Today I woke up in time for breakfast (I had missed it yesterday) and then decided to walk into Oxford. It's a pleasant walk, and the weather was perfect for it. In Houston I'd be a puddle of sweat before fifteen minutes had passed, even at 8:30 am. It's August, for crying out loud! But in the temperate climate of England I was fine.

I didn't have to meet Andrew until 9:55 am, so I took advantage of the time and got some shopping done, exploring up High street to Cornmarket street, then to Magdalen street and back. I met Andrew at 9:55 at Christ Church gate, which has been the center of our orbits this entire week; we headed from there back to Magdalen street, as I had one main goal today: to get to Wolvercote cemetery to visit J.R.R. Tolkien's grave-site. We stopped in a store and bought a spray of flowers for two pounds - it wasn't much, but it was all I could find at short notice - and then we caught the #6 bus to Mere Road. Mere road is only 600 meters or so from Wolvercote, though we had to take our lives in our hands crossing the lanes in a very busy roundabout to get to Five Mile street which leads to the cemetery.

I hadn't been able to get a precise location of Tolkien's grave on the internet, and it was a bit daunting for us as we walked through this beautiful cemetery which contains several hundred graves. We finally found some men who appeared to work there, and they pointed us in the right direction.

We came upon the grave of Tolkien and his wife Edith (pictured above). It's a beautiful grave, and it was decorated with flowers and a green bush growing out of the top of the grave. On the headstone Tolkien had engraved under his wife's name the name Luthien. Luthien is the elf-maiden in Tolkien's epic poem referenced in Lord of the Rings and expanded more fully in the Silmarillion. When he died, two years after his wife, the name of Beren, Luthien's mortal love, was engraved under Tolkien's name. From all accounts, Tolkien and his wife had a lifelong romance.

I wanted to leave a note with the flowers, and I hadn't been able to find a blank card, so I tore a sheet out of my notebook and wrote the following on it:

"The grey rain-curtain turned all to silver glass and was rolled back.
And he beheld white shores and beyond them a far green country
under a swift sunrise."

This is a quote from the end of The Return of the King. I wrote a few other quick thanks and blessings, and signed the note on behalf of the Thinklings. Andrew, an honorary Thinkling himself, having mooted with us several times, was also named on the note.

I found myself, unexpectedly, choking up while I read the note. I am so thankful to God for J.R.R. Tolkien and his magnificent work, as I am likewise thankful for C.S. Lewis.

The thought occurred to me this week: without Jesus, C.S. Lewis is just another brilliant English scholar who I've never heard of. Without Jesus, there has been no Narnia, we haven't been brought to our knees in worship in Perelandra, we haven't marvelled at God's redeeming patience in Till We Have Faces, we haven't been strengthened in our faith through Mere Christianity, or gained wisdom from The Screwtape Letters, or found solace in A Grief Observed. And I believe that without Jesus, we never would have had the epic tale of friendship, courage, sacrifice, redemption, and triumph over evil that is The Lord of the Rings. Without Jesus our hearts are never broken by "beauties which pierce like swords or burn like cold iron". Without the witness of Christ in his life, Tolkien does not produce that work.

I honor these men, but all true honor goes to the Lord who inspired them and gifted them so magnificently. This is one reason why I don't despair over the apparent or observed dearth of noteworthy creativity coming out of Christian circles today. An amazing thing happened in Oxford a half century ago. That is not so long ago in the scheme of things and, though we may be at low tide (our entire culture, both Christian and non-Christian, may be) the wave will crest again.

But I digress. Andrew and I spent a few more moments by the grave, and then made our way back to the city center and ate a lunch of pizza bagels and ice-cream.

At 1:15 we met up with some of his Baylor classmates and made our way to Magdalen college for a tour and some class time. Andrew's professor, Dr. Hanks, was gracious enough to allow me to take part in this. Before I describe the tour, I'd just like to say that Andrew's classmates are all top-notch people. They were gracious to me, polite, well spoken, obviously very intelligent, and a joy to be around. The whole afternoon was a treat for me.

Magdalen College is absolutely beautiful. It has to be seen in person to be fully appreciated (although my pictures, linked at the bottom, will give you a taste). Magdalen's buildings are festooned with gargoyles. Magdalen students claim they have the best gargoyles at Oxford and, though I haven't seen every building in this university, I'd be hard pressed to imagine better gargoyle work. Magdalen is also the greenest, lushest place I've seen thus far.

We took a tour of the outer portion of Magdalen chapel, which has amazing stained glass work, carvings, and paintings, and then made our way around the campus, ending up with a view of the building C.S. Lewis lodged in while he was a professor here. It is a "newer" building, having been built in 1751. Dr. Hanks pointed out Lewis' rooms. We then followed the path called "Addison's Walk", which is the walk Lewis took with Tolkien and Hugo Dyson the night he was convinced of the truth claims of Christianity. Addison's walk is beautiful, lined with stately old trees and lush greenery.

We ended up on a short bridge leading to a gate which itself leads into the pasture land where the Magdalen deer herd is kept. It was on this bridge that Dr. Hanks held class. The subjects of the class were two of the books in the Narnia series: The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe and The Last Battle. Dr. Hanks teaches with a Socratic method, so the students were very involved in the discussion. Gosh, they're smart. Together the class explored the parallels between TLTWATW and Christianity. One student noted the parallel of the cracked Stone Table and the law of Moses. This is one I hadn't considered before. There was also a lively discussion on the themes of The Last Battle, including a discussion of Lewis' inclusive theology as evidenced (possibly) by the Calormen Emeth's acceptance by Aslan. All in all, I was fascinated and felt privileged to get to be an observer of this class.

When class was done, Dr. Hanks let us know that we had been given permission to tour the inner part of Magdalen's chapel. The main attraction there was that we each got to sit in C.S. Lewis' chair and have our picture taken. This seat is currently owned by another Magdalen don, but there is a memorial plaque honoring Lewis on the chair.

With that, our tour was over. Andrew and his friends Brooke and Brittney joined me for cookies at Ben's Cookies, and at this point my time in Oxford was starting to run short. Andrew had some things to do before dinner in the Great Hall this evening, but still had perhaps an hour, so he and I went to the two pound bookstore near Christ Church. That's right: every book, two pounds. And there are a lot of good books in there. I bought P.J. O'Rourke's On The Wealth of Nations in hardback and Andrew bought Tolstoy's Anna Karenina. We then went to the St. Aldtate's Tavern where I ordered a fish and chips that we split. We talked for awhile, and then it came time to go. We're guys, so we didn't make a big deal of it, we just hugged and said goodbye, but I miss Andrew already.

On that note: I'm so glad Andrew was given the privilege to study at Oxford, even just for five weeks, and I'm so thankful that God provided so that Andrew could go (and God certainly did that, and has continued to provide). It was pleasing to hear people, from his classmates to Dr. Hanks, speak highly of Andrew to me and, most commonly, note the profound nature of his comments and observations in class. Everyone seems to like Andrew.

Most of all, it's great to have a twenty-year-old son who actually wants to spend time with his dad. I will never forget this vacation, and the hours we got to spend together exploring Oxford and talking about the things we love.

It's been a great trip. Tomorrow I will bid Oxford farewell and start my journey back to Houston, arriving hopefully in time for my sweet Bethany's 17 year birthday party. I'm a very blessed man.

Thanks for walking along with me in these posts. Now, go read some Tolkien or Lewis, it will do you good!

Cheers!

(If you're interested, you can view all the pictures I took today here)

Built into our plans for the week was to have a day without a lot to do. The day following our whirlwind London trip seemed as good as any, and so we kept Sunday as open as possible.

