It’s been a good, long while since I published any anti-Christian screed on this site. I feel inspired to do so today because this morning – and I want you to know I am not making this up – Atheist Me led the daily devotional for my school’s students. Their pastor couldn’t get out of his driveway and needed a fill-in.

In case you’re wondering, no: even for a man who refuses to step foot in a worship service these days and would on principle never tell a child that Jesus is alive, much less loves him or her, it was pretty easygoing. I simply asked one of the older kids to lead the rest in prayer and then chose as our subject a parable from the Gospel of Luke which I do find valuable – in this particular case, the tale of the good Samaritan.

And to digress from this post’s point, I find that this story – and indeed many stories from the Tanakh set after the reign of Solomon – have special resonance for Koreans (my students are all Korean), since these tales are set at a time when Israel is divided in twain and the northern segment of the population is considered to have gone seriously astray. In fact I like to bring home the point by reintroducing them to the tale by by retelling it with new principal actors. That is, I tell them about a Korean man who gets mugged and passed over by a pastor and a missionary before being saved by a North Korean communist. In the future I plan to do the same wherever I go, should I have the opportunity: have Tutsis saved by Hutus, Jews by Muslim Palestinians, etc. I think it’s the only way to restore the desired effect of a passage that has long since lost any relevancy.

OK, then: screed time.

Matthew 12:38-40 is a pretty major smoking gun that a lot of the Gospel accounts of Jesus need to be taken with more than a grain or two of salt. Far more people – even almost everybody – should notice it, but since reading the Bible is for most an act of worship rather than an exercise in critical thinking, and one written in an alien style that easily disorients the modern reader, neither the demands of Jesus’ enemies or Jesus’ own reply seem as bizarre as they should. Their conversation really should go something like this:

PHARISEES: Teacher, give us a sign!

JESUS: Oh, for the last – Huh?

SCRIBES: Show us a miracle so that we’ll believe you!

JESUS: Forget it! Thirteen verses ago I was healing people left and right and your type accused me of witchcraft!

PHARISEES: Well… Do one now and we’ll believe you.

JESUS: No. In fact, the only miracle I’m going to show this wicked generation is the Sign of Jonah.

LAME PERSON: That’s it?

JESUS: Yes. That’s the only one. Sorry.

LAME PERSON: But you healed Matthathias down the street of his leprosy. And Rachel of her epilepsy. And… A ton of other people.

JESUS: OK, OK, I’ll heal you too. Just pipe down.

Clearly we’ve got some editorial funny business going on here; the passage simply doesn’t make sense in its context. But then whence came it? Since the Gospel of Mark doesn’t include it and both the other Synoptic Gospels do (and choose for its inclusion different places in the narrative) a decent educated guess is that it’s a quotation out of “Q”, the mysterious, missing wellspring from which the first three Gospels all seem to draw.

A’right, then: it’s a quotation of Jesus, probably pulled from a list of them, that both Matthew and Luke noted and felt should be included. Yet, what about the content of the quotation itself? First we should note that the quote itself varies according to the gospel in which it is read, meaning either Matthew, Luke, both, or subsequent editors chose to clarify what Jesus was saying in this passage. Luke’s following quotes clearly peg the sign of Jonah to be simply Jonah’s preaching. Someone who had his hand in Matthew, however, appears to have decided that Jesus was foreshadowing here (which in the context of Gospel of Matthew is not unreasonable, less so otherwise). Rather than let the Lord’s sly allusion slip by any less savvy readers, he’s written in J.C. simply spelling it out.

Second, we note that for all the clarification Matthew’s (first? second?) author has added, we’re still left with the quandary of why the Pharisees and scribes are asking Jesus for miracles – perhaps the gospel writers simply should have placed this passage earlier in Jesus’ ministry, before He started healing? – and why Jesus says He won’t. What’s the most logical explanation?

The author or editor of Matthew tries to solve the problem himself; unlike the less gilded lilly of Luke’s gospel, in which Jesus clearly identifies the present generation as the wicked one of which He speaks, Matthew makes Jesus’ targets more generic. In Matthew, Jesus is talking about any generation that wants proof of His authority. Very handily, this not only erases the contradiction but gives churches a verse with which to counterattack when people demand they prove they represent God with some good old-fashioned miracle-working. The preferable take for Christians, then – but also the less trustworthy, since Matthew is clearly messing with his inherited text elsewhere in even the same section.

