Just War: Why Christians Should Not Falter in Support of Israel

By Julian Dunraven, J.D., M.P.A.

Honorable friends:

The Holy See permanent observer to the United Nations has quoted Pope Benedict XVI as saying of the conflict in Gaza “that the military options are no solution and that violence, wherever it comes from and whatever form it takes, must be firmly condemned.” Naturally, I would expect the pontiff to be praying for peace. However, I am surprised that the former head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith would make such a careless comment so wildly out of line with the Church’s teachings. Such slips only encourage the type of behavior I saw this weekend from a few guests at a wedding who, though totally uneducated on the subject, pronounced their condemnation of both Israel and Palestine while piously declaring that war is always wrong. Such statements are as contemptible as they are intellectually lazy, and I grow weary of listening to them.

While Christianity has perhaps lamented that war is always tragic and unfortunate, it has never declared that war is always wrong. To the best of my knowledge there is not a single mainstream Christian Church so foolish as to make such a declaration. Certainly, Israel’s actions in Gaza cannot be called wrong by any rational observer. To fully understand how incredibly imbalanced the ethics of this conflict are in favor of Israel, there is no better teacher than Charles Krauthammer in his last two columns, “Excruciating Moral Clarity,” and, “Ending Hamas Rule.”

However, for those of you who, like me, have an assortment of Christian friends who refuse to sanction any war no matter how powerful the justification or how clear the moral reasoning, I suggest you refer them to the Christian Just War Doctrine. Going all the way back to Saint Augustine of Hippo, it predates all the schisms and is a part of every mainstream form of Christianity.

The Just War Doctrine, codified in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, states in §2308 that, “as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed.” Section 2309 goes on to list the conditions under which a just war may be prosecuted:
· the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
· all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
· there must be serious prospects of success;
· the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

Considering what we know of Gaza, despite all international effort over the past several decades, no authority has been successful at persuading the Palestinian militants to desist from launching rockets into Israel. As Mr. Krauthammer points out, rocket fire on the Israeli population has continued unabated even after Israel withdrew all settlers and military, and ceded governmental control to the Palestinian Authority in 2005—effectively doing everything the Palestinians had demanded for an end to hostilities. Negotiations have gone on for decades, yet only Israel attempts to abide by any of the agreements reached. There is nothing more Israel can offer save its own annihilation. Thus, I would say negotiation has proved most ineffective.

Israel does have a good chance of permanently ending this conflict, though, if its assault can topple Hamas’ control and demonstrate that Islamic militants will succeed only in bringing greater hardship down on Palestinian people. The hardship endured by the Palestinian people is indeed unfortunate, but Hamas has deliberately orchestrated that hardship by using its own civilian population and humanitarian centers as shields against Israeli counterstrikes. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) acknowledges that the problem of proportionality is “aggravated if one side deliberately positions military targets in the midst of a civilian population.” Though Israel is doing all it can to minimize civilian casualties, they are inevitable. Nonetheless, after so many decades of failed negotiations, if Israel can succeed in destroying Hamas utterly, the permanent peace to follow will be worth the terrible price.

As the Catechism states in §2304, the peace Israel fights for is “not merely the absence of war, and it is not limited to maintaining a balance of powers between adversaries. Peace cannot be attained on earth without safeguarding the goods of persons, free communication among men, respect for the dignity of persons and peoples, and the assiduous practice of fraternity. Peace is ‘the tranquility of order.’ Peace is the work of justice and the effect of charity.” According to Pope John Paul II in his World Day of Peace Message of 1982, “Unconditional and effective respect for each one's unprescriptable and inalienable rights is the necessary condition in order that peace may reign in a society.” Currently, only Israel offers such respect—going so far as to offer warnings and aid to enemy noncombatants in its quest for peace. Hamas, on the other hand, is dedicated to the complete destruction of Israel. Unless it is clearly defeated, that ideology of hate will remain as an impenetrable barrier to peace for yet more decades to come.

As the USCCB states, “This is why Christians, even as they strive to resist and prevent every form of warfare, have no hesitation in recalling that, in the name of an elementary requirement of justice, peoples have a right and even a duty to protect their existence and freedom by proportionate means against an unjust aggressor.”

