The Olympics only have a few more days left and one of the major events remaining is the medal round for the men's Ice Hockey. Despite being a native Californian I became a great hockey fan and I actually prefer the Winter Olympics to the Summer games (being only two generations removed from living in Norway probably has something to do with it).
Today if you heard an other-worldly moaning that seemed to come from nowhere and everywhere at the same time, it was probably coming from the north after Canada was eliminated from the medal round in men's hockey by losing to Russia. I'm not Canadian, but I've been there and I've been to the Hockey Hall of Fame in Toronto and I understand what hockey means to our northern neighbors. This year Canada had Wayne Gretzky once again as the General Manager and they had a formidable team of veteran players. Unfortunately, even with all the talent they had they were shut out three times, once even by Switzerland (in baseball this would be the equivalent of the New York Yankees losing in the playoffs to the Tampa Bay Devil Rays).
What happened? Well, first of all they made the horrific mistake of having Pat Quinn as the coach. Quinn is a relic who doesn't even understand the new NHL rules. Perhaps thinking it was the 1952 Olympics he tried to win by playing a defensive style game, even though they had stacked their roster with offensive minded players. The loss to Russia provided an excellent contrast between a team that realized Alexander Ovechkin is a great player, who despite his young age, is a guy you have on your team. And the Canadians, who, for some never to be known reason, thought Sidney Crosby, one of the best talents and probably one of the top 10 players in the NHL, despite being a rookie, didn't have the "experience" they wanted (and only brought along Eric Staal and Jason Spezza to watch the games). The choice of the aging Martin Brodeur as the number one goalie was questionable, but he actually played pretty well. Rob Blake is one of my favorite all time players, but, he's no longer able to play elite defense on the International sized rinks (which are considerably larger than the NHL). Todd Bertuzi, a questionable selection, proved how questionable by not scoring at all. Bryan McCabe is another offensive defenseman, who not only didn't score, but led the team in penalties (mainly because he was constantly outskated).
As the head of Team Canada, Wayne Gretzky, accepted the blame for this disaster. Going in, Canada was heavily favored to win the Gold Medal. This probably represents the worst showing in their Olympic history. Gretzky hired Quinn and so the buck stops at the top, but Quinn's game plan, such as it was, doomed the team. Watching the games was almost painful, there was no flow, no attempt at utilizing the talent on the team in a meaningful way. You might think that after one shutout Quinn would make adjustments, certainly after the second shutout he would shift to some kind of offensive plan, but change and adapting is not something Quinn has ever demonstrated as one of his strong points (his NHL coaching this year in Toronto has been laughable, the speed and the new rules seem to have left him entirely mystified, in fact many have speculated that if he were not the Team Canada Coach he might have been fired already). So, in the big game with everything on the line, they were shut out for a third time and like Mighty Casey they were out.
The Evangelical Climate Initiative (ECI), as we have previously noted, is a statement issued by 83 Evangelical Leaders, calling for action on the issue of Global Warming. You can scroll down and read the other two posts where I try to make three points:
One of the more distressing aspects of this funding is that it comes from a foundation that is one of the leading funding sources for Pro-Abortion efforts in the world. This is not an ancillary connection, and a Six Degrees of Separation excuse, as one apologist for the movement has already attempted, also will not do. This is a direct funding for the sole purpose of creating the ECI. One would hope that the 83 Evangelical leaders were unaware of this connection, but it hardly seems likely none of these otherwise bright people were oblivious to this fact.
I had originally thought to avoid discussing the individual signers of the ECI. But there are some observations that are important. Nearly half of the signatories (37/83) are presidents of Christian College and Universities. The rest are fairly evenly divided among pastors, academics, and leaders of parachurch organizations. The institutions and individuals overwhelmingly represent a theological stance in the Arminian tradition. Rick Warren, of Purpose Driven fame, is perhaps the most recognizable name on the list and the ECI is the latest in a series of causes that Warren has identified with. There are a couple of interesting observations to be made. Jack Hayford, the well-known pastor of The Church on the Way and President of the King’s College and Seminary is a signatory, but he is not listed with these credentials, but rather as the President of the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel. Also listed in Ron Sider, President of Evangelicals for Social Action. Sider is a well-known political liberal, professor, and writer (most famously perhaps for Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger), who is probably more correctly classified as a Christian socialist.
