Uzbekistan's autonomous republic of Karakalpakstan is facing an agricultural crisis caused by the authorities' practise of planting large amounts of crops on unsuitable stretches of land.
Experts fear that government planners are refusing to take the region's ecological crisis, caused by the drying up of the Aral Sea, into account in their eagerness to fulfil the largest quotas possible.
Authorities demand that as much rice and cotton as possible are planted on the autonomous republic's land, which is fast losing its fertility due to increasingly saline irrigation water from the evaporating sea.
It boggles the mind how these people could live for decades under Soviet rule and still think that Soviet-style agricultural policy is a good idea. The people who call the shots are so ensconced in their own little political world that they don't notice the devastating consequences their decisions have on everyone else. posted by Stentor Danielson at 16:51 -- link --
The conclusion I want to draw from all of the Biblical evidence is that Jesus is truly the only way to salvation. However, since Jesus is the preincarnate logos who enlightens every person, it is possible that everyone has at least the possibility of being saved through Jesus, even if they do not say the name of Jesus. Maybe (and this is a huge "maybe") John 1:9 implies that what is important is how people respond to the "Light" they do have available to them,2 although Jesus as revealed in the Bible is the supreme revelation of the "Light." Therefore, it is not implausible that someone could find salvation through Jesus without even knowing the name of Jesus because they have responded to the Light which has been revealed to them. None of this seems to contradict teaching in Scripture.
...
No human is able to undo the stain of sin that separates all people from God. Jesus is the only way to salvation simply because He is the only adequate solution for our sin. Since humans were unable to come to God due to sin, God graciously came to humans and offered a way to redeem their relationship with Him.
This is the catch - What was Jesus doing on the cross? Orthodox Christians believe that He was making just payment for our sin. If the answer to that question is anything else, then there is no salvation through Jesus. Since this is the answer indicated by Jesus, Scripture, the church, and reason, then taking this answer to its logical end means that all who do not accept the saving work of Jesus are unable to account for the sin that separates them from God. Therefore, they remain separated from God. Jesus is the only way to salvation because He is the only possible way reconcile humanity's sin which separates all humankind from God.
The conclusion here doesn't seem to follow from the explanation of the nature of Jesus' death. If it truly is Jesus' death that saves us, then whether we believe or not is not important. He said "no one comes to the Father but through me," not "no one comes to the Father but through believing in me." Refer also to John 3:16: "for God so loved the world* that He gave His only son, that we may not perish, but have eternal life." Not "for God so loved those who loved Him back..." Evangelism, then, can't be about saving the heathens -- they're already saved. It would be about sharing the good news -- letting people know something great you found out.
* Note also that God loves the world, not just the people who inhabit it. The anti-worldliness of much of Christian philosophy bothers me. It makes no more sense for the Creator to want people to turn away from Creation in order to get closer to Him, than for a painter to tell people not to look at his or her paintings. Granted, there are anti-worldly statements in the Bible. But I think in those cases it makes more sense to take "world" as referring to the popular idea of a material universe that is somehow separate from the divine, a corrupted expression of eternal principles. A God who loves His Creation would certainly want people to reject the idea that Creation is a separate, ungodly realm. posted by Stentor Danielson at 15:53 -- link --
12.12.02
VVV I'm starting to read William James' Pragmatism. He introduces the philosophical place of pragmatism by discussing the rationalist/empiricist divide. Rationalist philosophies are based on schemas of grand cosmic order. Principles and concepts are more real than the physical world (Plato's idea of the Forms is a good example). Empiricist philosophies, on the other hand, are preoccupied with the particular evidences we have about the physical world. James will apparently argue (I haven't gotten that far yet) that pragmatism can bring together the best of both sides -- grounding in the material world and grand concepts.
It occurred to me that, in this way of dividing philosophies, postmodernism would be combining the worst (in James's view) of both sides. Postmodernism's central focus is on rejecting metanarratives. So it can't incorporate the idea of an ordered universe (which James seems to treat as synonymous with religion) from rationalism. Postmodernism likewise rejects materialism, holding that "reality" is socially constructed and that our perceptions of it are political acts. So it can't claim the groundedness of empiricism. posted by Stentor Danielson at 23:10 -- link --
Several museums in Europe and the United States have issued a landmark declaration opposing the wholesale repatriation of cultural artefacts seized during imperial rule or by means now considered unethical.
The museums say the universal value of collections of archaeological, artistic and ethnic objects in promoting culture outweighs the desire by individual countries or racial groups for their return.
The declaration is the most significant attempt by the world's leading museums to protect treasures, often seized during colonial rule, from governments or descendants of original owners.
Both sides are looking at this as a win-lose situation. If the museums give the artefacts back to the natives, then they lose their ability to teach their visitors about the societies in question, while the natives gain their cultural heritage. And vice versa. The same arguments were aired when NAGPRA -- requiring US museums to return Native American remains -- was passed.