I’ll offer a different idea, using the principle of analogy and a particular comparison borrowed from the excellent book I’m reading by scholar Dr. Robert M. Price (The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man). Another would-be messiah named Sabbati Zevi, who would unfortunately go on to really disappoint his followers by choosing to convert to Islam rather than be martyred, was said by the Jews to be working all sorts of wonders during his candidacy – despite he himself saying he wasn’t up to do any. The nature of personality cults and mystic beliefs took its course regardless, with various people claiming they’d been the recipient of his healing touch or what have you. Just as today (the overwhelming desire of the Catholic population to see Mother Theresa canonized has resulted in multiple, often embarrassing claims, such as that the visible glare of light in a photo of her is actually a heavenly radiance), people found magic where they wanted to find it.

Maybe Jesus’ followers were likewise far more responsible for His miracles, even in the face of His own knowledge and declarations that He would not perform them (He fails at one point in Mark to do any miracles, ostensibly because the people in that location have no faith). Their imagination and experiences accomplished what Jesus Himself refused to do. Their reports are what is chronicled in the Gospels.

I think the taste from this morning is out of my mouth now.

For example, I read a book many years ago. I was visiting my grandparents as a young teenager and checked out a bunch of books from the Cuyahoga County Library. I really enjoyed one of them and it’s stuck in my mind for years as something that I’d like to re-read. Except that neither the title nor the author stuck in my mind. Just the plot. Something about Science Fiction, teenagers, summer vacation, a game, an island, and something to do with space — or a pig. Or both.

As you can imagine, it’s rather hard to find a book based on such sketchy information. I’d tried once or twice over the years but my attempts mainly revolved around browsing the stacks, hoping to find something familiar looking. I didn’t have much success and I’d pretty much given up on the attempt.

And then, out of the blue today, I found it. Art Carden wrote a post for Division of Labour entitled “The Kids Are Alright“. He included a brief comment that triggered a memory. Well, a partial memory. Okay, more like the half remembered smell of a forgotten scent. It just felt familiar in a way that I couldn’t quite define.

We then talked about books I enjoyed when I was younger (William Sleator). One of my favorite Sleator books was Interstellar Pig; I was pleasantly surprised to learn that one of these burgeoning movie-makers has it.

And, sure enough. Interstellar Pig is the book that I read all of those years ago. Amazing. Thank-you internets, with your plentiful, bounteous tubes. And thank-you, Art, for mentioning not only your favorite author but also the book title.

The rationale for your proposed tax on high-cost health insurance plans is that it would encourage people to purchase less-comprehensive coverage and thereby reduce health care spending.

If that’s a good idea, then why is it bad when insurers raise premiums?

Obviously, it’s because consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. You small minded libertarian twerp. Duh: it’s good when the government raises prices and it’s bad when the market does. Any more questions?

Fully one-quarter of the space on this year's form is taken up with questions of race and ethnicity, which are clearly illegitimate and none of the government's business (despite the New York Times' assurances to the contrary on today's editorial page). So until we succeed in building the needed wall of separation between race and state, I have a proposal. Question 9 on the census form asks "What is Person 1's race?" (and so on, for other members of the household). My initial impulse was simply to misidentify my race so as to throw a monkey wrench into the statistics; I had fun doing this on the personal-information form my college required every semester, where I was a Puerto Rican Muslim one semester, and a Samoan Buddhist the next. But lying in this constitutionally mandated process is wrong. Really — don't do it.

Instead, we should answer Question 9 by checking the last option — "Some other race" — and writing in "American." It's a truthful answer but at the same time is a way for ordinary citizens to express their rejection of unconstitutional racial classification schemes. In fact, "American" was the plurality ancestry selection for respondents to the 2000 census in four states and several hundred counties.

So remember: Question 9 — "Some other race" — "American". Pass it on.

There’s also a completely unaffiliated Facebook group, to show your support for “Some other race” — “American”.