Also on the list is one of the Emerging Church Leaders, Brian McLaren. Interestingly, McLaren actually identifies himself as a "post-evangelical" and theologically is a person that D. A. Carson stated "has largely abandoned the gospel" (Carson, Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church [Zondervan, 2005], p. 186).
What then is an Evangelical? As we noted in the first entry, there isn't a great deal of agreement on a definition or even what one needs to believe to be an "evangelical." The Evangelical Theological Society simply requires the affirmation of the orthodox Doctrine of the Trinity and the Inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures for membership. In the widely respected Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Pierard and Elwell note that theologically, Evangelicalism, "begins with a stress on the sovereignty of God," affirms that, "the Scriptures are inerrant in all that they affirm and serve as the adequate expression of God's will and purpose," it affirms the "total depravity of man," the absolute need for salvation accomplished by "Christ's substitutionary atonement" apart from, "any kind of good works or penance" on the part of the individual to earn or merit God's favor. "Heralding the Word of God is an important feature of Evangelicalism," as is the expectation of "the visible personal return of Jesus Christ to set up his kingdom of righteousness" (Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, p. 406).
Importantly, Pierard and Elwell also state in the section on preaching the Word of God, that:
Holiness involves not withdrawal from the world and detaching oneself from evil but rather boldly confronting evil and overcoming its effects both personally and socially. In this fashion the church brings the lost to a knowledge of Christ, teaches the way of of discipleship, and engages in meeting human needs. Social service thus becomes both the evidence of one's faith and a preparation for the proclamation of the gospel.
Christians must care about climate change because we love God the Creator and Jesus our Lord, through whom and for whom the creation was made. This is God's world, and any damage that we do to God's world is an offense against God Himself (Gen. 1; Ps. 24; Col. 1:16).
Christians must care about climate change because we are called to love our neighbors, to do unto others as we would have them do unto us, and to protect and care for the least of these as though each was Jesus Christ himself (Mt. 22:34-40; Mt. 7:12; Mt. 25:31-46).
Christians, noting the fact that most of the climate change problem is human induced, are reminded that when God made humanity he commissioned us to exercise stewardship over the earth and its creatures. Climate change is the latest evidence of our failure to exercise proper stewardship, and constitutes a critical opportunity for us to do better (Gen. 1:26-28). Love of God, love of neighbor, and the demands of stewardship are more than enough reason for evangelical Christians to respond to the climate change problem with moral passion and concrete action.
The ECI is correct when it affirms the responsibility of Christians to care for the less fortunate. As James declares, "This is pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father, to visit the orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world" (James 1:27). But as we noted above, this type of social service is not an end unto itself, but a means of proclaiming the Gospel that saves souls (Matt 10:28 is vital here). There is not a single reference to salvation or the Gospel in the statement. In fact on the ECI web page there is not a single place where one can even click to see what the Gospel is! I don't agree with the ECI position on the reality of global warming; but I would be less critical if this so-called evangelical group had taken a more historically evangelical stance in using the opportunity to proclaim the Gospel. I also don't agree with the approach of the ECI in their call to action; but I would be less critical if that call included a more traditional evangelical affirmation that the sinful actions of sinful people can only be militated by their embracing the Gospel that saves souls and transforms lives.
In the last part of the ECI's third claim, the statement is simply misguided. Note the phrasing of the statement:
Christians, noting the fact that most of the climate change problem is human induced, are reminded that when God made humanity he commissioned us to exercise stewardship over the earth and its creatures. Climate change is the latest evidence of our failure to exercise proper stewardship, and constitutes a critical opportunity for us to do better (emphasis mine).
