I lived in Houston for eighteen years so I think I understand the psychology that goes through a person’s head when a hurricane approaches. I rode out quite a few hurricanes. A lot of people view hurricanes as inconvenient until they think they are going lose everything they own or to die by one. You learn by making the big mistake. The people whom live on Galveston island are intimately aware of that fine line between inconvenience and dying. If they do not start evacuating early enough they will find themselves on the only bridge out of town or the Interstate when the hurricane arrives. The 1900 hurricane’s storm surge swept over the island and killed 8,000 people.

In Houston there is a considerable area that is susceptable to flooding from the rains and the storm surge. We knew which areas that were at risk. It seems like every year I lived there, Mother Nature reminded us that we were at risk. It wasn’t just hurricanes. I remember a couple of tropical storms that turned the area into one large lake as far as the eye could see.

I do not know why New Orleans had so many people who stayed. They knew New Orleans was below sea level. They know the city is protected by levees. I like nice engineering but I would have bet my life on the levees holding up. This is the disaster scenario they have been discussing since hurricane Betsy. I would have left. Why take the risk? It seems like such a no-brainer I am amazed at the multitude of people remaining.

It make take a few weeks but I expect to start hearing people say they will leave next time a hurricane comes near. I can still remember hearing people in Houston or Galveston saying those things after a hurricane or tropical storm. In the future when the mayor of New Orleans or whoever claims to be in charge asks people to evacuate he or she will get a much better response. People who have health or special needs will leave when asked the first time. These are all common sense practices. Some people will never return to New Orleans. Those who remain will be a lot smarter.

Tonight I will sign up to help with the collection efforts for Katrina at our church. Ultimately it is not about what I would have done but what can I do now. There are people in need and they need help now. My contribution to the relief effort will be small but it is necessary for them and me because I can help. Sitting at home and watching the disaster unfold on the television is just not an option.

Here is a zinger from United Methodist Bishop James Swanson. He notes that today many people simply ditch a computer hopelessly infected with virii, trojan horses or other malicious code, then buy a new replacement.

It is my opinion that it is not in purchasing new equipment or better technology that is our challenge. It is changing our mindset in such a way that we become open to the new possibilities, shapes and forms of offering Christ to an ever-changing world. And maybe it is more cost effective and less stressful to create new churches than it is to repair the infected ones we already have.

Pretty shocking?

The bishop also has some observations about the report of the National Institute of Standards and Technology on why the World Trade Center’s twin towers collapsed, and what their report has to do with the collapse of the mainline churches in the last few decades.

[Via One Hand Clapping]

I am a little tardy linking to this – I didn’t want to lump it into a “round-up” because it is a thoughtful bit of writing that needs to be read and pondered, from Sigmund, Carl and Alfred.

Inasmuch as belief in a deity is now fodder for a journalistic inquisition into the beliefs of a potential Supreme Court Justice, there is one point that is rarely acknowledged.

We have to be talked out of our belief in God. We believe our instinctive beliefs point to a deity.

In other words, belief is God is a more natural state of affairs than non belief. Notwithstanding the inevitable (and shallow) arguments that belief in God is for weak people, and other such arguments, ad nauseum, the fact remains that while we may all argue over exactly what He/She/It is, we believe each of us is born with that inherent belief.

Non believers tell us about injustice and inequity, about the dark side of religion and a thousand and one other such notions. They want to engage us, to argue with us, so as to shake our beliefs, whatever they are.

There is no point in arguing, no point in defending belief in God. It is like trying to describe a painting to a blind person- or, as the Chinese say, “A frog in a well cannot be talked to about the ocean.”

Read the whole thing. And then you might want to scroll up and read more and more continuing thoughts.

Faith is a tough thing to explain. I have had friends who tell me they “envy” my faith and wish they could have it. I always tell them the same thing. “It’s a gift. Ask for it. It’s a choice. Make it.”

UPDATE: This article on Chesterton speaks a little to the whole idea that faith is an argument.

[Via The Anchoress]

OpinionJournal – Extra

Once the justices depart, as most of them have, from the original understanding of the principles of the Constitution, they lack any guidance other than their own attempts at moral philosophy, a task for which they have not even minimal skills. Yet when it rules in the name of the Constitution, whether it rules truly or not, the court is the most powerful branch of government in domestic policy. The combination of absolute power, disdain for the historic Constitution, and philosophical incompetence is lethal.

Wow, Mr. Bork really lashes out at the Supreme Court for inventing new standards for moral behavior! This is not toning down the rhetoric but ratcheting it up. He makes several good points but I am afraid these points will be lost in the fervor of the impeding spectacle. He has just drawn a line in the sand.

Last night we were told the 5^th and 6^th ministry was going to be split up. The 5^th graders were going to remain in Children’s ministry and probably be combined with the 4^th graders for their own service. The 6^th graders were going to be added to the Junior High ministry. For those of us who have seen the impact of a ministry targeted at “tweeners” can accomplish this was quite a letdown. Although I could volunteer for the student or children’s ministry, my heart is not in it. I would just be another warm body.

