Neil Armstrong in Gettysburg

This is astronaut Neil Armstrong in Gettysburg for the Memorial Day ceremonies. In town over the weekend, we discovered that he was going to be speaking. Dr. Armstrong makes few public appearances. He spoke not a word about the moon, but spoke well, saying, among other things, that those who came back from war were not always overjoyed to have survived, having been through what they'd been through and seeing so many friends die. He also said that our responsibility to fallen soldiers was to create a nation of which they could be proud; one where success was neither guaranteed or denied to anyone. He even (I think) tried a passable Hal Holbrook Lincoln accent for his Lincoln passages. In this photo he is looking straight at the camera for us. Before this he gave a little two-fingered wave to Michael and Katie Grace.

I had expected Michael (to whom I have read every moon landing book appropriate for his age group) to be overawed. He was thankful, and happy, but I don't think understands what a rare opportunity this was.

We really had to be creative to get this close. We got there about twenty minutes before the ceremonies, and already a large crowd had formed. There was a very little space at the front as close to the rope as you could get, and I got them down there and knelt down for all the appropriate parts. So I suppose no one got blocked by us.

Benjamin F. Martin: France in 1938

I already returned this book to the Lycoming College library (what a wonderful place) - but I am trying to post on the books I read, so I'll go ahead with a few remarks:

This book is easy to read, goes into just enough detail about the past to make 1938 intelligible, and parallels the commentary on the political machinations of that year with descriptions of the trials that mesmerized the public, movies and fashion, and descriptions of the two books Sartre wrote in response to the events of 1938. Unfortunately, I cannot remember what the titles of these works are. But the main character in each of them, who could represent France or Sartre, respectively, is a man paralyzed by indecision because each responsible decision he could make would be a loss of freedom. He is a man consumed by longing and terrified by responsibility and so he refuses to act.

As for the politicians, it seems that:

a) the fear of Communism and a worker's revolution both hamstrung French efforts to implement a war economy (i.e. repealing the forty-hour work week to increase production) and threw enough support to Germany as a counter-weight to the Soviet Union to swing minds away from confrontation with Germany;

b) the defensive mentality of Generals Gamelin and Petain, to name two, meant that the French did not believe that they could win a war with Germany and thus never had a plan to win once that war came. It was a key factor in France not marching in 1936 nor to come to the aid of Austria or Czechoslovakia in 1938. The French relied on alliance with the British and the Maginot Line. Because Britain (led by Chamberlain and Halifax) did not want to fight either, France took the easy way of believing that Hitler could be appeased.

c) Finally, the anti-semitism still pervasive in the right wing meant that any move against Germany could be seen as overly supporting the Jews. The Germans and rightly so bear guilt for the Holocaust, however, it should not be denied that anti-Jewish feelings in the rest of Europe aided and abetted the Nazi attitude, if not the methodology.

Blogwatching

It's my first blogwatch! (fanfare)

Camassia posts (and receives many replies) on "is the purpose of sexuality procreation?"

Lee explores the "goodness" (or the justness) of the good war.

Inside the souls of America's youth

Soul Searching, by Christian Smith...perhaps a ministry-changing book. It reads like the Habits of the Heart of the early 21st Century. Expect many posts on it soon.

Here's a taste:

...we suggest that the de facto dominant religion among contemporary U.S. teenagers is what we might well call "Moralistic Therapeutic Deism." The creed of this religion...sounds something like this:

1. A God exists who created and orders the world and watches over human life on earth.
2. God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and in most world religions.
3. The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself.
4. God does not need to be particularly involved in one's life except when God is needed to resolve a problem.
5. Good people go to heaven when they die.

...we are not suggesting that Moralistic Therapeutic Deism is a religious faith limited to teenage adherents in the United States. To the contrary, it seems that it is also a widespread, popular faith among very many U.S. adults. Our religiously conventional adolescents seem to be merely absorbing and reflecting religiously what the adult world is routinely modeling for and inculcating in its youth...

More to come...

Luke 9:51-62

"He set his face to go to Jerusalem."

Praise God that the NRSV retains the literal translation, "he set his face." But this is no mere religious pilgrimage, as the Samaritans seemed to believe in verse 53; this is a journey to a place of combat and conflict, the place of his exodus or his "taking up." Such a journey demands no mere geographical orientation, but an orientation of heart, soul, and mind.

The Samaritans can only see that he is facing south toward Jerusalem - and they know all they need to know about him. Such an attitude is similar to the prejudical attitude of the Pharisees in the Gospel of John. But Jesus refuses to allow James and John the righteous joy of calling fire down upon them (interestingly, an incident only in Luke, which confirms their designation as "sons of thunder" unique to Mark). God alone is judge. They went on to another village. What was their reception there? Apparently Christians are not to waste much time in imprecations against those who do not receive the message, but are to get on with proclaiming it.

And then we find the three "would-be disciples of Jesus," as the subheadings in many Bibles would have it. They all seem to revolve around the idea of homelessness or rootlessness. The first must reconcile himself (and presumably does not) to the idea that a physical home is not in his future should he follow Jesus. The others must leave home, and fully, in order to have a home with Christ. Although we cannot understand the radical nature of this text from our society of autonomous individualism, perhaps we may think, What cherished ideals, where I feel at "home," must I leave in order to be with Jesus?

And finally, I ask myself: Where must I set my face? Where is my Jerusalem, the place of conflict and crucifixion? And what homes, where I feel comfortable, must I leave in order to be homeless with the Lord?

Yet another reason we're homeschooling

Montgomery County, Md. had to have their sex-ed curriculum struck down on religious reasons - not for shoving creationism down kids' throats, but for this blatant appropriation of religious teaching:

Myth: Homosexuality is a sin.

Facts: The Bible contains six passages which condemn homosexual behavior. The Bible also contains numerous passages condemning heterosexual behavior. Theologians and Biblical scholars continue to differ on many Biblical interpretations. They agree on one thing, however. Jesus said absolutely nothing at all about homosexuality. Among the many things deemed an abomination are adultery, incest, wearing clothing made from more than one kind of fiber, and earing shellfish, like shrimp and lobster.

Religion has often been misused to justify hatred and oppression. Less than a half a century ago, Baptist churches (among others) in this country defended racial segregation on the basis that it was condoned by the Bible. Early Christians were not hostile to homosexuals. Intolerance became the dominant attitude only after the Twelfth Century. Today, many people no longer tolerate generalizations about homosexuality as pathology or sin. Few would condemn heterosexuality as immoral — despite the high incidence of rape, incest, child abuse, adultery, family violence, promiscuity, and venereal disease among heterosexuals. Fortunately, many within organized religions are beginning to address the homophobia of the church. The Nation Council of Churches of Christ, the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, the Unitarian Universalist Association, the Society of Friends (Quakers), and the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches support full civil rights for gay men and lesbians, as they do for everyone else.

Now, how are we supposed to believe in a "religiously-neutral environment" in the public schools when things like that are out there? And I'm sure this is not isolated.

Actually, we're not homeschooling strictly for religious reasons, but whoa, nelly.

From the Volokh Conspiracy, via OpinionJournal's Best of the Web Today.