Tickletext usefully explained that his–or her (we still don’t know that)–handle came from Parson Tickletext, a character in Henry Fielding’s satirical novel “Shamela.” I’m glad to learn that at least one of my readers is a fan of 18th century novels (are there others?), which is almost as good as being a fan of John Milton and George Herbert. That means I can blog about “Tristram Shandy”!

Tickletext, in return, asked Michael the Little Boot, our resident atheist (every village needs one), about HIS nickname. Longtime commenter Organshoes finally appended the name “Susan” to her moniker, clearing up the mystery of HER gender. We have tODD, which is self-explanatory, but what accounts for his website, Cockahoop? Some of us, like me, just use our names, but I know some of you, like Carl Vehse, use names that are not really your names.

As a break from some of the heated though light-bringing discussion on this blog, would any of you be so kind as to explain the source of your secret online identity?

Nearly half of the states are turning down federal funding for abstinence education, turning away millions of dollars. In this article on the subject, it appears that the reason is not that these programs are ineffective in reducing teenage sexual activity. It’s that many officials just disagree with the concept that sex outside of marriage is wrong. The programs, said one official, are just “too strict.”

I would say, however, that I see a weakness in the programs. They reportedly focus on the social, psychological, and health benefits of abstaining from sex until you are married. But the main reasons against extra-marital sex are not pragmatic but MORAL. I’m sure that avoiding the M-word is out of fear of seeming religious and thus becoming ineligible for federal funding.

But morality, in itself, is not necessarily religious at all. (Christianity is not some moral code but the means of finding forgiveness for violating the universal moral code.) We need to teach children, as well as adults, to think in the moral dimension. If we avoid that and instead just re-enforce the materialistic pragmatism that destroyed our moral consciousness in the first place, of course we will not have moral behavior.

HT: David Halbrook

Some folks in India are presenting Barack Obama with an idol–notice how even believers in these gods call them that–of a deity that the presidential candidate apparently uses as a good luck charm. From Obama to get Hanuman idol-India-The Times of India:

With Democrat senator Barack Obama busy in the run-up to the US presidential polls, a group of well-wishers in the capital have decided to send him a symbol of his lucky charm, Lord Hanuman, to help him emerge victorious.

Obama’s representative Carolyn Sauvage-Mar on Tuesday received a gold-plated two-feet-high idol which she will pass it on to the Obama after it is sanctified.

The idol is being presented to Obama as he is reported to be a Lord Hanuman devotee and carries with him a locket of the monkey god along with other good luck charms.

An hour-long prayer meeting to sanctify the idol was earlier organised at Sankat Mochan Dham and by Congress leader Brijmohan Bhama, Balmiki Samaj and the temple’s priests.

“Obama has deep faith in Lord Hanuman and that is why we are presenting an idol of Hanuman to him,” said Bhama.

See also this. OK, he’s not a Muslim, so is he a Hindu? I suspect he is just one of those polytheists that make up the new American majority, as documented in the Pew Survey.

I do understand that Obama can’t be held responsible for what some fans of his in India ascribe to him, but surely, as the Christian he claims to be, he should draw the line at idolatry, shouldn’t he?

One of the reason the detainees at Guantanamo are not getting convicted and punished en masse (as would be the case if the current administration is as bad as its critics say it is), is that the accused terrorists are getting such excellent military defense attorneys who are staunchly defending their rights.

The New York Times has an article on the subject, focusing on a young JAG officer named Lt. Cmdr. William C. Kuebler.

He is no natural agitator. At 37, he is in some ways deeply conventional. Married to the first girl he ever dated in high school, he is a self-described born-again Christian and conservative who has “never voted for a Democrat.” Tom Fleener, a former Guantánamo military defense lawyer, described Commander Kuebler, saying, “Take the average conservative guy in the street and multiply that by a million.” . . .

“It is a powerful way to be a witness for Christ,” he said, “by demonstrating your capacity to not judge the way everybody else is judging and to serve unconditionally.”

Commander Kuebler has been pulling out all the stops in defending his Guantanamo client, to the point of infuriating the prosecutors with his delaying tactics and his playing the media. Though now evidence has arisen that maybe his client is innocent after all.

I appreciate the way the NY Times, no less, brought out both his conservatism (protection of individual rights, after all, is a conservative ideal) and, especially, his Christianity. Since the proper work of a defense attorney is to be an advocate for the accused, isn’t this a good example of Christian vocation?

HT: Frank Sonnek