I let Andrew sleep in - we had originally made plans to attend Christ Church cathedral for services together, but looking at him struggle to stay awake on the train Saturday night convinced me that maybe he deserved a break from my schedule for awhile. So Sunday morning I made my way alone to the Christ Church main gate at 11:15, in time for the Cathedral Eucharist service. If you are attending the service, the derby-wearing Christ Church protectors allow you to walk to the Cathedral through the "forbidden zone" of the Quad. That was a treat, and I snapped a few pictures surreptitiously coming and going.

The Eucharist service was wonderful. It was an Anglican service, a first for me, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I struggled to keep up, however; I had received a paper program that summarized the hymns we were singing, but I realized once things got rolling that I missed out on the bound booklet that contained the real keys to the service. I'm sure they're used to the slightly dazed look a clueless tourist adopts during the service when he doesn't have a booklet, but I hung in there. The songs were high hymns, and there was a men's choir that sang several prayerful songs, a few in Latin. The message of the day was on materialism, and it was a very good one. The priest spoke of how we often invert the roles of the Spirit versus the Material. Both are good, as Christ's Incarnation proves, but the Material is to be in subjugation to the Spirit, and is to be used to build the Kingdom. He warned us that if we get this backwards, we will see the material things which are our true treasures turn to "spiritual dust in our hands". This was thought-provoking for me, and I profited from it. At the end of the service we took communion, with wafers and a shared communion cup (filled with wine, not the grape juice I'm used to).

Following the service I met Andrew for lunch; we went to Old Tom's pub (just another ale-house that's been around for three hundred years) and I ordered fish and chips. I know English food gets a bad rap, but I have completely enjoyed the fare I've received here. It's good, simple food and it suits me well.

Following lunch, Andrew trekked with me back to Windmill road, where I'm staying. I got some down-time and even took a nap, and Andrew worked on a paper that he has due. Around 5:00pm Andrew headed back to Oxford to get ready for dinner in the Great Hall, and I followed around 7:00pm to meet up with Andrew and a number of other Baylor students at Bodleian Library for a performance of A Midsummer Night's Dream. The Bodleian has been in existence since 1602 and is the main research library for Oxford, and it is a magnificent building with a large courtyard. Also attending the performance was one of Andrew's professors, Dr. Hanks, who is one of the kindest and most engaging people I've ever met. I was very impressed with the students as well. They are all top-notch young people, polite, cheerful, friendly, and smart. The company I got to keep last night was very good.

This was to be an outdoor performance of A Midsummer's Night Dream, performed by an acting troupe from Shakespear's Globe Theater (!!!). The performance took place in the large Bodleian courtyard; the Globe players perform after the manner of the plays done in Shakespeare's time, complete with very limited technology, just a simple set and some lighting, no sound system, and with a minstrel-show feel in between acts. The costuming for the play would have been foreign to the Globe players of yore, however; it was done in 1920's style, and included a rarity: a female Puck dressed as a 1920's flapper. You can see the stage and the setting in the picture, above.

The play was fantastic. This was Shakespeare in all his comedic grandeur, complete with a good dose of Shakespearian bawdiness and excellent performances by the Globe players. They all did a fabulous job, and they sang and played instruments too (and danced the Charleston in between acts to boot). We laughed heartily throughout. The play ended around 10:30pm, with multiple curtain calls.

I parted ways with Andrew and his Baylor colleagues and began making my way to the bus stop. It was just around this time that I realized I hadn't eaten anything all day except the fish and chips I had earlier. So I found a street vendor and bought a cheeseburger, which had that European tilt to the flavor from what I'm used to, but was still good. I was making my way toward the bus stop to head back to Headington when a policeman pulled over and motioned me to his car. At first I thought he was going to ticket me for jaywalking (which I was guilty of) but instead he gave me a look of concern and said:

"Is that a camera yer holdin' in yer hand?"

"Um, yes officer."

"Well, take my advice and stash it away. Yer jest askin' to be robbed."

I thanked him and shoved my camera in my front pocket, waited for the bus (surrounded by a bunch of teenagers and a priest), caught it and made my way back to Windmill road.

This whole vacation has been a mid-summer's dream come true for me. I've had an incredible time. Only one more full day left.

If you'd like to view the pictures I took yesterday, you can see them here.

Yesterday, Andrew and I had only one thing on our itinerary; to leap into London with everything we had; to "rub one's nose in the very quiddity of each thing, to rejoice in its being (so magnificently) what it was." (C.S. Lewis).

That's a big challenge when considering a city like London, and for a day with only so many hours in it. But we gave it our best shot. We boarded our train for Paddington at the Oxford railway station and enjoyed a nice, fifty-five minute commute into London. Andrew had worked diligently to have all the directions we'd need to fulfill our itinerary, acting as our navigator for the day, and he did a fabulous job, as I would have immediately gotten myself lost hopelessly in London's warrens. I will give London this credit, though: unlike Oxford, London labels its streets plainly and in large letters. In Oxford, there's no sense labeling a street because five paces after the sign the street will have changed its name.

Our first goal was to get something to eat. Our second goal was to arrive at the British Museum. We accomplished both in one fell swoop. We rode the Tube toward the museum and, upon arriving, discovered a hot dog stand right outside it. The hot dogs there were excellent, by the way, and Andrew was pretty excited because the stand carries his favorite soda, Sunkist, which he hadn't yet seen in Europe. From his reports it ended up tasting like Fanta, but it was still good.

The British museum was - you'll hear this word a couple times in this post - overwhelming. We rammed through much of it in about an hour and a half, but probably only saw a small fraction of one percent of what it offered. It's just huge. We walked through ancient Greece and Rome, ancient Egypt, ancient Ur and Babylon, and much of the history of Europe.

There were lots of sculptures and busts in the museum: busts of various kings and emperors, including an impressive collection of Roman emperors. These were important in their day: without mass media the Emperor needed a way to get his image out in front of the populace, so the emperors are represented in sculpted images of exaggerated youth, vitality, and heroism. There were large displays of armor, helmets, swords, spears, and the other implements of war. Toward the end of it, I found myself becoming a little depressed; it's amazing how much of mankind's history revolves around conquest, intrigue, wealth, weaponry, and politics. This morning at Christ Church cathedral we sang a song that reminded me of what I saw in the histories yesterday at the museum:

Cure Thy children’s warring madness,
Bend our pride to Thy control.
Shame our wanton selfish gladness,
Rich in things and poor in soul.
Grant us wisdom, grant us courage,
Lest we miss Thy kingdom’s goal,

- God of Grace and God of Glory, v. 3
Following the British museum, we again hopped on the Tube and made our way to the Imperial War Museum. Once again, it was overwhelming. We spent some time in the main room admiring the aircraft, tanks and rockets on display there, and then made our way down into the trenches of World War I. The trench simulation was very good, with the sites and sounds (but not the smells, thankfully) of trench warfare in the Great War faithfully reproduced. We heard interviews of soldiers who had "gone over the top" into no man's land and were the only ones left standing of their platoon,

All wars are awful, but World War I gets win, place, and show in the most hellish war imaginable sweepstakes. It was such a terrible, stupid war, full of waste and senseless bloodshed. I'm amazed at the English people for what they endured in the 20th century: not one but two world wars right on their doorsteps that stole entire generations of their young men.

Peace to them all . . . Ypres and the Somme ate up most of them. They were happy while their good days lasted.

- C.S. Lewis, Surprised by Joy, chapter VI - Bloodery
We moved from the Great War section to the section on World War II, and were again met with tales of great courage and heroism on all sides. But also of troubling hatred.