But a funny thing happened when museums started complying with NAGPRA. They found that an open and cooperative approach improved their relations with Native Americans and ultimately made them more able to learn and teach about Native culture. Native Americans, meanwhile, discovered that they weren't simply gaining at the expense of their (often misunderstood) enemies. A partnership between the teachers and the subject matter turned out to be, on the balance, beneficial for both of them as well as the students (the public). Colgate's Longyear Museum is a good example. Complying with NAGPRA -- including the return of five Oneida skeletons -- helped Colgate and the Oneida Nation foster closer relations. posted by Stentor Danielson at 20:54 -- link --
VVVFlynn (who posted just as I logged on to Blogger, giving me the weird experience of seeing a familiar blog name in the "recently updated" list) has some provocative observations that are worth a read -- especially point 2 and his footnote. My thoughts are in his comments section. posted by Stentor Danielson at 00:01 -- link --
The United States has agreed to sell arms to Algeria to help it put down the Islamic rebellion that has cost more than 100,000 lives in the past 10 years.
Announcing the agreement as he ended a visit to Algiers on Monday, the US assistant secretary of state William Burns said: "Washington has much to learn from Algeria on ways to fight terrorism."
Learning about how to more effectively fight terrorism is good. But what kind of lessons will the US be learning from Algeria (and what kind of lessons will we be supporting with the arms sales)? The article gives some indications, which are confirmed by Amnesty International:
Human rights violations in Algeria have become institutionalized. In the last year alone, more than 80 civilians were unlawfully killed by the security forces and dozens more tortured or held for varying periods of time in secret detention. Some 200 people continue to die every month as a result of the continuing decade-long armed conflict. The level of killing has remained largely unchanged since early 1999. Many are civilians, including women and children, killed in targeted and indiscriminate attacks by armed groups.
"Reported cases of human rights abuses may represent only the tip of the iceberg," the organization said, as it is extremely difficult to obtain information about violations due to widespread fear among victims and their families that reporting violations will only exacerbate their predicament. An official commission of inquiry, set up by the authorities to look into the killing of dozens of unarmed demonstrators in the region of Kabylia last year, reported in December 2001 that it was unable to complete its mission because many witnesses were too afraid to speak to them.
The authorities have also taken some measures to ensure that the continuing human rights crisis goes largely unnoticed within the international community. These include recently passed legislation further curbing freedom of expression and severe restrictions on access to foreign observers.
Ideally, the lesson the US would take away from the Algerian situation would be "here's how to mess things up." Faced with a growing Islamic movement, Algeria threw democracy and freedom out the window, hoping brutal repression could end the threat. Ten years later, they seem to have demonstrated that "kill off your enemies and make your populace afraid to oppose you" is not a terribly good strategy, either morally or pragmatically. The US, however, seems to be thinking "hmm, maybe if they had bigger guns..." (Though I'm not surprised, given how "successful" the US has been with the parallel situation in Colombia.) posted by Stentor Danielson at 23:33 -- link --
VVV I'm kind of sad that Strom Thurmond is retiring. I mean, there's nothing like a good Strom Thurmond joke to brighten up your day. posted by Stentor Danielson at 18:52 -- link --
Clap your hands in front of the 1,100-year-old Temple of Kukulcan, in the ancient Mayan city of Chichen Itza, and, to some researchers' ears, the pyramid answers in the voice of the sacred quetzal bird.
A handclap at the base of Kukulcan's staircase generates what [acoustical engineer David] Lubman calls a "chirped echo"—a "chir-roop" sound that first ascends and then falls, like the cry of the native quetzal.
To Lubman, the dimensions of Kukulcan's steps suggest that the builders intended just such an acoustical mimicry. The lower steps have a short tread length and high riser—tough to climb but perfect for producing a high-pitched "chir" sound. The steps higher up make a lower-pitched "roop."
Neat. posted by Stentor Danielson at 22:31 -- link --
VVVunmedia points out "Wrestling With Islam," an interesting article on the origins of Islamism. I was particularly interested in this bit:
Most often, they [the postcolonial elite in the third world] became socialists of one kind or another, for in the world of only a few decades ago, that very Western ideology of "socialism" could still be presented as the coming thing, as a "scientific" thing, the cutting edge of progress. Most came to believe that the best way to modernize their societies was through central planning, and that their own class was in effect the socialist vanguard, the people who had the education and ability to deliver their peoples into the modern world. They looked forward to a world that would be, if anything, post-Muslim and post-Christian -- to the triumph of a kind of universal civil order, that would be socialist in its economy, both East and West.
And naturally, they also bought into another Western idea, another idea which had no place in any traditional Muslim order. They became nationalists as well as socialists, for how can you advance socialism except within a coherent national order? Hence the ideological currents running through the Muslim world in the generation before Iran's Ayatollahs -- Nasserism, pan-Arabism, the Baathist parties of Syria and Iraq, the Bhutto faction in Pakistan, Sukarno in Indonesia, Algerian radicalism in the Maghreb. It was all so clear to all of them, that this was the way forward.
It was instead a catastrophe. Human nature is just what it is, and the laws of supply and demand operate to punish grand ideological schemes, just as the law of gravity operates against other forms of human flight. None of those five-year plans ever worked. And the only thing that did work was the elites clinging to power, trying to Westernize or modernize their societies with increasing frustration.
I wonder what the Left would say if someone told them that the "root causes" of terrorism are came about in part because third world leaders were Marxists.
I think I'm developing an anti-Marxist fixation. I used to bash Objectivists all the time because we had some outspoken ones on the Brunching Board. Now I go after Marxists every chance I get because there are so many of them here at Clark. posted by Stentor Danielson at 15:51 -- link --
