Tony Snow

I remember Tony Snow only as the voice of the U.S. government under Bush. He apparently had quite the prolific career before that. He passed away last week at the age of 51 after a second battle against colon cancer, leaving his wife and three children behind. Many flattering obituaries have been given. By all accounts he was a happy, humble, family-oriented, God-fearing man. Here's what President Bush said at the funeral today:

Archbishop Wuerl, Father O'Connell, Mr. Vice President, members of the Cabinet and my administration, members of Congress, distinguished guests; most importantly, the Snow family, Jill, Robbie, Kendall, Kristi and Jim, and other family members; former colleagues of Tony. Laura and I are privileged to join you today to pay our final respects to a cherished friend.

Tony Snow was a man of uncommon decency and compassion. He was a devoted husband, a proud and loving father, an adoring son, a beloved colleague, and a wonderful role model and friend.

In a life that was far too brief, he amassed a rare record of accomplishment. He applied his gifted mind to many fields: as a columnist, newspaper editor, TV anchor, radio host, and musician. He had the sometimes challenging distinction of working for two Presidents named Bush. As a speechwriter in my Dad's administration, Tony tried to translate the President's policies into English. (Laughter.) As a spokesman in my administration, Tony tried to translate my English into English. (Laughter.)

Tony always gave me good and candid advice. He was a man of profound substance who loved ideas, held strong beliefs, and reveled in defending them. He took very seriously his duty to inform the public about what its government was doing during historic times for our nation.

In the White House briefing room, Tony worked to build a relationship of candor and trust with the press corps. On his first day at the podium, he told the gathered reporters this: "One of the reasons I took this job is not only because I believe in the President, but because, believe it or not, I want to work with you." Tony was the first working journalist to serve as the White House Press Secretary for nearly 30 years. He knew the job of a reporter was rigorous. He admired the profession -- and always treated it with respect. And the presence of so many members of the Fourth Estate here today attests to the admiration and respect that he earned.

Of course, Tony's adjustment from commentator to spokesman was not seamless. Ann Compton of ABC recently recalled that when you asked Tony a question, he would sometimes get going, and she would have to stop him and say: "Tony, wait, I asked what the President thought." (Laughter.)

Tony brought a fierce and challenging intellect to his duties. And he displayed an engaging wit. When a reporter asked a rather labored question about Congress, Tony did not answer it. The persistent reporter pressed him: "Are you going to just evade that question?" With a smile, Tony quipped: "No, I'm going to laugh at it." (Laughter.)

I believe the reason Tony was so good at his job is that he looked at the world in a joyful way. He was a proud patriot who believed in America's goodness, and an optimist who knew America's possibilities. He believed strongly in the wisdom of the American people. And throughout his career, he took a special pride in being a vigorous and unapologetic defender of our men and women in uniform. He supported their missions, saw honor in their achievements, and found every possible opportunity to highlight their character and courage.

Tony Snow, the professional, is a hard act to follow. Tony Snow, the man, is simply irreplaceable. Everyone who worked with him quickly grew to love him. We will always remember his wry sense of humor and abundant goodness. We'll also remember he was just a lot of fun. After all, he played six different musical instruments and was a proud member of a band called Beats Working. He may be one of the few people in history to have jammed on the South Lawn of the White House and with Jethro Tull. (Laughter.)

We remember Tony's thoughtfulness. No matter how busy he was, this was a man who put others first. He would go out of his way to ask about people's families. He would check in with friends whenever he heard they were ill. He'd reach out to others, sometimes strangers, who were struggling with cancer. Even when he was going through difficult chemotherapy sessions, he sent inspirational e-mails to a friend whose son was suffering from a serious illness.

We remember Tony's resilient spirit. When he received a second diagnosis of cancer, he did not turn to despair. He saw it as another challenge to tackle. He found comfort in the prayers he received from millions of Americans. As he told the graduates here at Catholic University last year, "Never underestimate the power of other people's love and prayer. They have incredible power. It's as if I've been carried on the shoulders of an entire army. And they made me weightless."

Most of all, we remember Tony's love of his family. There was no doubt for Tony Snow that his family was first. When Jill reached a milestone birthday, Tony had a huge celebration. He later said that he and Jill danced that night as if they were teenagers. He said he was the most fortunate man in the world to have shared love like that. So, today, Jill, our hearts are with you, and we thank you for giving Tony such a special life.