"They were all murdered because we hate them."

- Felix Landau, SS sergeant, speaking of the victims of the Holocaust
I'm thankful to all those who sacrificed so much for our freedom, against such evil.

We finally left the War museum as dinner was calling us, and we had to make our way to Trafalgar square, again on the Tube. We had dinner in a nice pub called Garfunkel's, where we ate some very good Italian food. We were both footsore and brain-weary at this point so we took our time over dinner, and then headed to the National Gallery which is a magnificent building at the head of Trafalgar square. It was closing in about 45 minutes, so our visit there consisted mainly of a nearly-blind rush through room after room of paintings. To give you a sense of the scope of this art gallery, I think we went through about eight rooms devoted to the 17th century alone. The paintings were magnificent and my one regret is that we didn't have more time for this museum. I saw Monets, Van Goghs, Gaugins, and Rembrandts, among many, many other artists, and we stayed until they started shooing us out.

This completed our museum-hunting for the day. We also had on our plans the Churchill museum, but that proved unrealistic in hindsight. So we made our way to the Queen's Theater to see Les Miserables, which has been running in London for twenty five years. I had never seen Les Mis and was unfamiliar with the story, so I bought a playbill and read up on it while we waited for the play to start. It was magnificent! Not only was it a great, entertaining musical skillfully done, it was also surprisingly redemptive. It's a tale of sacrifice and forgiveness from start to end, and I walked out uplifted. Uplifted and also dead-tired, as it was now past 10:30pm at the end of a long, full day.

We still had a long road ahead of us, though. We trekked the few blocks to the Piccadilly Circus Underground and rode it to Paddington Station, arriving about five minutes till 11:00pm. We had to run to catch the Oxford train that was boarding at Platform 9.

"Uh oh," I thought as we boarded. The train was packed, with barely room for us to stand just inside the doors. And it was hot. So, dog-tired, Andrew and I stood sweating among teeming masses, including a young gent and his lass who decided that this would be the perfect place to start snogging.

To take my mind off the snogging happening four inches away from me, I tried to engage in conversation with the middle aged British couple crammed up against the door. I could hear them discussing Les Mis, as they had also attended that night, so I tried to join in, using my best Texas opener, "So, did you have good seats for the play?". But they didn't appear to be much interested in conversing with the sweaty American invading even the small personal spaces that Europeans value, so, since they were staring at me like I had a third eye, I decided to drop my attempts at communication. I resigned myself to a long, uncomfortable journey home.

But then, a miracle! Oh thank you, Glorious, Shining city of Slough! The train stopped at the Slough railway station (unexpectedly, as we had only one stop on the way in, at Reading), and a number of people exited the train. We still had to stand, but the young couple was able to take their intimacy over to a seat, and we had more breathing room. And then the next (unexpected) stop, and even more people got off, and Andrew and I were able to find seats into which we collapsed, until we arrived back in good old Oxford at midnight.

From there, Andrew and I each took our separate cabs back home: he to Christ Church and me to Windmill road in Headington. Upon arriving home, I skyped for a bit with my lovely better half - poor thing: I get to look at her while we skype and she has to look at me - and I was also able to talk to two of my kids, Bethany and Blake, as well. Finally, we said our goodbyes and, as the time neared 2:00am, I fell asleep.

London, thanks for a great day. I'll never forget it. But it's good to be back in Oxford.

If you'd like to see pictures from today, you can find them here.

This morning I woke up, ate an early English breakfast (which was awesome - more on that in a later post), posted the previous post that I was too jetlagged to post last night, and then walked over to Christ Church's main gate to meet Andrew at 11:00am. He and I found a little shop and got a slice of pizza and sat and talked for awhile, and then, around noon, caught the bus to Kilns Lane and Lewis Close, which is where you can find C.S. Lewis' house, the Kilns.

We had to wander around in this residential area a little while before we found the Kilns. It's a beautiful little house, lovingly restored (probably in much better shape than when C.S. Lewis actually lived there). We were a little bit early so we hung around in a nearby lane leading to the C.S. Lewis nature walk and pond. When our 1:00pm tour time approached we went to the door of the Kilns and rang the bell.

A matronly English woman answered the door, and when she found out that we were there for a tour, she asked us if we wouldn't mind waiting for a few minutes in the garden. So, Andrew and I took our seats in the garden that C.S. Lewis used to sit in. It is - I have to resort to a more British-sounding adjective here - lovely.

A few minutes after we sat down, a very nice lady popped out of the door of the Kilns and asked us if we'd like some tea.

Tea.

Would I like to have some tea . . . in C.S. Lewis's garden . . .

I avoided the temptation to shout "WOULD I? WOULD I?!?!" - and instead said something like "Thank you. That would be splendid." I actually don't think I said "splendid", I probably said something more American like "awesome", or "neat", but let's pretend.

She and another very nice "scullery maid" (that's how they laughingly referred to themselves) brought us tea on a very nice serving, with sugar lumps, cream, and cookies. I took a picture of it, above.

The aforementioned two ladies are Americans, by the way. Interesting.

Another group of five people joined us a few minutes later and tea was brought out for them as well. And then we entered the Kilns. We sat in the sitting room and listened as our guide, Kim Gilnett, told us the story of the Kilns and C.S. Lewis. He did a fantastic job. Andrew had already done this tour and confirmed for me that it's not a scripted thing. Kim is a Lewis aficionado from Seattle Pacific University (he's also an American) and he asked us about our interest in Lewis, shared anecdotes, pointed out photos, talked about Lewis' wife, Joy, and in general kept us spellbound for nearly an hour. Among the anecdotes shared were ones about Lewis's generosity: Lewis didn't feel right making money from writing about Christianity, so he gave a lot of his money away - always to needy individuals, rather than causes. And always anonymously. This helps explain why he, Warnie, Mrs. Moore, other boarders, his gardner, Mr. Paxford, their cook, and later Joy Davidman and her two sons, continued to live at this relatively small house that Lewis had bought in 1930 for $3,300 pounds, till Lewis' death and beyond.

As an aside, Kim is not a big fan of the dour portrayal of Lewis in the movie Shadowlands.

Following our time in the sitting room, Kim took us on a tour of the house, including the dining room, the kitchen, several of the studies that are in the house, one containing Warnie Lewis' typewriter upon which a large number of Lewis' letters were typed up from "Jack's" manuscripts, etc. We saw the room C.S. Lewis died in, the kitchen, and a number of bedrooms. It's not a large house by any means, but it holds a deceptively large number of rooms. We also met Jerry Root, editor of The Quotable Lewis, who was studying his Bible at the desk where Lewis often wrote during the time when he authored the Narnia series. Professor Root was preparing for a weekend seminar, where students come and are put up at the Kilns for several days to learn more about Lewis.

Our guide, Kim, has been a Lewis scholar since the 70s, and was a part of the restoration of the Kilns that started in the early 90s. There's a story there: After Lewis' brother Warnie Lewis, who also lived at the Kilns, died in the early 70s, the home was sold to a family that proceeded to change a bunch of things, even to the point of renovating the kitchen in the 1970s Avacado Green Blech™ style, so the restoration team had its work cut out for them. In addition, C.S. Lewis and Warnie pretty much smoked non-stop in the house during their waking hours, so there was quite a bit of heavy tobacco stainage that was discovered when the restoration team stripped the newer paint off. All in all I think they've done a fantastic job. The people who run the Kilns seem to have a genuine love and enthusiasm for Lewis and it shows.

I don't think I'll ever forget taking afternoon tea in the Kilns garden.