Is the world climate changing? Probably. It changes regularly and in history dramatically so on several occasions. These changes are often severe and not beneficial to man. For instance at some point in history the Sahara desert was a subtropical forest. The famous city of Ubar on the Arabian Peninsula was consummed by a sand storm in 300 AD and not rediscoverd until the 1990's. One of the things a study of meteorology quickly shows is how little we actually know about the world-wide weather systems, how they operate, and why they actually change.
One major climate story making the rounds now is that the glaciers on Greenland are melting more rapidly than thought (which should make more of the large land mass of Greenland habitable). The fear is that all of this ice melting will raise the levels of the oceans and those living in low-lying areas will be displaced. If this scenario does play out it is improbable that this will happen either immediately or in one fell swoop. But, if the climate change is moving in that direction, the actions suggested by the ECI and other liberal advocacy groups is something like standing braced with outstretched arms trying to prevent a moving train from hitting someone, instead of helping the person get off the tracks and out of the way. People populate areas that they probably shouldn't (New Orleans, a city built largely several feet below sea level, kept dry only by man-made levees comes to mind) and that is an issue; but it is an issue of government policy and land use not an evangelical call to political action.
The ECI is based on questionable science, questionable application of Scripture, and an abandonment of a traditional evangelical view of social action. While it is undeniably evil when the planet, the living creatures, or people are wantonly disrupted, damaged or destroyed by the greed, sinfulness or ignorance of other people; laws, regulations, and political action will not and cannot reverse that trend.
In the short term Christians are to be about the business of preaching the Gospel, making disciples, and teaching the Scriptures in their fullness; which instruction does call on us to care for the less fortunate and those with pressing needs. But in the long term it is only that other great Evangelical distinctive, "the visible personal return of Jesus Christ to set up his kingdom of righteousness" that will repair the cumulative damage of sinful men over all the generations since the fall.
The Evangelical Climate Initiative (ECI) has been one of the most talked about forays of Evangelical Christian leaders into a decidedly non-Christian issue in recent years, that of Global Warming. The statement has been noted widely in both the national and world press. In Part One (of what is now looking like a three part blog series) we introduced the issue and detailed some basic background information. In this entry we want to begin to examine the statement itself and some of what seems to be happening in Evangelicalism as a whole.
The ECI Statement consists of four "claims". Those claims are as follows:
The ECI makes much out of the fact that the scientific information that has driven them to their conclusions is from "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world's most authoritative body of scientists and policy experts on the issue of global warming, has been studying this issue since the late 1980s." According to the IPCC Web Page the IPCC was formed as a result of:
Recognizing the problem of potential global climate change, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988.
We are reminded of what the great Princeton theologian Charles Hodge, stated during the time when evolutionary theories were invading the church.
It would be a lamentable spectacle to see the Church changing its doctrines or its interpretations of Scripture, to suit the constantly changing representations of scientific men as to matters of fact (Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:57)
This brings us to a key issue. Many other "evangelical leaders" did not sign onto the ECI and have issued statements against it. However, for the most part their objections have been political, scientific, and economic; not Biblical or theological. These have been the leaders of what has become known as the "Religious Right," evangelical leaders who are largely conservative in their politics and economics. In many respects what the ECI represents is a galvanizing of what we may call the "Evangelical Left." This would be different that the normal "Religious Left" who are largely those of the mainline denominations who are the descendants of the theological and social liberalism discussed in Part One .
The Religious Left abandoned Scriptural inerrancy and evangelical theology decades ago and now really only uses the Bible for illustrative purposes (generally out of context). This new "Evangelical Left," led by the signers of the ECI, will likely at least attempt to bring the Bible and evangelical theology to bear in forming their social views a little more seriously, at least for a while. I think one thing is certain; this group will make forays into other social issues in the future. Their establishment is in place, the site has an Action Page that details all sorts of typical social action methodology (how to contact your congressman, how to write a letter to the editor, etc.).
