Put your money where your mouth is

Barack Obama strongly supports giving financial aid to the poor and less fortunate when other people's money is on the line (i.e., through government spending, which of course is financed by taxpayers like you and me). So surely he must set a good example by making generous charitable donations with his own money, right? Apparently not. (Though in charity to Senator Obama, I do hope that there is more to the story.)

This reminds me of Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee's Tax Me More Fund, where he invited tax-increase advocates to voluntarily contribute some of their own money to the state treasury, in order to set an example of their willingness to pay higher taxes. Not surprisingly, the fund generated very little money. And studies have shown that on average (with many individual exceptions, I'm sure) conservatives tend to give more to charity than liberals do. Arthur Brooks has written an entire book on this subject, called Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism. Here is an excerpt from the book:

The conventional wisdom runs like this: Liberals are charitable because they advocate government redistribution of money in the name of social justice; conservatives are uncharitable because they oppose these policies. But note the sleight of hand: Government spending, according to this logic, is a form of charity.

Let us be clear: Government spending is not charity. It is not a voluntary sacrifice by individuals. No matter how beneficial or humane it might be, no matter how necessary it is for providing public services, it is still the obligatory redistribution of tax revenues. Because government spending is not charity, sanctimonious yard signs do not prove that the bearers are charitable or that their opponents are selfish....

To evaluate accurately the charity difference between liberals and conservatives, we must consider private, voluntary charity. How do liberals and conservatives compare in their private giving and volunteering? Beyond strident slogans and sarcastic political caricatures, what, exactly, do the data tell us?

The data tell us that the conventional wisdom is dead wrong. In most ways, political conservatives are not personally less charitable than political liberals—they are more so.

(read more)

Of course, it should be noted that despite the overall trend, there are certainly many liberals who are very generous with their own money, and some of them may even be politicians. Also, it is certainly possible for a politician to be a hypocrite and still make good policy proposals. But politicians like Senator Obama (and others), who call for increased government spending on social programs, would have a bit more credibility (with me anyway) if they first put their own money where their mouth is. I still might disagree with them, but at least I would be more inclined to listen.

Papal Skateboard Contest

With Pope Benedict set to visit the United States in just a few more weeks, Thomas Peters at the American Papist blog has the details on one of the stranger things associated with this trip: The Archdiocese of New York's Papal Skateboard Art Design Contest.

UPDATE: Catholic blogger "The Curt Jester" has more details, along with a pretty funny picture, here: Official Papal Skateboard and More.

Not Dead Yet

While organ donation is obviously a wonderful thing in its effects (i.e., saving many lives), I've had serious concerns about the circumstances under which vital organs are or may be obtained, ever since I read the following article several years ago:

Not quite dead? The case for caution in the definition of "brain death"

And today my concerns have been reinforced by this story about a young man who is alive and well today after being declared "brain dead" and being minutes away from having his vital organs removed:

Doctor Says about "Brain Dead" Man Saved from Organ Harvesting - "Brain Death is Never Really Death"

OKLAHOMA, March 27, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 21-year-old Zack Dunlap, a man who was diagnosed as "brain dead" and who was mere minutes away from having his organs harvested, now says, four months after the accident that brought him to the brink of death, that he feels "pretty good." Dunlap's story was told in an NBC piece aired earlier this week, in which the young man himself was interviewed.

While Zack's case is being touted in the media as a "miracle", a neonatologist and expert on brain-death has told LifeSiteNews.com that Zack's case, while remarkable in a sense, is not as rare as the mainstream media's reporting makes it seem.

"The young man was never dead," said Dr. Paul Byrne, a former president of the Catholic Medical Association who began writing about brain death in 1977. What makes Dunlap's case unusual, though not unheard of, says Byrne, is that Zack was lucky enough to be found out to be alive before his vital organs were removed.