Once we left the Kilns we walked around the Kilns' pond, and then walked over to the church that C.S. Lewis attended where we viewed his gravestone, which is in the church cemetery.

Following this, we headed back to Oxford's city center and Andrew took me on an abbreviated Inklings walk. It was great - we walked by the first house C.S. Lewis stayed at after arriving in Oxford, visited the gravestones of a few of his Inkling friends such as Hugo Dyson and Charles Williams, walked past Magdalen college, and ended up at the Eagle and Child pub for dinner. It got me wondering what a "Thinklings walk" would look like. We'd start at BloDingle, probably, which was the site of our first few moots, and go from there, ending up, I suppose, in a quaint little town in Vermont . . .

But I digress: at the Eagle and Child we ordered some delicious "pie" (think pot-pie, not fruit-pie) and then I caught the bus back to Headington.

It was a great day. Tomorrow, London!

Click here if you'd like to see the pictures I took today.

If you don't have Facebook, try this link to see the pictures.

I arrived at Heathrow yesterday morning at 7:30 after a pleasant flight from Houston. I was somewhat bleary because I don't sleep well on planes, but I can't complain. Catching the Oxford Express at the airport I arrived at Headington, Oxford and made my way to my lodgings (a nice little B&B off of Windmill road). After getting settled in and exchanging a few emails with my eldest, Andrew, who is studying at Oxford this summer, I began my trek towards Christ Church college.

The weather was cool, about 70, and the skies were overcast. It was an enjoyable walk. It occurred to me that C.S. Lewis must have made this walk thousands of times, as the Kilns is less than a mile from where I'm staying.

Andrew and I met up near Christ Church cathedral and began our day. We made our way to the Kings Arms pub for lunch, where we both ordered bangers and mash, because what's better to start off a day of Oxford? It was delicious. We spent some time exploring the city and talking about its history as we walked. Oxford's city center is bustling with a great deal of pedestrian traffic, and the roads go every which-way and change names often, as roads in ancient cities are wont to do, so it took awhile for me to get my bearings. We walked down the Thames for a mile or two - I kept threatening Andrew that I was going to adopt my best rube American accent and ask a local where the "Thaymes" was" - and turned down a country lane that appeared to our right, passing by a soccer pitch and cutting through the meadows back to the city roads. During our walk we talked about Tolkien and Lewis and the works of literary genius those men produced. It's a wonderful feeling to be walking the same roads they did.

At 2:30 I bought a visitor's ticket into Christ Church proper - Andrew is a student there and has full run of the place - and we ventured into Christ Church cathedral and the Great Hall, where the students eat breakfast and dinner each day. I haven't seen the movies, but evidently Hogwarts is patterned after the Great Hall. Andrew gets to eat here five nights a week and, from a look at the menu and all his reports, the food is exquisite.

The cathedral was fascinating. There are memorial plaques and statues all over it honoring the departed and dating back centuries. There is also evidence of the Reformation-era expunging of any references to the saints, from blanked out faces on stained glass to the removal of saint's relics from the memorials.

Following our visit to Christ Church, we made another exploration through the streets of Oxford, ending up at St. Phillips book store where I purchased Lewis's The Discarded Image and Andrew bought a book by Hobbes, primarily because of who wrote the forward (the name escapes me). By this time I was starting to get a bit foggy, having been up for over 26 hours, not counting a few brief moments of dozing on the plane. So we grabbed a quick meal at Pret a Manger and then we popped over to the Bird and Baby to share a pint with Tollers and Jack. I read them some of my latest work. They both laughed heartily and pronounced it "pure rubbish".

Just kidding about that last part (but wouldn't that have been wonderful!). After dinner I caught City Bus #8 back to Headington, uploaded some photos, and crashed.

If interested, you can see pictures from Day 1 here: Oxford, Day 1. If you're not a Facebook user, try this link.

And now, off I go for another day in Oxford! Today Andrew and I will be visiting the Kilns, taking an Inklings walk, and perhaps visiting a museum after that.

On April 28th, 1789, the HMS Bounty was taken over by mutiny. Fletcher Christian led 17 other mutineers to set Captain Bligh and his supporters afloat in a small boat. The mutineers tried to settle in Tahiti. After some violent encounters with the Tahitians, the mutineers, some Tahitian men and some woman they had taken from Tahiti left on the Bounty. They eventually arrived at the uninhabited island of Pitcairn.

They burned the Bounty in what is now called “Bounty Bay” in order to hide the evidence of their crime and to prevent the women from fleeing.

There was plenty of water and food on the island and at first things were going well. However, many of the women felt like they were treated like slaves and revolted. The Tahitian men killed many of the mutineers in a revolt, including Fletcher Christian. The widows of the mutineers murdered the Tahitian men in revenge. The remaining mutineers could not get along with each other either, and so eventually due to fights, drunkenness and murder, only two men survived. One of them, Ned Young, died of Asthma in 1800, the first to die of natural causes.

This left one mutineer, and the last surviving man, John Adams, in charge of nine Tahitian women and dozens of children. Adams was a murderer and a mutineer. But he was also a man looking for hope. One day he found the H.M.S. Bounty’s Bible at the bottom of an old chest. He began to read it and his life changed. He dedicated his life to Christ and began to lead worship services on the Island. He taught the women and children of the island from the Bible.

Eventually they all became Christians.

Today the population of Pitcairn island numbers a little over 50. They are the descendants of the Bounty’s mutineers and still bear those surnames. And every person on the island is a Christian.

Though he didn’t live to see it, the way that Fletcher Christian’s people became actual Christians was through the power of God’s word.
The Bible has the power to change your life and the lives of those around you as well. “

God means what he says. What he says goes. His powerful Word is sharp as a surgeon's scalpel, cutting through everything, whether doubt or defense, laying us open to listen and obey. Nothing and no one is impervious to God's Word. We can't get away from it—no matter what” (Hebrews 4:12-13, The Message.)

The next time you pick up a Bible, don’t just go through it, let it go through you. It might change your life.

Sources under comments...

Back in Billy Graham's hay-day, not everyone was thrilled about him. Theologians in particular were not so sure about his approach.

From this blog:

“The great Swiss theologian Karl Barth once stood in the rain to hear Graham preach in Basel. When he told Graham that the sermon from John 3:3 was good but should not have stressed the must in ‘you must be born again,’ Graham begged to differ (and was soon gratified to hear another great theologian, Emil Brunner, affirm his position). But then Graham closes this account concerning Barth with these words: ‘In spite of our theological differences, we remained good friends.’” (Mark Noll, American Evangelical Christianity: An Introduction, Blackwell 2001, p. 47)

Another important theologian, Helmut Thielicke, also attended a Billy Graham crusade, but with certain preconceived notions which put Thielicke in an ill disposition toward the popular preacher. However, after coming under the preaching of Graham, Thielicke experienced an awakening of sort...

In Thielicke’s autobiography, Notes from a Wayfarer, he recounts the situation:

My meeting with Billy Graham, who was at that time holding his huge evangelization crusades in Los Angeles stadium, was of great importance to me. I at first had reservations about accepting his invitation to sit next to him on the balustrade.

When I then did indeed do so on the insistence of my friends, I kept my eyes wide open critically. As the people came forward in their thousands to confess their faith, however, I was aware only of calm meditation on the part of his crew and detected no expressions of triumph. His message was good solid stuff. His warmhearted, unpretentious humanity made a great impression on me.

Afterwards I wrote him a thank you letter in which I confessed that whenever I had previously been asked for my opinion of him I had said that I felt that many essential elements were lacking in his proclamation of the Gospel; he advocated an individualistic doctrine of salvation, and even this took place only in relation to the initial stages of faith. Although I had now personally experienced his message, I did not feel compelled to revise the objective side of this criticism, but I had resolved to modify the question in which I raised my criticism; it now ran: “What is lacking in my and the conventional Christian proclamation of the Gospel that makes Billy Graham necessary?”