Lest you think I am overly cynical and simply believe that this Evangelical Left will simply move to the complete liberalism of the establishment Religious Left, I remain ambivilent. It may or may not happen (I would think it is safe to guess that there will certainly be some "fraternal" operations between the two in the future) and historically, it is certainly probable, but not inevitable. However, I am just as leery of the "Religious Right" and am also critical of the associations they have forged to further their aims. I think too many Christians and way too much of their financial resources have been diverted from missions, evangelism, and local church ministries to political efforts designed to get certain people elected, get certain judges approved, and get certain laws established.
John MacArthur was entirely on point in his book, Why Government Can't Save You: An Alternative to Political Action (Word Publishing 2000). You can check out the text of a sermon by MacArthur, along the same theme, entitled, "The Deadly Dangers of Moralism." but here is a key excerpt:
There are people who think that if America becomes moral, God will bless America. There are people who think if America becomes moral and religious, then God will doubly bless America. So, let's put God back in the public discourse; let's put prayer back in the schools. Let's put the Ten Commandments up on the wall in public places, in courtrooms. Let's stop abortion; let's stop rampant homosexuality; let's stop pornography, et cetera. And if we can just bring about some kind of morality and, better yet, some kind of commitment to God, then we will be blessed.Well, let me make a very clear point at the outset here. Morality and religion will not invite or secure the blessing of God. They never have, and they never will. A more moral America, a more moral and religious America, does not advance in divine favor one inch. A more moral and a more religious America will not escape divine judgment, any more than Pharisaic Judaism in Jesus' time escaped the devastating judgment of God in 70 A.D. when hundreds of thousands of Jews were slaughtered by godless Romans. Jesus warned about that on several occasions. There is only one thing God blesses, just one. And that is He blesses saving faith in and love for His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. That's the only thing He blesses. Anybody who does not believe in and love the Lord Jesus Christ is among the cursed, right?
As Christians, of course, we are for morality. We're not for immorality. And we can do some topical, some superficial good. We can through political means, because we live in a republic and a democracy, we can mitigate public indecency in some ways; we can mitigate public scandal, can use our democratic privileges. But that does not advance us in divine favor, either individually or collectively. In fact, in 1st Corinthians 16:22 it is said unmistakably: "If any one man doesn't love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema." Cursed, judged, damned, condemned. There's only one thing God will bless, and that's faith in and love for His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. Well, that sort of sets the picture for you. And some of those truths are in my book Why Government Can't Save You."
The very nature of Evangelicalism is also changing. As Elwell and Pierard note political involvement on the part of Evangelicals is, "a relatively new phenomena" (Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 409) and it started on the right. While there have always been Evangelicals on the political and social "left" the sort of organization that the ECI represents is brand new. The current problem of Evangelicalism is that:
The very nature of evangelicalism never was a unified movement but a collection of emphases based on a common core of belief--a core that itself is now under discussion (ibid).
Next Entry: More on the ECI Statement
Recently a group of Evangelical leaders has united to speak out on an issue not normally associated with evangelicals or evangelicalism, the issue of Global Warming. The Evangelical Climate Initiative presents the following preamble:
As American evangelical Christian leaders, we recognize both our opportunity and our responsibility to offer a biblically based moral witness that can help shape public policy in the most powerful nation on earth, and therefore contribute to the well-being of the entire world. Whether we will enter the public square and offer our witness there is no longer an open question. We are in that square, and we will not withdraw.We are proud of the evangelical community's long-standing commitment to the sanctity of human life. But we also offer moral witness in many venues and on many issues. Sometimes the issues that we have taken on, such as sex trafficking, genocide in the Sudan, and the AIDS epidemic in Africa, have surprised outside observers. While individuals and organizations can be called to concentrate on certain issues, we are not a single-issue movement. We seek to be true to our calling as Christian leaders, and above all faithful to Jesus Christ our Lord. Our attention, therefore, goes to whatever issues our faith requires us to address.