For Robbie, Kendall, and Kristi, you are in our thoughts and prayers, as well. We thank you for sharing your dad with us. He talked about you all the time. He wanted nothing more than your happiness and success. You know, I used to call Tony on the weekends to get his advice. And invariably, I found him with you on the soccer field, or at a swim meet, or helping with your homework. He loved you a lot. Today I hope you know that we loved him a lot, too.

I know it's hard to make sense of today. It is impossible to fully comprehend why such a good and vital man was taken from us so soon. But these are the great mysteries of life -- and Tony knew as well as anyone that they're not ours to unveil.

The day Tony was born was also the day that many of his fellow Catholics pay tribute to Saint Justin. Justin was also a gifted thinker and writer, and a powerful witness for the Christian faith. Because of his beliefs, he suffered many times of trial, and in the year 165 A.D. he was arrested. Before he received a sentence of death, he was asked: "If you are killed, do you suppose you will go to heaven?" Justin replied: "I do not suppose it, but I know and am fully persuaded of it."

Tony Snow knew that, as well. That brought him great peace. When talking about the struggle he waged so admirably, he said that no matter how bad times may sometimes seem, "God doesn't promise tomorrow, he does promise eternity."

And so today we send this man of faith and character and joy on his final journey. Tony Snow has left the City of Washington for the City of God. May he find eternal rest in the arms of his Savior. And may the Author of all creation watch over his family and all those who loved him, admired him, and will always cherish his memory.

The Dawkins Lennox Debate - Part 3 of 3

(Continued from Part 1 and Part 2.)

The fifth thesis of the debate was "One does not need God to be good or evil". Dawkins's initial argument for this thesis is useless. First, he makes the absurd statement one's morals are likely to be "hideous" if they are based on the Bible. Then he sets up two straw men as the two possible reasons - in his mind - that one would need God to be moral: one needs a book to define morality, and one is afraid of God or wants to "suck up" to Him. Dawkins brilliantly demolishes these straw men, but neither represents the biblical position. True, God speaks through his word, and those who do evil should fear him. However, as Lennox points out, morality only has foundation in the holiness and justice of God. He is the absolute and only possible standard for morality.

Dawkins's second argument is that we are all moral in and of ourselves, to one degree or another. We all have an idea of what is right and wrong - he attributes this partly to a vague theory on early human relationships - which he fails to discuss further - as well as to what he calls a "shifting moral zeitgeist" - which he fails to define, other than to emphatically declare that it does not come from religion. Biblical Christians somewhat agree with this second part. The 17th-century Canons of Dort devotes an article to this concept:

To be sure, there is left in man after the fall, some light of nature, whereby he retains some notions about God, about natural things, and about the difference between what is honourable and shameful, and shows some regard for virtue and outward order. But so far is he from arriving at the saving knowledge of God and true conversion through this light of nature that he does not even use it properly in natural and civil matters. Rather, whatever this light may be, man wholly pollutes it in various ways and suppresses it by his wickedness. In doing so, he renders himself without excuse before God. (Chapter III/IV, Article 4)

The first sentence of this article clearly defines Dawkins's "moral zeitgeist", and the rest aptly show why it is "shifting." Lennox didn't need to do much heavy lifting to rebut this thesis.

The sixth and final thesis was "Christian claims about the person of Jesus are not true; his alleged miracles violate the laws of nature." This thesis did not get a full treatment due to time constraints. However, Dawkins's position is outlined in his defense of the second thesis, where he indicated that few "sophisticated" theologians actually believe that miracles literally happened, but that the average "unsophisticated" churchgoer clings to them. As I noted with regard to that thesis, insofar as this is the case, it is an indictment of the churches of which such churchgoers are members. But it is also an indictment of many theologians who are too "sophisticated" to believe what the Bible says. Dawkins is rightly critical of both groups.

Nevertheless, truly biblical Christians - "sophisticated" or otherwise - believe that miracles literally happened; moreover, they do not cling to the miracles themselves. When Nicodemus the Pharisee witnessed Jesus' miracles, he did not cling to them. Rather, he rightly observed that they were signs:

Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council. He came to Jesus at night and said, "Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him." (John 3:1)

A sign points to something, and its value and meaning are determined by that to which it points. For Nicodemus, Jesus' miracles signified that he had "come from God." Likewise, Jesus' disciples wondered about his power over storms:

A squall came down on the lake, so that the boat was being swamped, and they were in great danger. The disciples went and woke him, saying, "Master, Master, we're going to drown!"