I found the answer he gave me extremely significant. I was, he said, completely right in my criticism. What he was doing was certainly the most dubious form of evangelization. But what other alternative did he have if the flocks that had no shepherds would not otherwise be served? This answer gave him credibility in my eyes and convinced me of his spiritual substance.

Graham would take Thielicke’s constructive criticism to heart, as exhibited in his later emphasis on continuing discipleship and the importance of the local church, the latter which caused him much criticism (from fundamentalists) as he worked with local mainline Protestant churches and Roman Catholics whenever his crusade would come to a town.

I don't know if Thielicke really deserves all the credit for Graham's later emphasis on continuing discipleship and follow-up, but I think we should give him some... :-)

You can't make this stuff up. First Baptist Church, Fort Worth has a history better than fiction.

A new, long chapter in the church's history began when it called as pastor John Franklyn Norris, owner-editor of the Baptist Standard from 1907 to 1909. Norris accepted the pastorate in 1909 and remained at First Baptist for the rest of his life. The church lost at least 600 members in 1911 after a division, and the following year lost its building and pastor's home by fire. Though Norris was indicted for arson, he was acquitted after a month-long trial. During his long tenure, the church's personality became inseparably entwined with that of its pastor. It aligned with the prohibition movement, sponsored an interdenominational Bible school, and became the leader of the World's Christian Fundamentals Conference in 1919. That year the church built a 5,000-seat auditorium, and four years later it helped to form the Baptist Bible Union of America. Because of Norris's continued open criticism of the Southern Baptist Convention, his decision to discard SBC literature, his attacks on SBC schools (particularly Baylor University, which he charged with teaching "evolution and infidelity"), and his spirit of noncooperation, the Tarrant County Baptist Association withdrew fellowship from the church in 1922. The Baptist General Convention of Texas refused Norris a seat at the state convention in 1923 and permanently excluded him in 1924.

On July 18, 1926, Norris shot and killed a Fort Worth lumberman, Dexter Elliot Chipps, in the church office. He was charged with murder but was acquitted on a ruling of self-defense at his trial in Austin. Two years later the church and parsonage were burned again. By 1931 the church reported 12,000 members, with 6,000 attending Sunday school, and property valued at $1.5 million. Throughout the next two decades Norris and the First Baptist Church stood solidly against Modernism, Communism, liberalism, evolution, ecclesiasticism, and organized crime. The growing congregation gained notoriety for extreme independence, a controversial and pugilistic attitude, and a flare for sensationalism.

Discord and internal rivalry surfaced in 1945, when Norris's son George became pastor of a dissenting party that split from the First Baptist Church. Norris's health began to fail in 1948, and the Premillennium Fellowship fractured in May 1950, the same month Norris was dismissed by the church in Detroit.

Norris died on August 20, 1952, and the First Baptist Church called Homer Ritchie as pastor four days later. Ritchie served in that capacity until October 11, 1981, much of that time with his twin brother Omer serving as his co-pastor.

Did you get all that?
The pastor was acquitted of arson! Later he shot and killed a man in his church office. He was acquitted of murder on the grounds that it was self-defense. And two years later the church and parsonage burned again.

And here's my favorite part. Four days after he died, Homer Ritchie became pastor. Over the next 30 years, Homer and his brother Omer co-pastored the church. Homer and Omer. Man, even the Coen brothers couldn't make up stuff this good.

Of course the history on the church's official website doesn't mention any of that stuff. I guess I don't blame them.

Temple Grandin, Ph.D., is the most accomplished and well-known adult with autism in the world. Now her fascinating life, with all its challenges and successes is being brought to the screen. HBO has produced the full-length film Temple Grandin, which premieres on Saturday, February 6th on HBO. She has been featured on NPR (National Public Radio), major television programs, such as the BBC special "The Woman Who Thinks Like a Cow", ABC's Primetime Live, The Today Show, Larry King Live, 48 Hours and 20/20, and has been written about in many national publications, such as Time magazine, People magazine, Forbes, U.S. News and World Report, and New York Times. Among numerous other recognitions by media, Bravo Cable did a half-hour show on her life, and she was featured in the best-selling book, Anthropologist from Mars.

Dr. Grandin didn't talk until she was three and a half years old, communicating her frustration instead by screaming, peeping, and humming. In 1950, she was diagnosed with autism and her parents were told she should be institutionalized. She tells her story of "groping her way from the far side of darkness" in her book Emergence: Labeled Autistic, a book which stunned the world because, until its publication, most professionals and parents assumed that an autism diagnosis was virtually a death sentence to achievement or productivity in life.

Dr. Grandin has become a prominent author and speaker on the subject of autism because "I have read enough to know that there are still many parents, and yes, professionals too, who believe that 'once autistic, always autistic.' This dictum has meant sad and sorry lives for many children diagnosed, as I was in early life, as autistic. To these people, it is incomprehensible that the characteristics of autism can be modified and controlled. However, I feel strongly that I am living proof that they can" (from Emergence: Labeled Autistic).

Even though she was considered "weird" in her young school years, she eventually found a mentor, who recognized her interests and abilities. Dr. Grandin later developed her talents into a successful career as a livestock-handling equipment designer, one of very few in the world. She has now designed the facilities in which half the cattle are handled in the United States, consulting for firms such as Burger King, McDonald's, Swift, and others.

Dr. Grandin presently works as a Professor of Animal Science at Colorado State University. She also speaks around the world on both autism and cattle handling. At every Future Horizons conference on autism, the audience rates her presentation as 10+.

I watched a bit of the film Temple Grandin, starring Claire Danes, tonight. Fascinating and moving stuff. I've never thought much of Danes as an actress, but that changed tonight.

I discovered Mississippi John Hurt quite by accident a few weeks ago surfing around YouTube. Started consuming everything of his I could. One difficult night I listened to his songs on repeat, and God really ministered to me through them. There's something about his voice . . . I don't know, maybe it's just me. My friend Jason heard about my newfound appreciation, and being a long-time fan of the man's music, he sent me almost Hurt's entire catalog.

Here's one of the few video clips of Mississippi John Hurt available online, filmed shortly before his death on some television program along with Pete Seeger and Hedy West.



There's a really interesting story here. Hurt recorded a couple of albums in the early 20s that were commercial failures and then basically disappeared into obscurity for forty years, working as a sharecropper and playing the occasional party. Having grown to love the existing recordings, in 1963 a scholar tracked him down in Avalon, Mississippi and brought Hurt into the spotlight. Hurt played the Newport Folk Festival in 1964 and did some more recording, a long time coming. He died in 1966.

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. ~ Dr. Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's minister of propaganda

I saw this quote as the heading of an editorial a while back... and since we also have it in our quote rotation here at thinklings, it got me thinking, "Did Goebbels really say that? And if so,what did he mean?"

So here's what I found out from some internet research. It is listed at a quote website although I don't know if you can even trust websites anymore. It bugs me to run into quotes without a reference to when it was said or where it was written. (Though I've been guilty of just listing the author without saying where I found it myself.) I wish that everyone would say where and when a quote came from. In this day and age where anyone can say anything on the internet or in an email, it is all the more important. I'm a real stickler for authenticity and I try never to attribute a quote to someone unless I can personally verify it.

And so the quotes website I link to above may be just proliferating a myth. I never found an actual citation for this quote. I did however learn from wikiquote, if that can be trusted, that a similar quote is often misattributed.