"While the story is put out as something that's miraculous," he told LifeSiteNews, "I don't want to take anything away from God, but it's not supernatural what occurred. If there is anything miraculous about it, it is that they didn't get his organs before someone was able to notice some sort of other response. He was always living - his heart was always beating, there was always blood pressure, he was always very much alive."

Dr. Byrne says that over the years he has collected information pertaining to numerous cases where patients labeled brain dead have "returned from the dead." The reason being, says Byrne, is that "brain death is never really death."

Read the rest of the article here.

Coptic Priest Evangelizes Muslims

A priest in the Coptic Church (an ancient branch of Christianity based in Egypt) has apparently been making some waves with his critiques of Islam and his promotion of Christianity:

Islam's 'Public Enemy #1': Coptic priest Zakaria Botros fights fire with fire.

Though he is little known in the West, Coptic priest Zakaria Botros — named Islam’s “Public Enemy #1” by the Arabic newspaper, al-Insan al-Jadid — has been making waves in the Islamic world. Along with fellow missionaries — mostly Muslim converts — he appears frequently on the Arabic channel al-Hayat (i.e., “Life TV”). There, he addresses controversial topics of theological significance — free from the censorship imposed by Islamic authorities or self-imposed through fear of the zealous mobs who fulminated against the infamous cartoons of Mohammed. Botros’s excurses on little-known but embarrassing aspects of Islamic law and tradition have become a thorn in the side of Islamic leaders throughout the Middle East.

Botros is an unusual figure onscreen: robed, with a huge cross around his neck, he sits with both the Koran and the Bible in easy reach. Egypt’s Copts — members of one of the oldest Christian communities in the Middle East — have in many respects come to personify the demeaning Islamic institution of “dhimmitude” (which demands submissiveness from non-Muslims, in accordance with Koran 9:29). But the fiery Botros does not submit, and minces no words. He has famously made of Islam “ten demands,” whose radical nature he uses to highlight Islam’s own radical demands on non-Muslims.

The result? Mass conversions to Christianity — if clandestine ones. The very public conversion of high-profile Italian journalist Magdi Allam — who was baptized by Pope Benedict in Rome on Saturday — is only the tip of the iceberg. Indeed, Islamic cleric Ahmad al-Qatani stated on al-Jazeera TV a while back that some six million Muslims convert to Christianity annually, many of them persuaded by Botros’s public ministry. More recently, al-Jazeera noted Life TV’s “unprecedented evangelical raid” on the Muslim world. Several factors account for the Botros phenomenon.

The article then lists some of the reasons for Fr. Botros's success: his use of the new media (satellite TV and internet), the fact that he broadcasts in Arabic (unlike many refutations of Islam on the internet, which tend to be in English), and that "his polemical technique has proven irrefutable." To expand on that last point, the article continues:

Typically, Botros’s presentation of the Islamic material is sufficiently detailed that the controversial topic is shown to be an airtight aspect of Islam. Yet, however convincing his proofs, Botros does not flatly conclude that, say, universal jihad or female inferiority are basic tenets of Islam. He treats the question as still open — and humbly invites the ulema, the revered articulators of sharia law, to respond and show the error in his methodology. He does demand, however, that their response be based on “al-dalil we al-burhan,” — “evidence and proof,” one of his frequent refrains — not shout-downs or sophistry.

More often than not, the response from the ulema is deafening silence — which has only made Botros and Life TV more enticing to Muslim viewers. The ulema who have publicly addressed Botros’s conclusions often find themselves forced to agree with him — which has led to some amusing (and embarrassing) moments on live Arabic TV.

The article goes on to mention some of those embarrassing moments. It's a very interesting read, and I pray that Fr. Botros will continue to have great success with spreading the Gospel. (Click here for the whole article.)

Also, the Intentional Disciples blog has a couple of very informative posts on the topic of Muslims who convert to Christianity:

Muslims Who Become Christian and the Price They Pay
Why Do Muslims Convert to Christianity?