Rather than making foolish statements about how all war is evil, if Christendom truly wants to see an end to conflict in the Middle East, they would do well to bring real pressure to bear on Hamas, Palestine, and their Arab allies to prevent the continual flow of weapons and armaments into Gaza, and to enforce real consequences for mortar attacks beyond occasional dispatching another diplomat for talks while the militants rearm. The USCCB reminds us that a true “Christian has no choice but to defend peace, properly understood, against aggression. This is an inalienable obligation.”

Diana DeGette Refuses To Recognize Christmas, Christian Faith Citing "Separation Of Church And State" Concerns

More moonbattery from "my" representative, Democrat Diana DeGette:

One Republican House lawmaker is taking offense at nine Democrats for what he said should have been a no-brainer: recognizing the importance of Christians and Christmas.

In the end, the House on Tuesday supported Rep. Steve King's resolution to recognize "the Christian faith as one of the great religions of the world" and acknowledge "the international religious and historical importance of Christmas and the Christian faith."

But King, of Iowa, is upset that not everyone voted for his bill two weeks before an estimated 225 million Americans celebrate the Christian holiday even though the vote by usual standards would be a solid margin. The measure passed by a 372-9 vote, with 10 recording a neutral "present" vote and 40 members not voting.

"The naysayers didn't make it to the floor to debate. I would like to know how they could vote 'yes' on Islam, 'yes' on the Indian religions and 'no' on Christianity. The foundation of this nation and this culture is Christian. ... I think there's an assault on Christianity in America," King said in a release Wednesday.

Speaking with FOX News Wednesday, King said he was motivated to push the resolution because of liberal activists and "secularists in the country who are trying to eradicate Christ from Christmas."

"It's time we stood up and said so and said to the rest of America, 'Be who you are, and be confident, and let's worship Christ and celebrate Christmas for the right reasons'," he said.

King said he was upset with the nine lawmakers — all Democrats — who voted against his resolution even they did not vote against two earlier measures, one supporting Islam and the holy month of Ramadan, and the other supporting a number of Indian religions..

Those in King's crosshairs are Reps. Gary Ackerman and Yvette Clarke of New York; Diana DeGette of Colorado; Alcee Hastings of Florida; Jim McDermott of Washington; Bobby Scott of Virginia; and Barbara Lee, Pete Stark, and Lynn Woolsey of California.

All voted "yes" on both measures with the exception of Hastings and Lee. Hastings supported the Ramadan measure but did not vote on the Indian religion measure. Lee was the reverse: she supported the Indian religion measure, but did not vote on the Ramadan measure.

DeGette's chief of staff, Lisa Cohen, told FOXNews.com that she had not heard King's comments until she spoke with a reporter, but DeGette previously has opposed similar bills on Christianity because she "has concerns about separation of church and state." Other lawmakers' offices did not immediately respond to requests for comment Wednesday.

Does DeGette really believe that by affirming a resolution such as this that she is somehow establishing Christianity as the state religion? I'm sure the raging Christianists in liberal Denver will riot in the streets over this offensive dismissal of their religion. Oh wait, they won't. But nice to see DeGette buy into the conspiratorial "Christians are trying to subvert the Constitution by establishing it as the state religion" moonbattery.

Daily Nativity 120907

Daily Nativity 120507

Daily Nativity 120407

Daily Nativity 120307

Giotto, "The Nativity"

Daily Nativity 120207

Daily Nativity 120107

François Boucher, "The Light of the World"

Fort Collins Holiday Display Resolution Still Lacking

The Fort Collins menorah/Christmas tree/holiday lights saga is still unresolved, according to one Fort Collins Councilman:

Though a Fort Collins City Council vote last week ended a months-long discussion regarding holiday decorations on city property, one councilman said the initial question of menorah placement still has not been answered.

Councilman Wade Troxell circulated an e-mail to other council members and staff saying the city had not satisfied the need for an inclusionary city square open for free religious expression and that it should scrap parts of the plan the council adopted 6-1.

Troxell said the council needed to work with Rabbi Yerachmiel Gorelik — whose denied request to place a menorah marking Hanukkah on city property two years ago sparked the debate — to integrate a menorah with the traditional Christmas display.

Troxell cast the lone dissenting vote Nov. 20 to the proposal that maintained traditional, secular Christmas symbols such as decorated trees and colored lights on city buildings. It also created a display for next year on the Fort Collins Museum property that could have religious symbols such as the menorah.