Over the last several years many of us have engaged in study, reflection, and prayer related to the issue of climate change (often called "global warming"). For most of us, until recently this has not been treated as a pressing issue or major priority. Indeed, many of us have required considerable convincing before becoming persuaded that climate change is a real problem and that it ought to matter to us as Christians. But now we have seen and heard enough to offer the following moral argument related to the matter of human-induced climate change. We commend the four simple but urgent claims offered in this document to all who will listen, beginning with our brothers and sisters in the Christian community, and urge all to take the appropriate actions that follow from them.
As they note, "climate change" or more commonly "global warming" is a major issue in the policies of governments around the world. There was a world-wide conference in 1997 and a treaty agreed upon, called the Kyoto Accord which sought to address the issue of "human-induced climate change."
First of all, "global warming" is the concept that human activity, mainly industrial and commercial activities (but also including such diverse things as automobile usage and the raising of large herds of dairy cows), have led to increased levels of "greenhouse gasses" which, in the atmosphere have the effect of breaking down the ozone layer that protects living things from the harmful effects of solar radiation. The advocates of this position believe that the earth is slowly heating up and the increase in global temperatures is causing changes in the climate. Those changes, if left unchecked, they claim will be catastrophic for the planet.
Thus far, the United States has wisely refused to ratify the Kyoto Accord, essentially rendering it useless. The accord itself and all of the social, political, environmental and economic engineering it would entail has been discussed and shown for what it is in a multitude of forums and is not our concern here.
The notion of "global warming," despite the assertions of the "evangelical leaders" to the contrary, is not a universally recognized scientific fact. For instance there are a number of contrary articles at Junk Science.com where scientists evaluate the reports and their underlying methodology. The advocates of "global warming" naturally base a large portion of their conclusions on weather measurements. However, accurate meteorological measurements with scientific instruments only go back about 150 years (and for enormous parts of the globe there is only accurate data that goes back 50 years or less). For data of earlier times conclusions must be derived from the interpretation of secondary information (such as tree-ring measurements, ice-coring samples, etc.) and anecdotal records of personal observations in various written sources.
What sort of temperature increase are we talking about? Well, about one degree above normal in the last decade and about two degrees higher on average since 1880 (when accurate records began to be collected). Is the world now warmer at any point since its creation? No. While the estimates are that the last part of the 20th Century were the warmest in the last 1,000 years the studies generally admit that there were warmer times in previous millennia. It is also dutifully noted that the ten warmest years on record have occurred since the 1990's. Remember, though, "on record" means the meteorological records in the civilized world since about 1880 and the rest of the world since about 1950. There is simply no precisely recorded information available before that. Claims that accurate meteorological data can be "reconstructed" back to the early middle ages (only in the northern hemisphere, BTW) is wishful guessing at best.
But, what of the climate before that? There are at least two significant climate shifts that are also recognized which were much more severe than the current trend. There was apparently a significant warming trend from about 890-1170, which, among other things melted off enough glacial ice to make Iceland inhabitable and enable Greenland to be populated. After about 400 years of relative climatic stability, from 1580-1850 the "Little Ice Age" enveloped much of the Northern hemisphere. And since 1850 there has been, on average, a two degree increase in world-wide temperature. Neither the earlier warming period, its end nor the nearly 300 year "Little Ice Age" can possibly be attributed to human activity of any kind.
Now, in all honesty, I must admit that my own training is not in science; it is in Theology, Biblical Studies, Church Consulting, as well as Information Science. However, I am an amateur meteorologist and a volunteer weather spotter for the National Weather Service (ID #LAC473). My own environmental stance is generally towards the "green" side of the ledger. I was a member of Green Peace in my earlier days (before the movement was taken over by folks who thought that seals were just as important as people and that property destruction and violence were an acceptable form of protest).