Misattributed
* But the most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success. -o Actually from "War Propaganda", in volume 1, chapter 6 of Mein Kampf (1925), by Adolf Hitler.

* (multiple alternatives) If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth. // If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. // If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it. // If you repeat a lie long enough, it becomes truth. // If you repeat a lie many times, people are bound to start believing it.
o no reliable source; probably misquotations of the Big Lie idea

The "Big Lie" idea was not Goebbels revealing some secret of Nazi propaganda. (At least not willingly.) His point in context was that it is the British who are lying. Oh the irony, that this quote has been repeated so often and attributed to Goebbels that it doesn't seem to be questioned anymore.

The following is an authentic Goebbels quote. Or at least I think it is, becomes it comes from wikiquote and the actual original source is cited.

That is of course rather painful for those involved. One should not as a rule reveal one's secrets, since one does not know if and when one may need them again. The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.

* "Aus Churchills Lügenfabrik" ("Churchill's Lie Factory"), 12 January 1941, Die Zeit ohne Beispiel (Munich: Zentralverlag der NSDAP., 1941), pp. 364-369
* This and similar lines in Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf about what he claimed to be a strategem of Jewish lies using "the principle & which is quite true in itself & that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily," are often misquoted or paraphrased as: "The bigger the lie, the more it will be believed."

Here's my conclusion: It looks like Goebbels never said what is attributed to him at the top of this post, or the more common, "If you tell a lie often enough (or big enough) it will be believed."

And if he did say that or something like it, I don't think he meant it as it appears - Like the inside secret confession of a Nazi propagandist...though that implication makes it rather delicious for the modern day propagandist...er opinion writer. Drawing a conclusion from the actually verifiable quotes and speeches of Goebbels, if he did say anything like this, he most likely meant it as a criticism of what his enemies were doing. (i.e. claiming that Jews and the Allies were the liars.) He was not admitting that he was a purveyor of lies. (Although you and I know he was an evil liar, that's probably not what he meant.)

Here's a pretty good selection of Goebbels speeches and articles.

So doubting that he said it in the first place, and believing that if he did, he was actually criticizing Jews or the English, I will never use that quote again. That's my take.

If there's one thing I hate more than a made-up or misattributed quote, it's a quote taken out of context. Imagine how shocked I was when I learned that when Mark Twain said, "It's not the parts of the Bible that I don't understand that trouble me, it's the ones that I do understand." He meant something entirely different than how many pastors and books had quoted it to me. I had heard it quoted as meaning that rather than Christians spending too much time on the difficult passages, we should spend more time dealing with the parts we do understand. i.e. we should spend more time obeying, and less time worrying about who the sons of God were that married the daughters of men.

So in researching the quote for something I was working on to make sure it was authentic, I found out that Twain was actually criticizing the Bible! When he said that the parts he understood troubled him, he was talking about God commanding the Israelites to slaughter men, women and children. He was explaining why he didn't believe the Bible was the word of God, and criticizing how awful it was.

So how about you? Can you shed light on the authenticity and meaning of the Goebbels quote?

Is there another quote that people use all the time that is wrong, misattributed or out of context?

Cryptomundo offers up the Top Ten Cryptozoology Stories of 2009.

My fave, of course, is the Champ video.

Baptists had to flee Massachusets because of the law passed in 1644.

"It is ordered and agreed, that if any persons or persons, within this jurisdiction, shall either openly condemn or oppose the baptizing of infants, or seduce others, or leave the congregation during the administration of this rite, they shall be sentenced to banishment."

Many of them went to Rhode Island where Roger Williams had founded the only colony were Baptists were free to worship without persecution. (He also founded the first Baptist church in America there. In fairness, Williams didn't remain a Baptist however. He later labeled himself a seeker. He decided that there was no "true church" left to administer the ordinances.)

In July 1651, three Baptists from Newport went to Lynn, Massachusetts, where they "preached, prayed, baptized new believers, and served communion - all in the home of the aged Baptist who had invited them." The three were arrested by two constables during a meeting. "After a week or more in a Boston Jail, the three were brought into court, tried int he morning, and sentence int he afternoon 'without' said the pastor, John Clarke, 'producing either accuser, witness, jury, law of God or man'." They were charged with "seducing the subjects of this Commonwealth frotthe truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ" and with daring to baptize those who, as infants, had been baptized before. "All three were fined, with he stipulation that if the fines were not paid they would be 'well-whipped'." Friends paid the fines of two. But one of them, Obadiah Holmes refused to let anyone pay it.

On September 5th, 1651, Obadiah Holmes was "brought to Boston's marketplace, tied to a post, and stripped tot he waist to receive 30 lashes with a three-pronged whip on his bare back. Holmes responded to his persecutors saying: 'I am now come to be baptized in afflictions by your hands.'"

When Roger Williams heard of this he wrote an angry letter to the governor of Massachusetts. What possible justification was there for this barbarism? Why did they have "so little respect, mercy or pity to the like conscientious persuasion of other men?" He said don't try to tell me that this poor Baptist, Obadiah Holmes, sinned against his own conscience. For "that is the outcry of Pope and Prelates, and Scotch Presbyterians, who would fire all the world, to be avenged on the ...blasphemous heretics, the seducing heretics."

Williams continued in his letter. He asked, How can you be so sure you are right and so many millions of others are wrong? How can you be sure that in persecuting the many you do not end up persecuting Christ himself? Listen carefully governor, for you may hear " a dreadful voice from the King of Kings, the Lord of Lords: Endicott, Endicott, why huntest thou me? Why imprisonest thou me? Why so finest, who so bloodily whippest?"

Four years later, while president of Providence Plantations, Williams wrote a letter to his town in an attempt to articulate just what religious liberty meant. He used the analogy of a ship at sea. "Papists, Protestants, Jews, Turks" were free to worship as they chose and not compelled to attend anyone elses. But the captain had to keep peace and justice. The government was like the captain. Citizens had to pay taxes and fulfill their obligations and obey in civil matters. But in religion, their liberty should be complete.

These ideas were kept alive for the next century until it was time for our Constitution to be written. To be continued...

I would be remiss if I didn't point out that thinkling friend Ancient Mariner has written about Roger Williams as well.

Most people, if they even remember hearing of Roger Williams the Puritan and founder of Rhode Island, have a vague memory of him as an early advocate of religious liberty—usually contrasted with those awful Puritans, about whom we have all sorts of negative modern fantasies. The truth is, yes, the Puritans had some things wrong, but they were a lot better than their enemies make them out to be; and as regards Williams, it’s important to understand not just what he believed, but why.

...

He was, in short, a Puritan extremist, a hyper-Puritan; this was at the root of his argument with Cotton and the other leaders of the Massachusetts colony. Cotton in particular tried to reason with him, denying the need for absolute purity as a precondition for joining the church... According to Cotton, the church did not require people to be perfectly pure to be godly; instead, it took godly people and showed them the areas of sin in their lives. He argued that to impose a standard of perfect repentance for church membership was to “impose a burthen upon the Church of Christ, which Christ never required at their hands nor yours.” Cotton finished by arguing that the presence of unclean people within a church did not make it any less a true church.

As odd as it may seem to us, Williams’ surface toleration was rooted in a deeper intolerance, while Cotton’s support of policies that seem intolerant to our age arose out of his belief in grace... By contrast, while Williams’ positions match those of our own enlightened time, we should look carefully enough to recognize that his support for tolerance was rooted in part in a belief in the spiritual inferiority of those tolerated.

There was indeed a serious rivalry between Cotton and Williams. I think AM knows far more about this subject than I. To me it's fascinating.. They wrote about and to each other frequently.