I know what I’ll be doing when we get our Census forms next week.

An off-duty Orange County sheriff’s deputy, who allegedly was intoxicated when he crashed his Mercedes-Benz into another vehicle and injured a passenger, had crashed 30 minutes earlier and was allowed to drive from that accident scene by fellow deputies, authorities said Friday.

Sheriff’s deputies were called Monday afternoon to a crash involving Deputy Allan James Waters, 36, and another vehicle outside City Hall in Dana Point. Deputies took a report and permitted Waters keep driving, said Assistant Sheriff Mike James.

About 30 minutes later, at 5:20 p.m., Waters crashed his Mercedes-Benz into a Toyota in Laguna Niguel, causing it to cross the center median and slam into a tree, according to the California Highway Patrol. Dolores Molina, a 78-year-old passenger in the Toyota, suffered minor injuries.

And that, right there, is pretty much why I don’t respect law enforcement these days.

Geert Wilders, possibly the next Prime Minister of the Netherlands, finally gets his chance to speak to the British House of Lords about the threat posed to Western Civilization by radical Islam. (Great Britain refused to allow him into the country last year, claiming that he was too bigoted to be allowed to speak.) Here’s the money quote, about the problem facing us.

We see Islam taking off in the West at an incredible pace. Europe is Islamizing rapidly. A lot of European cities have enormous Islamic concentrations. Paris, Amsterdam, Brussels and Berlin are just a few examples. In some parts of these cities, Islamic regulations are already being enforced. Women’s rights are being destroyed. Burqa’s, headscarves, polygamy, female genital mutilation, honour-killings. Women have to go to separate swimming-classes, don’t get a handshake. In many European cities there is already apartheid. Jews, in an increasing number, are leaving Europe.

Last week, I predicted that Justices Scalia and Roberts would be very negative towards the idea of resurrecting the “Privileges or Immunities” clause of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. From reading his past opinions, I know that Justice Scalia isn’t a big fan of overturning precedent, especially when said precedents have been around for 140 years. (The Privileges or Immunities Clause was strangeled by the Supreme Court just moments after birth, in the Slaughter-House Cases.) Everything I’ve read about Chief Justice Roberts says that he’s a cautious incrementalist who prefers to make changes to the law in the smallest way that’s likely to be effective. I was pretty sure that both Justices would be in favor of expanding gun rights but would be hostile to doing so through the Privileges or Immunities clause.

It turns out, I was right. Here’s what happened during oral arguments this morning, in McDonald, et al., v. Chicago, et al..

The first argument to collapse as the hearing unfolded was the plea by the lawyer for gun rights advocates, Alan Gura of Alexandria, Virginia, that the Court should “incorporate” the Second Amendment into the 14th Amendment through the “privileges or immunities” clause. In the first comment from the bench after Gura had barely opened, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., noted that the Court had essentially scuttled that argument with its ruling in the SlaughterHouse Cases in 1873. And within a few minutes, Justice Antonin Scalia — the author of the Heller opinion and the Court’s most fervent gun enthusiast — was sarcastically dismissing the “privileges or immunities” argument.

“Why,” Scalia asked Gura, “are you asking us to overrule 140 years of prior law….unless you are bucking for a place on some law school faculty.” The Justice said the “privileges or immunities” argument was “the darling of the professorate” but wondered why Gura would “undertake that burden.” And Scalia noted that the “due process” clause — an open-ended provision that he has strongly attacked on other occasions– was available as the vehicle for incorporation, and added: “Even I have acquiesced in that.”

FICTION

The Pillars of the Earth, by Ken Follett – This is the book I’m reading right now, actually, and in physical form yet. I paid a visit to the former chair of the Shorter College Humanities Department recently and we naturally flung books to read at each other before parting. As usual, I think he outdid me; I’m 150 pages in now and it’s really good.

Percy Jackson & The Olympians: The Lightning Thief, by Rick Riordan – The movie looks like a great deal of fun, but in general I’m a firm believer of reading the book first. So I will.

Up in the Air, by Walter Kim – Another book purchased simply because the previews for the movie greatly intrigue me.