My concern is not whether or not this is an issue of political concern that is beyond debate. Personally, I trust that the United States and other countries will be able to continue their efforts reduce pollution and clean up messes left behind by those who both did not understand the significant damage they were doing, primarily in reducing the amount of habitable and useable ground. However, I trust they will be able to continue those efforts without derailing the very economies that the Third World Nations depend on for needed assistance for their people. In this regard the essay by Iain Murray (not that Iain Murray BTW), Beware False Prophets, is must reading.
My consideration here is whether or not "global warming" is really a proper "evangelical issue." All evangelicals, regardless of their eschatological position, typically agree that someday, as the Scriptures declare, "the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up" (2 Pet 3:10). The earth is, as John MacArthur, puts it, "a disposable planet."
Peter goes on to state: "Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of person ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, on account of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat! But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells" (2 Pet 3:11-13).
Around the 1900's theological liberalism combined with social, political and economic liberalism to, in many quarters, replace the Gospel of Salvation, with the Social Gospel. It infected the mainline conservative denominations and "evangelical doctrine" suffered a general decline in importance (As an aside, see my essay on Charles Spurgeon and the Down-Grade Controversy, for the theological side of the infection).
The same "liberal fork" is at work again. Social, Political, and Environmental activism in the name of "evangelical Christianity." This combination has always been deadly to the church, turning focus away from the Gospel that saves to assorted efforts of works, which as J. Vernon McGee used to state, "amount to little more than polishing the brass on a sinking ship."
Our next entry will examine the statement itself, the philosophy it puts forth and its relationship to historic evangelical theology.
This entry is for my seminary students to respond to. I will not approve comments by anyone outside of that group. Students, remember that you must post your response before Noon on Monday the 13th. The reponse must be 150 words, so you should avoid long quotes and bibliographic information. You may include a link to something if you like. I may or may not respond to your post, but if I do then you are free to respond to my reponse with no length or other restrictions.
Here's the deal. I was reading (in between laughing out loud) the article about "Evangelicals" issuing a statement about global warming. Now personally, I think global warming is utter nonsense, built on bad science and even worse logic; and I'll probably post something about it later this weekend. But that aside, is this sort of "statement" the proper work of evangelical pastors? As pastors, to what degree, if any, should these types of social/political/environmental sort of causes consume our time and energy?
Have Fun!
We are now better than a week into protests, rioting, and now the destruction of nations embassy facilities, in reaction to the publishing of some cartoons in a Danish newspaper that depicted Mohammand as, in one at least, a bomb coiffed terrorist. The drawings (calling them cartoons has a tendency I think to lend some comedic sense to them which clearly was not the intent) appeared originally last September and have since been reprinted in several other newspapers, mostly in Europe.
The outrage has been slow to build, but in the last week has been building to a climax. While there have been demonstrations, some peaceful and some slightly less so around the world, it is interesting to see exactly where these demonstrations and riots have been the most severe.
Politically, this has come at a very good time for Iran and Syria both of whom benefit from a diversion from scrutiny from the United Nations and the West. It will undoubtedly also help give both regimes a "rallying" point to pump up internal support. Syria, in particular, was facing a much higher level of internal opposition to the Baathist dictatorship. They also had been expelled from their de facto occupation of Lebanon; and, by all accounts, the highest levels of their government may well be implicated in the assisination of the former Lebanesse Prime Minister. That the emabssy burnings occured in Syria (with certainly government "approval" if not outright planning) and in today in Lebanon (probably also with the encouragment and support of Syria and their remaining surrogates in Lebanon) is hardly surprising. Geographically, most of Syria is uninhabitable and worthless desert; and for its size, it has a very small coastline on the Mediteranean. Absent an outright annexation of Lebanon, it needs a compliant and subservient Lebanon for its own economic benefit. It is also not helpful to their own internal control if a fully functional, successful, and pluralistic Lebanon exists immediately on their southern flank. Thus, if they cannot have either of the aforementioned options, their last hope is to keep Lebanon perpetually unstable. Syria is also immediately bordered by Turkey and Jordan (both allies of the west) and the colliation-controlled Iraq (and worse, the Kurdish area of Iraq). Even absent their ties to the West, there is also no love lost between Syria and any of these countries.
