Self-authorizing moralizers - enough already!

Following is a letter which was submitted to the Oregonian newspaper's Opinion Editor a couple of weeks ago. Provided herein with permission of the writer for the Undertaker's readers without further comment:

[[
Ocober 20, 2009
To : Editor, The Oregonian
Subject: Self-authorizing moralizers

Recently, once I'm past the Sports section of the Oregonian, every week has brought a new example of self-authorized moralizers trying to tell me how I should think and what people of faith should or should not speak in the public square. Now the epidemic has even invaded your sports section. The problem is that these self-appointed self-anointeds have no basis in true moral authority, which is vested only in God Himself.

Example 1:
An essay by New York Times writer David Broder appeared in the Oregonian Sep. 30, 2009, p. B-5, with the caption, "ERODING ECONOMIC VALUES: The moral revival our country needs." Broder decried the recent erosion in the country's financial values while opining: "This erosion happened at a time when the country's cultural monitors were busy with other things. They were off fighting a culture war about prayer in schools and the theory of evolution. They were arguing about sex and the separation of church and state, oblivious to the large erosion of economic values happening under their feet." Wrong, Mr. Broder. Not at all oblivious. And in fact I have observed that individuals with a commitment to the broad issues of moral integrity have been those with the most outspoken concern for economic integrity as well. And, yes, economic integrity is a moral issue. But when the immortal God of Heaven gives mortal man a moral compass, I have not noticed Him (Him with a capital "H") granting us the authority to cherry-pick our pet issues, but rather mandating responsibility for all. Unless Mr. Broder has demonstrated his own personal authority by creating a functioning universe somewhere recently, he should best humble himself before the Creator (Creator with a capital "C") of this one.

Example 2:
Charles Darwin's reigning high priest of chance, Richard Dawkins, recently rolled his snake-oil wagon into Portland for the Wordstock Book Fair October 10-11 and snagged an interview with Oregonian writer Joe Rojas-Burke (published Oregonian October 10). According to the article, "In his best-seller 'The God Delusion,' evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins attacked religious belief, arguing that faith in God is irrational and harmful." Leading the unsuspecting with a Pied-Piper-like deception, Dawkins glibly proclaims, "For me, the story of how we got here, how the trees got here, how the birds got here, how iguanas and dinosaurs and turtles got here, it is just so beautiful, and elegant, and thrilling, and enthralling. How could you resist trying to pass that on to anybody who will listen? If they don't want to listen that's fine, they can just shove off."

Hmmm. So he wants me to "shove off," does he? So I suppose I would not be welcome to hang around and mention the inconvenient truth that his cute search algorithm to reproduce the little Shakespeare phrase, "Methinks it is like a weasel" in his book The Blind Watchmaker uses intelligent selection toward a foreknown objective to "prove" the feasibility of evolution. The problem is that Dawkins is breaststroking in an intellectual cesspool as he uses both "intelligent" and "foreknown" features of his algorithm to support his argument that life arose by chance using neither intelligent selection nor foreknown objectives. And he even limited his algorithm to only consider letter sequences of the exact length required. Am I joking? Google it yourself. How absurd. How doubly absurd. How does this guy even rate an interview?

Further, would Dawkins stand quietly while I repeat back to him his seen-by-millions statement in the movie Expelled that living things on the Earth could be actually (and not just apparently) designed and that the design might be detectable? But Dawkins insists that the designer(s) must have been highly evolved space aliens. I guess he really wishes to say that our origins are from somewhere - anywhere - except from God with a capital "G." And this is science? This man has abused his position by intellectual deceit. So why should I bother for one second with his suggestion that I "shove off" from the public square of origins discourse? And why should not the Oregonian be more aggressive in exposing the nonsense? Maybe Dr. Dawkins would threaten to sue the Oregonian - as he later threatened to sue interviewer Ben Stein - for repeating to too many people what he actually said.

Example 3: Sunday, October 16, local writer/speaker Tom Krattenmaker invaded my Oregonian Sports page (p. B-2, "Athletes proclaim: God is my QB."). Mr. Krattenmaker oozes his distaste for the public witness of Arizona Cardinals quarterback Kurt Warner as Warner gives God credit for his ability, opportunities, and accomplishments. Excuse me, but I am just kind of thinking that Miss Manners would suggest that spoken gratitude in all situations - whether some hearers want to hear it or not - is the greatest validation of a thank-you. Oh, and does Mr. Krattenmaker give God thanks for the air he breathes and the sunrises he sees? I did not see a hint in his Oregonian piece that he bows the knee to any but his own ego and book publishing royalties. If he does not choose to honor the God of creation, maybe his real issue is that he is misplaced - living in God's universe instead of his own.

I'm curious to see who or what comes down the pike next week.
]]

Respectfully copied,
D.U.