Native Son, by Richard Wright – Because I like my reading lists to have some diversity and realized I didn’t have any great African-American novels on it. I love Ralph Ellison’s Invisible Man and Ellison was connected with Wright, so I selected this to fill the gap.

War & Peace, by Leo Tolstoy – I’m probably being absurdly optimistic in purchasing this book and putting it on my reading list for this year; as anyone can tell you, it’s huge, and God knows the block of time it’ll require has plenty of other claims on it, the rest of this list included. Still, I’ve really wanted to read it ever since finishing The Death of Ivan Ilyich, and having it readily available is the first step, so just maybe…

Crime and Punishment, by Fyodor Dostoevsky – And buying Tolstoy made me think of Dostoevsky, whose The Brothers Karamazov I finally finished when I last visited Korea.

The Grapes of Wrath and East of Eden, by John Steinbeck – I’ve already read Grapes, but I did it back in high school, which really is more or less equivalent to having not read something at all (children are all Philistines; their souls have not yet developed). One of Steinbeck’s other novels ranks as an absolute favorite of mine, The Winter of Our Discontent, and one of the particularly proud moments of my time in college was when I had the honor of introducing my Creative Writing professor to it, who afterward declared it one of her all-time favorites as well.

The Angel’s Game, by Carlos Ruis Zafon – Zafon’s other novel, The Shadow of the Wind, is one of the most enjoyable books I read in ‘09. My wife’s already read this one and told me it’s darker, which disappointed her and somewhat disappoints me – Shadow was one of those books where you bounced in your bed at the ending, which is a rarity for me – but so it goes; no doubt it will still be, as Stephen King called Shadow, one gorgeous read.

The Baroque Trilogy (Quicksilver, The Confusion, The System of the World) and Snow Crash, by Neal Stephenson – Apparently a force with which to be reckoned in science fiction, which accounts for why I haven’t heard of him. I’ve received a lot of recommendations from friends who are into the genre, though, and Snow Crash made TIME’s “100 Greatest Novels of the 20th Century”, so I feel pretty confident these’ll be enjoyable.

The Golden Compass, by Philip Pullman – I’ve always been curious about the His Dark Materials trilogy, a fantasy series that’s often referred to as the anti-Chronicles of Narnia. I’m not willing to blindly plump for all three, but I’m pretty sure the first installment is a self-contained story, like The Lion, The Witch, & The Wardrobe.

The Magicians, by Lev Grossman – What if a bunch of today’s adults found out Hogwarts and Narnia were real? Sounds fun.

Supreme Courtship, by Christopher Buckley – On the strength of his Thank You For Smoking.

A Farewell to Arms and The Son Also Rises, by Ernest Hemingway – I’d never actually read Hemingway until I picked up For Whom The Bell Tolls at the airport on my way to my honeymoon destination. I feel like such a fool.

This Side of Paradise, by F. Scott Fitzgerald – Obviously I’m taking the opportunity to fill in a few shameful gaps in my reading experience.

Riding Lessons, by Sara Gruen – Because her Water For Elephants is utterly charming.

The Twilight Saga, by Stephenie Meyer – I consider it sort of a duty to read anything that gets as popular as these books. Plus my wife’s read them all and wants to be able to discuss them with me. Hey, who knows? I didn’t want to read the Harry Potter books, either.

Her Fearful Symmetry, by Audrey Niffenegger – On the strength of her first book, The Time Traveler’s Wife, which reminded its readers of how great science fiction can be when it’s not just left for geeks to write.

The House of Mirth, by Edith Wharton – Since all of her novels are in the public domain now, Amazon asks only ninety-nine cents in return for all thirty-one of them. I actually finished this particular book back in January (we’re over a month into ‘10, after all). Verdict: enjoyable, but The Age of Innocence is far more rewarding to the modern reader.

Between, Georgia, by Joshilyn Jakson – My mother’s recommendation. I honestly have no idea.

Being Written, by William Conescu – One of several impulse buys. A minor character in a book realizes his nature and struggles with the author to achieve greater prominence.

Persona Non Grata, by Ruth Downie – My trial installment for a light-hearted series in which an ancient Roman doctor and his slave girl solve mysteries.