He got up and rebuked the wind and the raging waters; the storm subsided, and all was calm. "Where is your faith?" he asked his disciples.

In fear and amazement they asked one another, "Who is this? He commands even the winds and the water, and they obey him." (Luke 8:23-25)

So, miracles are not to be clung to of themselves; further, they declare that Jesus has power over nature - that is, he is supernatural. Lennox says, "The laws of nature are not violated; the God who controls them is free to introduce events outside of them."

Attacks on the veracity of miracles are not a small matter. As Lennox indicates, the resurrection of Jesus - a supernatural event - is at the heart of the Christian faith. The Apostle Paul states:

If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith... If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men. (1 Corinthians 15:14-19)

The debate was very interesting. Both men argued passionately, but it strikes me that Lennox's position is saturated with stability, justice, and hope, while Dawkins's is devoid of them. It is the difference between the "life under the sun" described in Ecclesiastes, and life according to the Maker's instructions.

The Dawkins Lennox Debate - Part 2 of 3

(Continued from Part 1.)

The third thesis in the God Delusion Debate was "Design is dead; otherwise one must explain, who designed the designer?" Dawkins takes the argument here from what happened once life existed to where life came from in the first place. He acknowledges that the existence of God is technically not disprovable, but he thinks it is very improbable. He acknowledges that no explanation is entirely satisfying for him, but the Anthropic Principle coupled with the idea of a multiverse will do for now, and once he's cleared that hurdle, evolution explains the rest.

In my estimation, Dawkins does not really defend the last part of the thesis - why it's necessary to explain who designed the Designer. He only really indicates that he feels it's not satisfactory to "invoke God". As Lennox points out, the entire "Who made God?" argument turns on the premise that God is created. To accept the argument is to accept this premise. But no one believes in created gods. God certainly makes no such claim for himself; nor does Jesus, who shocked the Jewish leaders by claiming to be eternal:

"You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"
"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"
At this, they picked up stones to stone him...(John 8:57-59)

Dawkins argues that "you can't evade the issue by saying 'God was always there' - you still need an explanation." But God's eternity is not an evasion, it is the explanation. Dawkins is frustrated by this argument, but he doesn't really come up with a reason for this besides the fact that he doesn't find it satisfying. Of course, he should not find his own "interim" solution satisfying either - as Lennox hints, it still does not explain the origin of the matter and energy itself.

The fourth thesis was "Christianity is dangerous." Dawkins is careful to assure us that he doesn't believe that all religion is bad, or that all religious people are bad. He rightly points out that there is a convention in our society that religion is to be respected and not to be questioned. He declares it an evil that children are taught not to question their faith or seek justification for it. Dawkins wants each child to be given the gift of skepticism. Finally, he postulates that when some of these children eventually do evil things, it is the fact that they do not feel the need to question or justify their actions that allows them to do them. Thus he declares that there is a logical path from religion to evil acts.

For the most part, biblical Christians agree - we are called to be thinking, discerning people; as mentioned with regard to the first thesis, God does not call us to scientific incuriosity either. Lennox strongly declares that Christ's teachings do not allow for the evils Dawkins listed. He also gives several plausible examples of a logical path from atheism to evil acts. Dawkins has a double standard for people who do evil - if they are not atheists, it is because of their religion; if they are atheists, it is not.

What follows is an interesting little exchange on Lennox's thesis that atheism is a religion in its own right. Dawkins defines atheism as not believing in a God, and compares this with Lennox's "atheism" with regard to Zeus. So he claims to be religiously neutral. But humans can not exist in an ideological vacuum. To say that one does not believe in God is not to say that one believes in nothing. It is to say that one does believe that God does not exist, and this belief has consequences; it will affect how one thinks, and, inevitably, what one says and does. For this reason, atheism must be seen for what it is: a worldview, an ideology, a religion.

(See also: Part 3).

The Dawkins Lennox Debate - Part 1 of 3

In October 2007, the Fixed Point Foundation hosted a debate between evolutionary philosopher Prof. Richard Dawkins and Christian scientist and apologist Dr. John Lennox on the topic of "The God Delusion" (a reference to the title of the latest book from Dawkins). The debate can be seen at dawkinslennoxdebate.com and is worthwhile to view.