"The museum display isn't inclusionary at all. It's a perversion of inclusion," he said. "It will be developed by city workers, which isn't an expression of faith. It's an interpretation."

As with any bureaucratic/governmental solution, the results are often incomplete, inadequate, and dissatisfying. The requested menorah that sparked this unnecessary controversy is still at issue--and was the primary reason for this councilman's no vote.

Previous coverage of the Fort Collins holiday display "task force" debacle here.

Fort Collins Chooses Hybrid Holiday Policy

Audio of the "holiday display task force presentation", Mayor Doug Hutchinson's ground rules and clarifications, and citizen comments:



An immigrant from the UK describes the nefarious encroachment of socialism/multiculturalism and explains that the "celebration of diversity" really means more restrictions and less inclusiveness:



Rabbi Yerachmiel Gorelik explains his original request to display a Menorah that touched off the controversy, first when his request was denied twice, and then with the formation of the "holiday task force":




Still legal in Fort Collins--at least this year


Citizens of Fort Collins prepare to weigh in on the "holiday task force" recommendations

Avoiding another battle in the "war on Christmas", the Fort Collins City Council ultimately decided on adopting the third, hybrid option recommended by the "holiday display task force"--keep traditions by retaining current policy, while adding a new multiholiday exhibit at the Fort Collins museum:

All holidays are welcomed and celebrated in Fort Collins. City Council voted, 6-1, to adopt a Holiday Display Policy that honors current Christmas traditions and adds a new multicultural display at the Fort Collins Museum.

Council chose to adopt a hybrid plan which incorporates elements of both the existing Holiday Display Policy and a portion of the Holiday Display Task Force recommendations.

Consistent with existing policy, interior and exterior of City buildings may include traditional displays of trees, adorned greenery, wreaths, and other secular symbols or messages. Both white and colored lights are acceptable.

Based on recommendations from the Holiday Display Task Force, a multi-cultural educational exhibit will be placed on the grounds of the Fort Collins Museum. Both secular and religious celebrations and traditions will be included.

This decision, however, does not remove the responsibility the City Council bears for having put itself in such an awkward, attention gathering situation. It failed for two years to approve a request to add a Menorah, at no cost, to its existing display. It also punted the political football created by the controversy by overreacting and appointing a bureaucratic nightmare of a task force whose composition--widely derided by the citizens of Fort Collins--seemed to be predisposed to providing a multicultural mess of a recommendation that became media fodder overnight and drew even more negative publicity for the city.

The hybrid option did not please some task force members including, unsurprisingly, the lone ACLU member:

Some members of the citizen Holiday Display Task Force committee said Monday they are unhappy with changes city staff made to a holiday display policy coming before the City Council for a vote Tuesday night.

The task force, which met weekly for more than two months, made recommendations to ban colored lights and wreaths from the exterior of city buildings but to allow building managers' discretion in determining what adorns building interiors - including flexibility for religious displays.

The "hybrid policy," mashed together with parts of the task force recommendation and input from individual council members and the public, would allow for colored lights and Christmas tree displays on city building exteriors, including Oak Street Plaza, but limits what can be placed inside city buildings to items secular in nature unless part of an educational piece of artwork.

"My primary concern is that the (hybrid) recommendation includes aspects that were neither in the original policy nor the task force recommendation," task force spokesman Seth Anthony said. "I am concerned that some of the things were not thought all the way through and carefully (vetted) like the task force recommendations were."

City manager Darin Atteberry disagreed, saying the city has a long-standing policy and tradition of using citizen group input along with other factors when preparing policy for council debate and vote.

"That is why they are called advisory groups," Atteberry said, adding these types of decisions are always left to the city's elected officials.

Fort Collins Holiday Display Flap Set For Vote; Mayor Opposes Recommendation, Sheriff Plans Christmas Tree Protest

"Fort Collins is becoming more like the imbecilic borough of Boulder than many would like to admit, where social agendas substitute for common sense"--Larimer County Sheriff Jim Alderden

Council member Diggs Brown said he agrees with the mayor, says he'll vote against the task force recommendation because he doesn't want to be the "grinch" that ruins Christmas for Fort Collins' children (video):

"I will ask City Council to reject any recommendations that diminish Christmas in Fort Collins, especially our traditional display of Christmas trees, colored lights and other traditional secular symbols," Mayor Doug Hutchinson wrote in an opinion piece in Wednesday's The Coloradoan.