BY GREGG EASTERBROOK
Friday, February 4, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST

Soon the Supreme Court will take up the question of whether the Ten Commandments can be displayed on government property. At the heart of this culture-war blockbuster will be two familiar and rivalrous claims: first, that any government sanction of religious material violates the separation of church and state; second, that the Ten Commandments promote morality and so their display must not be prohibited. We will undoubtedly hear one side decrying Christian activism run amok and the other godless secularism run amok.

Yet there is an alternative to the Ten Commandments–namely, the Six Commandments, enunciated by Jesus himself. And the Six Commandments could hang in any public facility without jeopardizing the separation of church and state.

In the Gospel of Matthew, a man asks Jesus what a person must do to enter heaven. He answers: "Keep the commandments." The man inquires: "Which ones?" Here is how the biblical account continues: "And Jesus said, 'You shall not murder; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness. Honor your father and mother. Also, you shall love your neighbor as yourself.'"

Debating what laws are more important than others was a long-standing exercise of the rabbinical tradition in which Jesus was educated. But in these verses, which have a parallel retelling in the Gospel of Mark, Christ is not merely offering an opinion about law. Something wholly remarkable happens–Jesus edits the commandments.

Quickly now, which commandments did he leave out? "You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourselves an idol. You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God. Remember the Sabbath Day, and keep it holy." These are the commandments having to do with formal religious observance–from today's perspective, the ones that clash with the Establishment Clause. Jesus' Six Commandments make no mention of God or faith. They could be posted on public property without constitutional entanglements.

If Jesus taught Six Commandments, why do Christians talk so much about 10? As a churchgoer, I am amazed at how many of my fellow Christians do not seem to know Christ's teachings. Consider, for instance, that Jesus instructed: "Give to everyone who begs from you." Watch throngs of Christians pass panhandlers without giving and you'll have an example of how unfamiliar many are with the content of their Redeemer's ministry.

Because the Six Commandments de-emphasize formal observation of religion, some Christian traditionalists pretend that the verses do not exist. In a lifetime of sitting through the sermons of various denominations, I have never heard a minister make more than passing reference to Christ's deletion of commandments. Such was his gift that, in the Gospel of John, he simplified all moral and spiritual instruction into a single dictum: "This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you." That modification of the original commandments also de-emphasizes formal religion and as such is also given short shrift by institutional Christianity. Many Christians seem to prefer the Ten Commandments because they embody a sense of might, mountaintops and divine wrath.

But if displaying Scripture in public is meant to encourage morality, surely the Six Commandments serve the purpose. Read them again:

You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness.
Honor your father and mother.
Also, you shall love your neighbor as yourself.

I was helping out in an info area at the church last Sunday. A woman came in after the service and was visibly distraught over something. Although my primary job is to help people find information on our various programs, I occasionally find myself in many different roles. This woman was upset over Farenheit 911 and wanted to know what the church was going to do about the issues brought up in the movie. Then she told me she knew it was propaganda but she couldn't get over it. So I listened. She desparately needed to talk this problem out. When I did talk to her it was to share my concerns over the conditions of the Iraq people and our young soldiers. I carefully avoided political opinions since I knew this her seeking healing and not about how smart I was. I tried to encourage here to step back from the rhetoric of the movie and talk to her friends about her concerns. She started to feel much better. As we were finishing up she tried to talk me into seeing the movie. I politely refused. I have not seen any of the previous Michael Moore movies.  I am not anti-Michael Moore as much as I would prefer to spend my $9 to go see something like Spiderman 2. Now that's entertainment! When I wanted facts about 9-11, I read the 9-11 commission report.

I was real happy with the progress our dysfunctional family had made towards sitting at a table and having a pleasant Sunday dinner and converstation. That is until last night. My wife got into quite a snit with her sister. The subject of the arguement is not important. Arguements like this are never about anything important. It quickly got out of hand and could not be reigned in. My son later described it as a brawl. I was embarrased by my wife's behavior. The only thing worthwhile that occurred that evening was on the way home. My son started to counsel his mother on forgiveness, pig headness, and controlling her temper. He was calm and earnest and she reluctantly discussed her feelings about her sister with him. He navigated the minefield of his mother's emotions quite nicely. I am proud of him.

My wife, her sister, and her mother do not get along. I still find it amazing that I am the only one who can keep a civil relationship with all three but sometimes I wish I had community water fountain laced with Prozac for those ladies. Last night we had a Sunday dinner together. It has been quite a while since we last ate together.  During dinner I guided the conversation away from the petty personal issues to the petty issues of politics and we had a fine time. The food was great and everyone was happy. I topped off my contribution with a dementia test Aunt Ann had sent me in an email. We ate desert and laughed as we all failed the test miserably.