Iran will also certainly use the unrest to whatever advantage it can. Their current standoff with the West over their nuclear ambitions is a serious issue. None of the other Arab countries want Iran to have nuclear capabilities. The Islamo-Facist state there is the most well-entrenched and dangerous in the region and their current president, Mahmound Ahmedinejad, is clearly a clever manipulator (who has probably learned from Saddam Hussein's mistakes) and is firmly alligned with the Supreme Leader in Iran, Ali Khamenei and the ruling theocrat class. The moderate Arab nations do not want this brand of Islamic rule exported to their nations.
The unrest and rioting has been the most widespread in Europe and comes on the heals of the nearly month-long rioting in France by Islamic residents. The French riots underscored a major issue in Europe, that of virtually unrestricted immigration and poor integration. The populations of a number of European countries are becoming increasingly Islamic (by percentage) and of Middle Eastern dissent. I think several countries have begun to realize that a dynmaic Islamic leader in those countries, who could galvanize that population into a voting bloc, could begin the break traditional hegemonies of the established political parties.
As an aside, this would be an interesting situation, since that while there is generally "freedom of religion" in those countries, there is not a real "separation of church and state" in European tradition. Most have an offical state religion. I wonder, for instance, what would happen in England if Parliment had a majority or even significant number of Moslems, who were then in turn, charged with approving an appointment for a new Archbishop of Canterbury? France is an exception, being entirely secular by law since the early 1900's. Of course, France also has perhaps the worst problem. They have a large and increasing population whose worldview is centered in religion, not secularism, and they don't really know how to integrate that perspective into their community life.
The other problem in the European countries with relation to their Islamic populations has been, I think, their socialistic economic structures and lack of entrapenureal opportunities for their immigrants (and not just the Middle-Eastern ones). As the French riots demonstrated, many are locked into ghettos with little ability to move out of those confines. Bad immigration policy combined with socialistic welfare prevents these groups from gaining an identity within the culture they find themselves.
So, in a nutshell, there is legitimate offense at a set of boorish drawings that some editor should have seen were going to be needslessly offensive. In terms of the outrage, some is a legitimate outpouring of emotion against a view that ridicules their religious worldview; but perhaps a large part of the protests are being used as a front for other purposes.
Finally, the confirmation process was over and Judge Alito became the 110th Justice of The Supreme Court. All of the liberal rhetoric that, "A chill wind blows. A chill wind, which will snuff out the dying light of Sandra Day O'Connor's Supreme Court legacy," said Senator Richard Durbin, a Democrat from Illinois, is finally over and the draconian swing to the fuedal right can now begin.
So, what does now Justice Alito do in his first day of work? He votes with the liberals on the court to stay the execution of an inmate in Missouri convicted of raping and murdering a 15 year old girl. The convict's appeal is based on his idea that the lethal injection "is cruel and unusual punishment" or put more plainly by his attorney, it causes pain. Now the conservatives are all wondering what's going on. I read multiple stories from Drudge and other press aggregates, blog entries, all wondering how this could happen, isn't Alito really a conservative?
It seems that the answer here is pretty simple. Here is a Justice who just walked in the door (he was confirmed the afternon before and spent most of that evening at the State of the Union Address. He doesn't have a staff in place, he barely has an office (the Supreme Court Building in being remodeled at the moment), he probably doesn't even have a key to the bathroom. The first case to come in is a matter of a person's life, but he (as opposed to the others on the court) hasn't even had time to get a briefing on it. While this is a case that has been bouncing around the various courts for a time, he likely has little, if any, familiarity with the particulars and so he votes not to execute someone until he can get settled and see all the facts.
This is also manifestly what he said throughout his hearing that he would do. He's not going to be swayed by the fact that the other "conservatives" have voted one way and I doubt he was voting to stay an execution for the same reasons the liberals on the court were.
Hopefully, President Bush will get to appoint more judges cut out of the same cloth as Justice Alito.