Larimer County Sheriff Jim Alderden is taking a different tack--inviting the public to help him decorate a Christmas tree in protest, complete with red and green lights:

Decrying people he says are taking the "Christ out of Christmas," Larimer County Sheriff Jim Alderden is inviting the public to help decorate a Christmas tree on his office lawn, and seeking donations to ensure no tax dollars are spent on it.

"Most of the members of the Larimer County Sheriff's Office are Christians and celebrate Christmas. We pray for the continued safety of our brothers and sisters in blue, and recognize that the laws we are sworn to uphold have their very foundation in the laws laid down by God through Moses," Alderden said in his Bull's-eye newsletter. "Our criminal codes are based on Judaic Christian doctrine. To deny that by restricting symbols of Christian faith on public property is beyond the pale."

Alderden devoted his most recent newsletter to the ongoing controversy over the city's holiday light display task force's recommendation that religious symbols be limited in public places. The City Council will discuss the recommendations at Tuesday's meeting.

Because the sheriff's tree will be on county-owned property, it's not subject to the task force's recommendations.
. . .
"There's such a thing as religious tolerance, but you can be tolerant without excluding the majority, and that seems to be the road we're heading down," Alderden said. "We respect people of other faiths and religions. We respect other people's right to have their opinions, but don't ask Christians to hide their faith."

For moonbats, tolerance swings only in one direction. Everyone must accommodate the minority, while the majority must remain silent and traditions are removed to placate the delicate sensibilities of the "offended"--whether real or imagined. This is the ultimate result of nanny-statism and multi-culturalism, and RMN editor Vincent Carroll details what awaits down the slippery slope:

We used to debate whether religious symbols were appropriate — or even legal — on public property at Christmas time. Now we apparently must debate whether anything that makes someone think of Christmas should be displayed.

A city appointed task force in Fort Collins has concluded that the answer is no. Even objects that have no more religious significance than a fat elf with a long white beard might jeopardize the civic goal of ensuring that all citizens “feel valued, welcomed and included.” As a result, for example, the task force would allow no colored lights on city buildings or in common areas inside. And no ornaments. It would even mandate that any “garlands of greenery” be “unadorned.”

Mustn’t let a ribbon give the public the wrong idea.

Apparently the worry is that someone who doesn’t celebrate Dec. 25 might notice a red ribbon and think, “Aha! They’re pushing Christmas.” The next thing you know, the poor fellow will be seeking advice from a therapist on how to cope. What kind of “inclusive” city would willingly subject its citizens to such traumatic ordeals? Better to limit displays to white lights, icicles, snowflakes, snowmen, penguins, polar bears, and skis (all declared harmless by the task force) rather than flirt with the harrowing possibility that a string of colored lights might trigger a bout of depression in a sensitive passerby.
. . .
Officials who decide to scrub one holiday from the calendar in the name of a uniting “all city residents and visitors in the spirit of community celebration” may soon discover their work is more complicated than they thought.

Previous coverage of the Fort Collins "holiday task force".

Fort Collins' "Holiday Task Force" Recommendations Draw Community Ire

Displays like this could get the axe for being "too Christmas-y"

The inclusive, multicultural/diversity, and bureaucratic approach to the holidays taken up by Fort Collins has led to the ridiculous proposals put forth last week by the 17-member "holiday task force" designated to eliminate Christmas make the city's displays more "educational", drawing the ire of local residents:

"On the display you'll see symbols and recognition and descriptions of all the various traditions that are celebrated here in Fort Collins," said Seth Anthony, a spokesperson for the task force, which included representatives from a variety of secular and religious groups.

What appears to be attracting controversy is another recommendation that would not allow colored lights and other symbols associated with Christmas in other outside public areas.

"The council's intent was to be positive, be expansive, to be more inclusive. I'm not sure why we would want to restrict any aspect of what has been years and years of traditional holiday displays," said Fort Collins Mayor Doug Hutchinson, who has received angry calls from many people, some of whom claim the city is stealing Christmas.

However, those with the task force say its proposal is appropriate.

"We have to be careful that the displays that we have not endorse any particular religion. Putting things in a multicultural context, or an educational context really helps us be very safely on the good side of the First Amendment," said Anthony, who is an ACLU member.

That said, Anthony adds Christmas would not be absent from Fort Collins if the recommendations were to pass. He says they would not prohibit Christmas trees or decorations inside public buildings and businesses would still throw up all sorts of Christmas displays.