It ought to be well-known that one of the reasons that the Pilgrims came to this country was for religious freedom. After much persecution, they came to this country to worship according to their conscience and interpretation of Scripture.

What is not well-known however is that those first colonies sought freedom for themselves only. They instituted their own “state churches”. Residents of those colonies were required to practice the Puritan version of Christianity.
Even in this country there was not true religious freedom. One of the primary victims of this were the Baptists. Baptists in England in 1614 had declared, "The magistrate is not by virtue of his office to meddle with religion, this or that form of religion, or doctrine; but to leave Christian religion free, to every man's conscience, and to handle only civil transgressions."

Meanwhile a boy named Roger Williams grew up near the plaza where Puritans, who were seeking to reform the Church of England were burned, pilloried, mutilated, whipped and imprisoned. In Europe, some Baptists were drowned for their belief in believer’s baptism by immersion, the method being intentionally ironic.
Roger Williams followed the Puritans to the Massachusetts Bay Colony to minister among those who had themselves been persecuted. But when he was called to be a pastor at a church in Salem he discovered that people were not free to worship God as they chose there either. His preaching against this got him in trouble. He also argued that Indians should be paid for their land. This kind of talk made him a heretic and a threat.

Williams preached that “there was never civil state in the world that ever did or ever shall make good work of it, with a civil sword in spiritual matters.” He was labeled a rebel. Williams quoted the teachings of Jesus who said, “My Kingdom is not of this world,” and “Give to Caesar what is Caesar and to God what is God’s.” Williams argued that the Government should stay out of religion completely.

Authorities in Boston made a law declaring that everyone must swear an oath affirming the right of the magistrates to rule in religion. Williams was convicted of holding dangerous opinions. When Williams got word that the Governor had ordered that 15 soldiers kidnap Williams and ship him back to England, Williams said goodbye to his wife and newborn child and fled into the wilderness. He found refuge with the Indians.

Along with other persecuted Christians, Williams purchased land from the Indians and named it “Providence.” Those who believed in baptism of believers as opposed to infants were banished by the Massachusetts Government in 1644. The Baptists fled from Massachusetts to Providence, Rhode Island. There Roger Williams founded the first Baptist church in America. People with different beliefs than his also fled there and he protected their right to worship as they chose.

Williams’ colony was an experiment in Religious Liberty. He opposed forcing anyone to comply with Christianity or any form of state religion. He believed that people should profess faith in Christ according to their own conscience and will, not by force.

For More Info - Of course, you can always Google "Roger Williams". I would also encourage you to google "Baptists" and "persecution". You'll find that Baptists endured much persecution in this country. This is part of the reason they were such staunch advocates of the seperation of church and state.

Williams' own words

We have Roger Williams and Baptists to thank for the ideas that led to the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom for religion.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

There will be more to come...

In honor of Michael Jordan's induction into the Basketball Hall of Fame, ESPN features the Top 23 Michael Jordan Moments.

Love it.

Even though every few years we hear about the alleged "next Michael Jordan," there never will be another one like him. Not Lebron James, who is phenomenal. Not Kobe, who I admit is a great player.
Nobody else carries the weight of myth on the basketball court.
(And does anybody watch the NBA any more?)

I remember watching what's usually known as "the flu game" live. It might've been the most heroic athletic performance I've ever seen.

She founded the first Birth Control clinic in 1916. Later she founded the American Birth Control League (ABC) which became Planned Parenthood.



From everybody's favorite source:

Sanger was a proponent of negative eugenics, a social philosophy which claims that human hereditary traits can be improved through social intervention. Methods of social intervention (targeted at those seen as "genetically unfit") advocated by some negative eugenicists have included selective breeding, sterilization and euthanasia. In A Plan for Peace (1932), for example, Sanger proposed a congressional department to:

Keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924.

And, following:

Apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.

Her first pamphlet read:

It is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them. Herein lies the key of civilization. For upon the foundation of an enlightened and voluntary motherhood shall a future civilization emerge.

Sanger saw birth control as a means to prevent "dysgenic" children from being born into a disadvantaged life, and dismissed "positive eugenics" (which promoted greater fertility for the "fitter" upper classes) as impractical. Though many leaders in the negative eugenics movement were calling for active euthanasia of the "unfit," Sanger spoke out against such methods. She believed that women with the power and knowledge of birth control were in the best position to produce "fit" children. She rejected any type of eugenics that would take control out of the hands of those actually giving birth.
About placing the responsibility for eugenic control in the hands of individual parents rather than the state, she wrote:

"The campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims of eugenics.... We are convinced that racial regeneration, like individual regeneration, must come 'from within.' That is, it must be autonomous, self-directive, and not imposed from without."
She said, "Only upon a free, self-determining motherhood can rest any unshakable structure of racial betterment".(emphasis mine)

She nevertheless advocated certain instances of coercion, in cases where she considered the parents unfit to decide whether they should bear children:

"The undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind."

She was hailed by Gloria Steinem in Time magazine as one of the most important people in the 20th century. But there are some who believe she was a racist and that Planned Parenthood is carrying on her legacy.




Abortion and the Black Community

Minority women constitute only about 13% of the female population (age 15-44) in the United States, but they underwent approximately 36% of the abortions.

According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, black women are more than 5 times as likely as white women to have an abortion

On average, 1,876 black babies are aborted every day in the United States.

This incidence of abortion has resulted in a tremendous loss of life. It has been estimated that since 1973 Black women have had about 16 million abortions. Michael Novak had calculated "Since the number of current living Blacks (in the U.S.) is 36 million, the missing 16 million represents an enormous loss, for without abortion, America's Black community would now number 52 million persons. It would be 36 percent larger than it is. Abortion has swept through the Black community like a scythe, cutting down every fourth member."

I think Margaret Sanger would be proud.

A while back, I saw this news story.

GENEVA (AP) — The United Nations opens its first global racism conference in eight years on Monday with the U.S. and at least five other countries boycotting the event out of concern that Islamic countries will demand that in denounce Israel and ban criticism of Islam.

The administration of President Barack Obama, America's first black head of state, announced Saturday that it would boycott "with regret" the weeklong meeting in Geneva, which already is experiencing much of the bickering and political infighting that marred the 2001 conference in Durban, South Africa.

"I would love to be involved in a useful conference that addressed continuing issues of racism and discrimination around the globe," Obama said in Trinidad on Sunday after attending the Summit of the Americas. But he said the language of the U.N.'s draft declaration "raised a whole set of objectionable provisions" and risked a reprise of Durban, "which became a session through which folks expressed antagonism toward Israel in ways that were often times completely hypocritical and counterproductive."

The major sticking points regarding the proposed final U.N. declaration are its implied criticism of Israel and an attempt by Muslim governments to ban all criticism of Islam, Sharia law, the prophet Muhammad and other tenets of their faith.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — who repeatedly has called for the destruction of Israel and denied the Holocaust — is slated to speak on the first day.

The bland U.N. draft statement does not mention Israel by name, but it reaffirms the Durban statement and its reference to the plight of Palestinians. That document was agreed after the United States and Israel had walked out over attempts to liken Zionism — the movement to establish a Jewish state in the Holy Land — to racism.

At first it shocked me to be talking about the destruction of Israel at an "anti-racism" conference. But then I learned something...

Muslims believe that Israel is racist. So an anti-racism conference would naturally be against Israel. Read this article from a "reasonable" apologetics type website that attempts to inform people about Islam. Read this:

It is really interesting to see that the Americans and the Europeans, who support the claims of Israel based on their racism, call themselves the apostles of human rights, freedom and secularism! They have no qualms at all in sending their financial and military aid to deny the Palestinians their birthright to their homeland.

