Monday, May 18th, 2009

Time	Event
12:39p	Larry Axel Quote "While most of the world looked on--as did, presumably, any divine beings that exist--Hitler and his Nazi force operated killing centers that gassed children by the hundreds of thousands... With perhaps unprecedented magnitude and clarity, Auschwitz brings theologians and philosophers face to face with the facts of suffering on an incredibly mass scale, with issues poignantly raised concerning the absence of divine intervention or the inadequacies of divine power or benevolence; and we are led eventually to what theologians and philosophers call the Problem of Evil or the issue of theodicy. For theists, terrible dilemmas are raised. Irving Greenburg and others have insisted that in a post-Shoah world, no theological utterance should be affirmed today that is not cerdible in the presence of the burning children of Auschwitz. Anyone who wsheds to take evidence and experience seriously, to be "empirical," must recoginze in evil (both so-called moral evil and so-called natural evil) a substantive threat to traditional forms of theism that posit a God of omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, and control. Not only have many people concluded that there is an absence of substantive evidence for traditional theism, but also that there may be evidence--in the widespread presence of natural and moral evil in the world--against theism. There are certain things that cannot be ignored by a theological vocabulary. We can legitimately ask: should anyone who wishes to take experience seriously and who does not seek refuge in some kind of dualistic fideism, assert a theistic position after Auschwitz?" --Larry Axel, Religious Creaturalism and a New Agenda for Theology, in God, Values and Empiricism, 1998. (Comment on this)
1:45p	Newt Gingrich, cynical prick Want to know further who poisoned the well in Congress? Look no further. Newt Gingrich does not deserve to call himself an American. On the first day after the 1998 election I called Newt Gingrich to talk about some business; when the conversation got around to the election, he was very generous, saying that as a historian and "the quarterback for the other team," he wanted to congratulate me. Later in November, Erskine Bowles had a very different conversation: Newt told Erskine that they were going to go forward with the impeachment despite the election results and the fact that many moderate Republicans didn't want to vote for it. When Erskine asked Newt why they would proceed with impeachment instead of other possible remedies such as censure or reprimand, the Speaker replied, "Because we can." The right-wing Republicans who controlled the House believed that they had now paid for impeachment so they should just go on and do it before the new Congress came in. The right-wingers in the House caucus were seething over their defeat. Now they were going to seize back control of the Republican agenda through impeachment. My Life, by Bill Clinton, p.824-825 Jun 21, 2004 (Comment on this)

<< Previous Day

2009/05/18 [Calendar]

Next Day >>