I'm sure they'll take care of those glaring omissions next year.

The flimsy reasoning continues:

Though the recommendation's language does not address Christmas trees by name, the consensus among task force members was that Christmas trees would not fall within its recommendations, said Seth Anthony, spokesman for the task force.

"Some symbols, even though the Supreme Court has declared that in many contexts they are secular symbols, often still send a message to some members of the community that they and their traditions are not values and not wanted. We don't want to send that message," Anthony said.

But the Fort Collins museum's display of white lights in trees on its grounds - including an evergreen tree lighted as part of the Downtown Business Association's Community Holiday Tree lighting and Carolfest, could continue under the new recommendation, he said.

The task force also will recommend that the Fort Collins Museum develop a multicultural display of religious and cultural symbols or objects associated with a variety of winter holidays such as Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa and Diwali. Such a display could include such objects as a crèche with a star overhead, a menorah or a Kwanzaa kenora, to name a few.

The final decision for what is included in the display, which will likely be outdoors beginning in 2008, would rest with museum staff, Anthony said.

Because the Downtown Development Authority owns Old Town Square, any holiday display policies approved by council would not apply there.

"I expect criticism from people who feel like we are taking Christmas away. And I expect we will get criticism from people who think educational display endorses religions," Anthony said. "(But) to the extent we can, recognizing that offending no one will be impossible, we want to be inclusive."

For anti-Christmas moonbats, excluding Christmas trees = being more inclusive. Nuance. So is the inclusion of Anthony, the ACLU member. How many times were lawsuits mentioned before the rest of the task force finally conceded?

The negative feedback to the mayor of Fort Collins remains strong:

Mayor Doug Hutchinson said he was pleased with the proposal that focused on the museum but had questions about other proposals that could limit decorations on the exterior of most city buildings.

Said Hutchinson: "I have had an ocean of input. People are saying that the issue is not religious. It's about a long-standing tradition. The basic intent (of the council) was not to destroy anything. When you do away with Christmas trees, when you are doing away with a tradition that people in Fort Collins hold dear; that is the nerve that was touched."

The holiday task force believes that a museum would provide the proper venue for the dangerous religious symbols:

The Fort Collins Museum would be the focal point of a multicultural winter holiday display under recommendations released Tuesday by a city task force.

In a 10-page document, the Holiday Display Task Force outlined a proposal for an educational, multicultural display outside the museum representing a variety of religious and nonreligious celebrations that take place between Nov. 1 and Jan. 30.

"What the task force tried to accomplish was to craft holiday displays to celebrate our commonality and also to recognize the diversity of winter holidays celebrated by members of the community and to create a festive atmosphere during the winter season," said Seth Anthony, one of the spokesmen for the task force.

Museum staff would design the display. The task force's document included illustrations of symbols as examples of what could be included in the display, including a crèche with a star above, a menorah, a Yule log and a snowflake, among others.

Committee approved "festive atmosphere" to be exact. And just so the religiosity doesn't get out of hand, they included "illustrations" of the permitted symbols. Apparently the Fort Collins Museum staff is either too stupid to know what should belong in a holiday display, or just simply can't be trusted to make their own decisions.

Perhaps another wing could be added to the museum showcasing rights and traditions once enjoyed by Americans before the onset of malignant moonbattery.

Christian Faith Guides Colorado Rockies, Individual Character Builds Team Chemistry

“When you have as many people who believe in God as we do, it creates a humbleness about what we do. I don’t see arrogance here, I see confidence. We’re all very humbled about where this franchise has been and where it is now, and we know that what’s happening now is a very special thing”--Rockies reliever Jeremy Affeldt

Perched on the threshold of baseball's highest stage and about to enter the eye of a sports media storm, it is the Colorado Rockies players' faith that helps keep them together, and is a factor in building the team chemistry that has helped them build a phenomenal 21-1 streak heading into the World Series:

The role of religion within the Rockies’ organization first entered the public sphere in May 2006, when an article published in USA Today described the organization as adhering to a “Christian-based code of conduct” and the clubhouse as a place where Bibles were read and men’s magazines, like Maxim or Playboy, were banned.