The debate was civil yet lively, serious but not humourless, and detailed but understandable. Dawkins comes across as eminently thoughtful, reasonable, and scholarly. He is well spoken, and is able to clearly verbalize his argument. Lennox is friendly, forceful, and logical, as one would expect a mathematician to be. He also injected a bit of humour into the debate.

The debate itself can only loosely be called such. Summaries of six theses from The God Delusion were chosen and introduced by the moderator. Dawkins was to elaborate on and give his reasoning for them, after which Lennox was to respond, before the moderator moved to the next thesis. This gave no opportunity for Dawkins to rebut Lennox's arguments, or for any debate in the true sense. It is clear that both Dawkins and Lennox wanted and tried to move to a back-and-forth free debate format, which they managed to do several times. This format held back the possibility of a true debate. Nevertheless, both men were able to clearly articulate and argue their positions.

The first thesis was "Faith is blind; science is evidence-based. Faith teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding." Dawkins's position is that faith removes the need for evidence or the desire to understand. His argument also implies that faith is not evidence-based and science is not blind. Dawkins's premise is that faith is defined as belief of something for which we have no evidence. The writer to the Hebrews wrote:

Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. (Hebrews 11:1)

But it is false to equate what we do not see with what we do not have evidence for. The Bible certainly does not say that we have no evidence for what we believe. Yet, we must be clear that, though the evidence is consistent with our faith, it is not evidence on which we base our faith.

Dawkins asserts that faith teaches satisfaction with not understanding. This is true to this extent, that there are some things which Christians do not need to understand, and which we therefore do and should not pursue (Deuteronomy 29:29). But this satisfaction with not understanding is absolutely not true with regard to scientific curiosity; this is abundantly clear from the example of the many early Christians who were ground-breaking scientists. God and His Word do not call Christians to scientific incuriosity.

The second thesis was "Science supports atheism, not Christianity." There are two points here on which biblical Christians agree with Dawkins: first, "a universe with a God would be a very different kind of universe from a universe without a God"; second, science and religion are not non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA). To his credit, though other evolutionists warm him it is damaging to their case, Dawkins unequivocally states that evolution led him to atheism. He also acknowledges that the study of science came out of the Christian faith.

But on this point Dawkins also makes a strong statement:

It becomes even more glaring where you talk about miracles... However much sophisticated theologians may profess their non-belief in miracles, the plain fact is, that the ordinary person in the pew - the ordinary unsophisticated church-goer - believes deeply in miracles, and it's largely miracles that persuade that person into the church in the first place.

Leaving the reality and nature of miracles for later discussion, I think it is an exaggeration to imply, first, that ordinary church-goers are unsophisticated, and second, that it is miracles that draw these people into the church. But if this is true for the average church-goer, it is an indictment on their churches. Churches that teach biblical Christianity teach their members to be personally well-versed in the Scriptures, and there is thus no room for spiritual illiteracy that would have them holding on to mere miracles instead of the gospel to which they point. These are the same Christians who are likely to be, as Lennox put it with reference to the first thesis, "guilty of a lazy God-of-the-gaps kind of solution - I can't understand it, therefore God did it, and of course, God disappears as the gaps close."

Lennox makes some very strong arguments in rebuttal, particularly that one can't even begin scientific study without believing that it is bound by law and order.

(See also: Part 2 and Part 3.)

A Musical Interlude

I'm working on an arrangement of J. S. Bach's Praeludium II (BWV 847), from the Well-Tempered Clavier Book II. Here's a great arrangement of the same for Chapman stick.

My Own Hate Crime

I'm jumping on the bandwagon à la Ezra Levant. As a show of support for Stephen Boissoin, as well as defiance of a kangaroo court ruling, I also hereby publish what the Alberta HRC has declared hateful. At The World Truths, Boissoin himself gives the letter some context (see the second comment).

The following is not intended for those who are suffering from an unwanted sexual identity crisis. For you, I have understanding, care, compassion and tolerance. I sympathize with you and offer you my love and fellowship. I prayerfully beseech you to seek help, and I assure you that your present enslavement to homosexuality can be remedied. Many outspoken, former homosexuals are free today.

Instead, this is aimed precisely at every individual that in any way supports the homosexual machine that has been mercilessly gaining ground in our society since the 1960s. I cannot pity you any longer and remain inactive. You have caused far too much damage.

My banner has now been raised and war has been declared so as to defend the precious sanctity of our innocent children and youth, that you so eagerly toil, day and night, to consume. With me stand the greatest weapons that you have encountered to date - God and the "Moral Majority." Know this, we will defeat you, then heal the damage that you have caused. Modern society has become dispassionate to the cause of righteousness. Many people are so apathetic and desensitized today that they cannot even accurately define the term "morality."