Tipperary, by Frank Delaney – In preparation for my Kindle spree I walked about a Barnes & Noble, just letting covers leap out at me. My wife tells me this one did. I naturally no longer remember.

The Plot Against America, by Philip Roth – A tale set in an alternative history in which the Fascists gained political power in America prior to World War II. Why not?

NONFICTION

The Art of Biblical Narrative, by Robert Alter – Assigned by my Old Testament professor at college, this is one of the books that spearheaded the (re-?)introduction of literary analysis of the Bible to universities in the last century. Obviously I’ve read it (got a “B” – Dr. Wallace wasn’t easy), but I’d like to read it again at a more leisurely pace. And maybe take notes this time.

Foreskin’s Lament, by Shalom Auslander – A memoir from an author who has written only one other book to my knowledge, an anthology of short stories collectively entitled Beware of God, which was so side-splittingly hilarious and poignant I’ll probably be buying anything with his name on it for the foreseeable future.

The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel…, by Israel Finkelstein – A survey of what modern archaeology has to say about the ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judah and their Biblical records.

Nothing to Envy, by Barbara Demick – Six North Korean refugees describe life beyond the DMZ, and how they escaped it. Being in such close proximity to what may be the most evil regime on this planet almost demands an interest in it, so I’ve always known that when I returned to Seoul I’d be bringing along more reading material about the DPRK.

The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, by Dr. Robert “The Bible Geek” Price – A biblical scholar’s assessment of the four gospels’ authenticity and

On Writing, by Stephen King – The best book on writing fiction I’ve ever read, written by the writer’s writer. I owned a physical copy but gave it away.

Brotherhood of Warriors, by Douglas Century – A look into Israel’s special forces. Already read this one too, but I need it on hand for research.

BOOKS I WOULD HAVE BOUGHT IF THEY WERE AVAILABLE ON THE KINDLE

Books by William Faulkner – Really? Nothing of his is available in an online edition? What’s up with that?

Ender’s Game, by Orson Scott Card – Sorry, Joe. I tried.

This is just incredibly cool.

Dr. Prum and his colleagues took advantage of the fact that feathers contain pigment-loaded sacs called melanosomes. In 2009, they demonstrated that melanosomes survived for millions of years in fossil bird feathers. The shape and arrangement of melanosomes help produce the color of feathers, so the scientists were able to get clues about the color of fossil feathers from their melanosomes alone.

[...] Working with paleontologists at the Beijing Museum of Natural History and Peking University, the researchers began to study a 150-million-year-old species called Anchiornis huxleyi. The chicken-sized theropod was festooned with long feathers on its arms and legs.

The researchers removed 29 chips, each the size of a poppy seed, from across the dinosaur’s body. Mr. Vinther put the chips under a microscope and discovered melanosomes.

To figure out the colors of Anchiornis feathers, Mr. Vinther and his colleagues turned to Matthew Shawkey, a University of Akron biologist who has made detailed studies of melanosome patterns in living birds. Dr. Shawkey can accurately predict the color of feathers from melanosomes alone. The scientists used the same method to decipher Anchiornis’s color pattern.

“As I believe this committee will be recommending, abolishing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in their present form and coming up with a new whole system of housing finance [is in order],” House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D, Mass.) said at a hearing.

This is the same Congressman Frank that previously refused to believe that anything could possibly be wrong with Fannie and Freddie.

“These two entities–Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. “The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

And this is the same Fannie and Freddie that the government is bailing out, with no limits whatsoever on the losses to the American taxpayer.

The Obama administration’s decision to cover an unlimited amount of losses at the mortgage-finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over the next three years stirred controversy over the holiday.

The Treasury announced Thursday it was removing the caps that limited the amount of available capital to the companies to $200 billion each.

Unlimited access to bailout funds through 2012 was “necessary for preserving the continued strength and stability of the mortgage market,” the Treasury said. Fannie and Freddie purchase or guarantee most U.S. home mortgages and have run up huge losses stemming from the worst wave of defaults since the 1930s.

Of course, this is Barney Frank we’re talking about here. I shudder to think about what he has in mind to replace Fannie and Freddie. Whatever it is, be sure that you’ll be paying for it, not him. You’ll probably be paying a lot.