerned about where our country is going. But a piece in today’s newspaper reminded me that there are some good things going on too.

For one thing, the U.S. is in the midst of an energy surge. Due to fracking and tremendous supplies of oil shale, we are the world’s largest producer of natural gas. We may become the world’s biggest supplier of crude oil—more reserves than Saudi Arabia. Wow! Of course, the catch is that Obama and his leftist friends don’t want us to use oil products, so we’ll see if we are allowed to develop this important energy.

Secondly, we have new manufacturing. Thanks to robotics and 3-D printing, we can change the way we make products.

Genetics and stem-cell technology are a third area of good news. We will develop better agriculture and pharmaceuticals. I’m especially happy that stem cells have a far great potential coming from adult cells than from harvesting them from embryos.

One area we are doing well in is puzzling to me. It has to do with IT and cloud computing. I’m a technological dinosaur, so I don’t really understand how all this works. I’m just happy that we seem to be doing well here.

So, cheer up, my friends. Things can be better in our country. But it all depends on the leadership that is willing to let us develop unrestricted by Big Brother government types who want centralized planning. Turn America loose and see what happens.

Some good news, some bad news

I've got a couple of items today. The first one is short but highly interesting to me. The Economist, which at one time was a big global-warming alarmist journal, has had the guts to admit scientific studies show no rise in global temperatures over the past 15 years. I'll be anxious to see what Al Gore does with that information.

Secondly, there is an article in a local newspaper entitled "Stifled by Lack of Freedoms." The authors, professors of political science, have just written a new book entitled Freedom in the 50 States, in which they evaluate dozens of parameters to decide which states have more freedoms and which don't. Guess where California lands?

They point out nearly 2,000,000 California residents left the state between 2000 and 2010, representing a little over 4% of the state's 2000 population. In addition, the authors say Californians saw their real personal income shrink from 2000-2007 even before the great recession caused its damage. Only the state of Michigan (think Detroit) has a worse record.

So where does California land among the 50 states after the authors look at a wide array of numbers and policies around the nation? It's 49th on overall freedom, trailing only New York.

Why is California doing so badly? The authors claim it's due primarily to business regulation, where the state beats out the other 49 states for its onerous laws against business. It has strict local zoning regulations, the most expensive labor laws in the country, a high minimum wage, no right-to-work law, and costly workers compensation/short-term disability/family-leave mandates.

Then there's our court system. California's legal environment routinely ranks among the worst in the nation, which drives up liability insurance for businesses. It's estimated that California's poor tort system costs businesses and consumers around $10 billion per year.

California ranks low for other personal freedoms too. It has a high incarceration rate, tight gun laws, transfat ban, cigarette taxes, and regulations on drivers that all help drive down its personal freedom score.

The authors end by saying our loss of freedom here "costs Californians billions of dollars a year, makes their lives harder, and encourages more and more of them to move somewhere else."

And it's not going to get better. As long as our lives are run by the radical leftists in Sacramento, we have no chance of increasing our freedoms.

Why the drop?

I just read on Drudge that the percent of people who believe that Jesus was really resurrected from the dead has dropped from 77% to 64%. Here are some of my reasons to explain this.

First, it may be a statistical error. It wouldn't be the first time that numbers were twisted as a result of the question asked or the people selected to respond.

It may be the church's fault. So many Christians are told what to believe, but few are told why they should believe it. That's where apologetics comes into play--a rational defense for the Christian faith. Too many churches fail to spend time developing the mind of their adherents. When was the last time you heard your pastor talk about philosophical, scientific, or historical reasons that backed up Christianity?

The statistic may also be due to the general culture. Our society has become cynical to any religious answers to life's problems. We have science to solve everything, right? Our kids are told the evolution is true, thus displacing the need for a God. Religion has been set aside for "spirituality," whatever that means.

In addition, we may have been brainwashed by the media. I know it's a favorite target of conservatives, but there's an element of truth here. Consider yesterday, Easter. Google highlighted a picture of Cesar Chavez rather than anything about Jesus. Mass media hesitates to focus on any positive religious values. Read Bernie Goldberg's book Bias, where he lays out the case for political and religious bias among the elite news organizations in America.

There's also the problem of compartmentalization among Christians. Here's what I mean: followers of Jesus read the Bible and pray on Sunday, then live like the rest of the world Monday through Saturday. They don't understand that their faith is a worldview that has something to say about the rest of the week. What does it mean to be a Christian lawyer, nurse, actor, farmer, etc.? Again, the churches have done a poor job getting people to carry their faith out into the world after the Sunday service is over. If we showed the world that the Christian life is a worthwhile one to live, there might be a more willing acceptance of the key belief in Christianity--the resurrection of Jesus.

Are there other reasons why belief in the resurrection has dropped? Probably, but these are the ones that came immediately to my mind.