The article included interviews with several players and front office members, but team players and officials interviewed this week said it unfairly implied that the Rockies were intent on constructing a roster consisting in large part of players with a strong Christian faith. Asked how his own Christian faith affected his decision-making, General Manager Dan O’Dowd acknowledged it came into play, but not in a religious way. He said it guided him to find players with integrity and strong moral values, regardless of their religious preference.

“Do we like players with character? There is absolutely no doubt about that,” O’Dowd said during a recent interview in his Coors Field office. “If people want to interpret character as a religious-based issue because it appears many times in the Bible, that’s their decision. I believe that character is an innate part of developing an organization, and to me, it is nothing more than doing the right thing at the right time when nobody’s looking. Nothing more complicated than that.

“You don’t have to be a Christian to make that decision.”

For most Christian opponents--moonbat liberals, atheists, etc.--being Christian and possessing good character is either a risible notion dismissed offhand or represents a threat to others' freedoms. Won't those Christians impose their views on other people, in this case, the other players who don't share the clubhouse's Christian faith?

As a Jewish player who attended a Catholic high school and a Lutheran university, Jason Hirsh knows what being a religious minority feels like. So last December, when he was traded to the Colorado Rockies, Hirsh wondered if what he had heard about his new organization was true.

Now, Hirsh said not once during the season had he felt uncomfortable with the place Christianity occupies within the organization.

“There are guys who are religious, sure, but they don’t impress it upon anybody,” Hirsh said. “It’s not like they hung a cross in my locker or anything. They’ve accepted me for who I am and what I believe in.”

Wow, religious and tolerant? (sarcasm off) The Rockies' clubhouse has a decidedly Christian flavor, but in a surprising way (these days) the team doesn't shy away from discussing their faith:

Even if the Rockies are not consciously doing it, reliever Matt Herges, playing for his seventh organization, said the team had the highest concentration of devout Christians he had seen during his nine major league seasons.

Every Sunday, about 10 people gather for chapel, according to reliever Jeremy Affeldt, and Tuesday afternoon Bible study sessions usually attract seven or eight players. Affeldt said players discussed life and their families as well as scripture.

“Certain guys attend chapel, certain guys don’t,” outfielder Cory Sullivan said. “I don’t think that’s any different from how it is in any other major league clubhouse. Nothing’s shoved down your throats.”
. . .
“I think that if they were Catholic or Baptist or didn’t believe in God but were quality players and good people and good teammates, there would be a place for them here,” Herges said. “But I do see a lot of quality people in this clubhouse. This is the tightest-knit group I’ve ever been around.”

Pitcher Mark Redman, playing for his eighth team in nine seasons, has been with the Rockies for only two months, but he, too, said he sensed a different chemistry. “I’ve been on teams with guys who you can’t wait to leave when the season’s over,” Redman said. “You don’t find a bad guy in here. I’m more than comfortable bringing my son in here. I haven’t been able to say that in the past.”

When the Rockies celebrated their National League Championship Series victory over the Arizona Diamondbacks last week, NLCS MVP Matt Holliday and one of the owners took the time to thank God (can't remember which one of the owners, I was at the game and it was loud) for their success, to no one's surprise here in Denver. None of the local MSM picked up on that in the following days, but this astonishing article from the NY Times of all MSM outlets captures the most important point.

A little faith can go a long way--all the way to the World Series.

Thank God, Go Rockies!

PS--commenters here and on other sites poke fun at the notion that God is behind the Rockies, due to the players' prayer--no such argument is being made. If prayer = victory, the Boston Red Sox wouldn't have had to wait until 2004 to win another World Series, and the Chicago Cubs wouldn't be enduring a century-long drought (and the Denver Broncos wouldn't have lost 3 Superbowls with John Elway, and the Colorado Avalanche would now have 11 straight Stanley Cups!) The type of religion itself isn't necessarily bringing success (even though their run has been miraculous, they still haven't won the World Series yet), but the practice of it--the team chemistry that had been a problem in recent season has been strengthened, and the players feel comfortable with each other and have confidence in their teammates on and off the field.

In The News--With Some Chinablogging

"I am both Muslim and Christian"--right, and I'm Santa Claus!

Separatist graduations proliferate at UCLA--disunity in diversity.

Chinese gold farmers--so that's why I couldn't get a seat in a Chinese internet café!

Hong Kong dissidents, autonomy, and China's mainland--murky ambiguity.

Quote Of The Day

"Diversity in theory is the enemy of diversity in practice."