Muslims consider Zionism "racist" because it favors Jews residing in the Promised Land, not the other "Children of Abraham".

It is considered "Haram" (sinful because it is forbidden by Islam) to make peace with Israel.

Allah (S.W.T.) and His messenger Muhammad (S) have defined well the conditions and rules of making peace. The case of Israel does not qualify under those conditions because of the many violations committed by Israel against the Palestinians, the Muslims and the International agreements. Therefore, It is Haram to do peace with them under the current circumstances.

Check out this point of view.

For long, Zionism was equated with racism, as it is a doctrine based on the concept of "the chosen people" and the Promised Land. Only recently, due to pressures, which Zionists have exercised over people and governments, along with their basic abuse of the suffering of the Jews, during the Nazi era - that Zionism ceased to be equated with racism, in the decrees of the UN. This is despite the fact that it is still equated with racism, within the global civil society.

Here's why Muslims view Israel and Zionists as "racist":

The key point of the Palestinian issue is closely related to this idea of the “uniqueness” of the children of Israel. In fact the Torah does speak of God’s gift of Palestine to the children of Abraham; but the Jews believe that since they are the “chosen” of God, the other children of Abraham have no right to the land! Particularly, they argue that the children of the firstborn of Abraham have no right to this land, since the mother happened to be a slave.

Even in this modern age, when so much is heard about human equality, brotherhood and human rights, the Jews and also the Evangelical Christians of America, hold fast to this obscurantist view. They maintain that the Arabs, who are the children of Ishmael - the firstborn of Abraham - have no right to the land of their birth, as that land had been promised by Jehovah to the children of Abraham - by his second son.

Muslims look at the world, history, and words like "racism" through a different lense.

Any sensible person can see that justice is the key to world harmony and peace. Indeed human equality and justice are the bases on which all human rights are founded. This is a fact acknowledged by all those who value human dignity.

Whereas we can see that Zionism denies human equality, as it is founded on the racist idea that by birth the Children of Israel as "God's Chosen People" are a cut above the rest of the world. They claim that the Land of Canaan (Palestine) is promised to them exclusively by none other than God Himself.

In fact, their own Torah says that the Land of Canaan is given to Abraham's "seed" (Genesis 17:8-9), who should reasonably include all the children of Abraham. But from the angle of Zionist interpretation, Abraham's firstborn Ishmael and his children have no right to the Promised Land.

What is funny is that the "secularist", postmodern "civilized" world led by the self-styled upholders of "democracy, freedom and human rights" supports, for all practical purposes, the racist claim that YHWH (God) about four thousand years ago had granted to the Israelis exclusive right to Palestine now occupied by the Zionists.

And the State of Israel illegally founded on Arab land in 1948 is allowed to hold hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs ransom. Their atrocities began with the massacre of over 250 Palestinian men, women and children of Deir Yassin committed by terrorist gangs led by Menachem Begin.

The systematic occupation of more and more of Arab land by Israel has been going on all the while. It was made easy for Israel to do this by the United States. It is interesting to note that Israel goes on changing its border as it needs more and more land for its planned expansion at the expense of the Palestinians.

The "Intifada" (the Uprising) and the recent "martyr-operations" of the Palestinians is the last ditch battle of a people for their basic human rights. But the world media distort the facts to tell the world a different story.

Now the original news story makes more sense to me. Muslims viewed the UN declaration at Durban as a victory, because Israel was finally condemned. And this point of view is not just from the "radical Islamists". I found this same point of view in basic Islamic textbooks written for the general public.

I wondered how one who is "Anti-Israel" could be "Anti-Racism". It seems like an oxymoron to me. But to Muslims to be anti-racism is to be anti-Israel and those of us who claim to be against Racism, but are for Israel are the actual hypocrites. We think they are hypocrites because they claim to be against Racism and hate Israel, and they think we are hypocrites because we claim to be against Racism and support Israel.

That's what Doug Phillips says.

On July 10, six days after our own Independence Day, the world will celebrate the birthday of John Calvin, the man most responsible for our American system of liberty based on Republican principles of representative government.

It was Founding Father and the second President of the United States, John Adams, who described Calvin as "a vast genius," a man of "singular eloquence, vast erudition, and polished taste, [who] embraced the cause of Reformation," adding: "Let not Geneva be forgotten or despised. Religious liberty owes it much respect."

Calvin, a humble scholar and convert to Reformation Christianity from Noyon, France, is best known for his influence on the city of Geneva. It was there that his careful articulation of Christian theology as applied to familial, civil, and ecclesiastical authority modeled many of the principles of liberty later embraced by our own Founders, including anti-statism, the belief in transcendent principles of law as the foundation of an ethical legal system, free market economics, decentralized authority, an educated citizenry as a safeguard against tyranny, and republican representative government which was accountable to the people and a higher law.

In time, these ideas were imported to America. Certainly, the cause of American independence did not begin in 1776, but well over a century before as the first settlers arrived. These included the Huguenots of France, the Presbyterians of Scotland and Ireland, and the Puritans of New England. A common denominator of all these groups was their adherence to Reformed and Calvinistic confessions of faiths and a common heritage forged in the midst of civil and ecclesiastical tyranny. This is one reason why historians like Leopold von Ranke have observed that "Calvin was virtually the founder of America."

King George once dismissed the American War for Independence as a mere "Presbyterian rebellion." He did so because it was the colonial pulpit which most vociferously drew from Calvin's legacy as the pretext for independence.

Preachers from New England to South Carolina invoked the Calvinistic doctrine of interposition as the biblical pretext for lower magistrates holding renegade and tyrannical higher magistrates accountable to the law. Principles of interposition had been vetted and defended by men like Calvin and Scotland's John Knox and Samuel Rutherford, the latter of whom defended the doctrine in his seminal work, Lex Rex. These writings and others (like Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos written by another Calvin disciple) were widely read by our Founding Fathers and even presented to students at the College of New Jersey by Declaration of Independence signer John Witherspoon.

Despite the overwhelming influence of Calvinism on the founding of America, the last century has brought a backlash of anti-Calvinistic sentiment from modern and postmodern historians who have largely ignored Calvin's or presented the scholar from Geneva as harsh and intolerant.

The execution of anti-Trinitarian agitator Michael Servetus by Genevan officials is often cited as proof of the religious intolerance of John Calvin. This analysis does not hold water. Servetus had a death sentence on his head in multiple European cities. Along with Geneva's magistrates, dozens of important civil leaders outside this Swiss city called for the execution of Servetus. Calvin was not one of them. Calvin neither sat on the council which passed judgment on Servetus, nor was he even a citizen of Geneva at the time.

One need not be an adherent to Calvin's theology to acknowledge his mammoth contribution. Even Jean Jacques Rousseau, a fellow Genevan who was no friend to Christianity, observed: "Those who consider Calvin only as a theologian fail to recognize the breadth of his genius. The editing of our wise laws, in which he had a large share, does him as much credit as his Institutes.... [S]o long as the love of country and liberty is not extinct amongst us, the memory of this great man will be held in reverence."

As we celebrate Independence Day, let us remember the 500-year legacy of liberty bequeathed to us by John Calvin, even as we stand with Harvard historian George Bancroft who wisely stated: "He who will not honor the memory and respect the influence of Calvin knows but little of the origin of American liberty."

Doug Phillips is a constitutional attorney and is spear-heading the Reformation 500 Celebration to be held in Boston on July 1-4.

So what do you think?

Until Neil takes that first small step . . .