The masses have dug in and continue to excuse their failure to stand against horrendous atrocities such as the aggressive propagation of homo- and bisexuality. Inexcusable justifications such as, "I'm just not sure where the truth lies," or "If they don't affect me then I don't care what they do," abound from the lips of the quantifiable majority.

Face the facts, it is affecting you. Like it or not, every professing heterosexual is have their future aggressively chopped at the roots.

Edmund Burke's observation that, "All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing," has been confirmed time and time again. From kindergarten class on, our children, your grandchildren are being strategically targeted, psychologically abused and brainwashed by homosexual and pro-homosexual educators.

Our children are being victimized by repugnant and premeditated strategies, aimed at desensitizing and eventually recruiting our young into their camps. Think about it, children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights.

Your children are being warped into believing that same-sex families are acceptable; that men kissing men is appropriate.

Your teenagers are being instructed on how to perform so-called safe same gender oral and anal sex and at the same time being told that it is normal, natural and even productive. Will your child be the next victim that tests homosexuality positive?

Come on people, wake up! It's time to stand together and take whatever steps are necessary to reverse the wickedness that our lethargy has authorized to spawn. Where homosexuality flourishes, all manner of wickedness abounds.

Regardless of what you hear, the militant homosexual agenda isn't rooted in protecting homosexuals from "gay bashing." The agenda is clearly about homosexual activists that include, teachers, politicians, lawyers, Supreme Court judges, and God forbid, even so-called ministers, who are all determined to gain complete equality in our nation and even worse, our world.

Don't allow yourself to be deceived any longer. These activists are not morally upright citizens, concerned about the best interests of our society. They are perverse, self-centered and morally deprived individuals who are spreading their psychological disease into every area of our lives. Homosexual rights activists and those that defend them, are just as immoral as the pedophiles, drug dealers and pimps that plague our communities.

The homosexual agenda is not gaining ground because it is morally backed. It is gaining ground simply because you, Mr. and Mrs. Heterosexual, do nothing to stop it. It is only a matter of time before some of these morally bankrupt individuals such as those involved with NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Lovers Association, will achieve their goal to have sexual relations with children and assert that it is a matter of free choice and claim that we are intolerant bigots not to accept it.

If you are reading this and think that this is alarmist, then I simply ask you this: how bad do things have to become before you will get involved? It's time to start taking back what the enemy has taken from you. The safety and future of our children is at stake.

Rev. Stephen Boissoin

Dear Mr. Blaikie

Dear Mr. Blaikie,

I would like to thank you for your work in parliament, even though we disagree on many issues.

I write to you to voice my concern regarding the Human Rights Acts in Canada and the Commissions that enforce them. From a purely practical perspective, the commissions have clearly demonstrated that they are out of line. The March 25 hearings of the federal Commission and the recent tribunal investigation of Maclean's highlight the fact that these commissions, though not dealing with actual criminal actions, are nevertheless more powerful and less limited than real courts and investigators. It is unconstitutional and in total disregard of the rights and freedoms of our legal heritage that non-crimes can be investigated and prosecuted with looser limits on search and seizure and with looser (if any) rules of evidence and procedure than actual crimes can be. This is not even to discuss the total one-sidedness of Commission proceedings.

The possibility - as in the cases of Levant, Steyn, and even Lemire - that my political thoughts could subject me to prosecution, even though they are not criminal, is despicable in a liberal democracy. The possibility - as in the cases of Brockie, Owens, and Boissoin - that my bona fide religious convictions are subject to the approval of the government or its agent, even though they are not criminal, is frightening.

Your website has a link to an October 2007 article in the United Church Observer. In the interview, you state that your opinion that secular fundamentalists are misguided in wanting to "rule out religious talk in the public domain", while religious fundamentalists need to be "challenged about how to speak about political matters from a faith point of view". In general, I agree with this sentiment. But I submit to you that it is neither the right nor the responsibility of the government to censor or to sit in judgment of either political or religious public discourse.

I urge you, with many other constituents and Canadians, to support Dr. Keith Martin's efforts to repeal subsection 13(1) of the Human Rights Act, and further, to encourage the government to consider scrapping the Commissions and Tribunals altogether.

I eagerly await your response. Thank you.