H5N1

Dead birds are in the news lately.

No, I don’t mean the quarry of Vice President Cheney’s hunting party. I’m talking about the chickens, swans, magpies, and various other flu-infested feathered friends that are perishing in the millions—both from infection as well as through intentional eradication.

In last summer’s movie “War of the Worlds,” loosely based on the H. G. Wells science-fiction classic, no weapon had any effect on the invaders. But all of a sudden, the war was over, the enemy dead. They caught a virus. They were susceptible to a terran disease, had no immunity against it, and perished. Hooray for the world and its germs!

World War I was known as “The Great War” until a worse one was inflicted on the world by tyrants. The first modern war utilized weaponry that caused horrific casualty counts on all sides—the machine gun, the tank, mustard gas, the airplane, the submarine, to name a few. What many do not know is that more American soldiers died from the flu than died at the hands of the enemy. Read this informative article. Here is an excerpt:

In the fall of 1918 the Great War in Europe was winding down and peace was on the horizon. The Americans had joined in the fight, bringing the Allies closer to victory against the Germans. Deep within the trenches these men lived through some of the most brutal conditions of life, which it seemed could not be any worse. Then, in pockets across the globe, something erupted that seemed as benign as the common cold. The influenza of that season, however, was far more than a cold. In the two years that this scourge ravaged the earth, a fifth of the world's population was infected. The flu was most deadly for people ages 20 to 40. This pattern of morbidity was unusual for influenza which is usually a killer of the elderly and young children. It infected 28% of all Americans (Tice). An estimated 675,000 Americans died of influenza during the pandemic, ten times as many as in the world war. Of the U.S. soldiers who died in Europe, half of them fell to the influenza virus and not to the enemy (Deseret News). An estimated 43,000 servicemen mobilized for WWI died of influenza (Crosby). 1918 would go down as unforgettable year of suffering and death and yet of peace. As noted in the Journal of the American Medical Association final edition of 1918:


"The 1918 has gone: a year momentous as the termination of the most cruel war in the annals of the human race; a year which marked, the end at least for a time, of man's destruction of man; unfortunately a year in which developed a most fatal infectious disease causing the death of hundreds of thousands of human beings. Medical science for four and one-half years devoted itself to putting men on the firing line and keeping them there. Now it must turn with its whole might to combating the greatest enemy of all--infectious disease," (12/28/1918).

There is great concern that a new strain of bird flue—the H5N1 virus—is making its way from Asia into the Western world, and fears that this virus will mutate and become able to be transmitted from human to human have posited a worst-case scenario that 2% of the world’s population (hundreds of millions) may perish. Here is a link to a Yahoo news aggregator of all recent news stories about the flu’s spread. As I write this, just this morning some swans were found dead in Hungary, victims of the flu virus. The Center for Disease Control has a very useful web site which provides up-to-date and accurate information as to the spread of the virus and the potential for pandemic infection associate with it. Nature magazine has an informative selection of articles as well. It would be good to become familiar with some details here, both to alleviate unnecessary fears, as well as to exercise some wise precaution.

Already in November, President Bush authorized the expenditure of some 7 billion dollars in federal funds in order to provided for research and development, for production and distribution of a vaccine to be made available if and when the virus mutates and threatens catastrophic human casualties. Some question the wisdom of this use of money, because they remember the swine flu scare of 1976. At that time, one soldier at Fort Dix died of a flu strain, and the forced inoculation of American citizens caused hundreds of deaths from the vaccine. Epidemiologists still debate whether President Ford overreacted or whether his actions prevented a major outbreak of the swine flu. But because many people remember it as a mountain made out of a molehill, they are reluctant to hit the panic button regarding the H5N1 avian flu virus.

Despite the possible news of a major pandemic comparable in scope to the scourge of the bubonic plague, we rejoice in a Savior who “heals all our diseases,” and who reminds us in his word that not even death can “separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” If the Lord allows this flu virus to so infect humanity, then let us demonstrate eager compassion to the victims and pray that God use the suffering and premature deaths to bring people salvation. Far better to die of the flu at age 30 than to perish in hell forever.

Presidential Politics 2008

As difficult as it may seem to believe, polls are already being taken to determine the standing of possible candidates for president in 2008. According to this story from Fox News, the two leading contenders among the Republicans, Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, both hold commanding leads over the Democratic candidates most often mentioned—Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. John Kerry.

It has been assumed for a very long time that Hillary Clinton will run for president. She has name recognition and has apparently served the people of her state well as senator. No American political party has ever nominated a woman to carry their political banner. However, it seems as though most Americans are not opposed to the idea of a woman president in principle, although, when push comes to shove, people often tell the pollster what they think they want to hear. Hillary Clinton is not just any woman, however. She espoused and advocated a socialized system of national health care during the first two years of her husband’s presidency, an idea that was so popular that it cost Democrats control of the House of Representatives in 1994 for the first time in 40 years (and the Republicans still hold a decisive majority). She creates the perception of holding in contempt those who hold conservative values. The Republican national committee chairman, Ken Mehlman, recently described her as “angry,” and said that Americans don’t want an angry president. Hillary carries extremely high negative ratings. In a recent poll, a majority of Americans stated that under no circumstances would they vote for Hillary Clinton. Since she is well-known by nearly every American of voting age, it is unlikely that she can move those numbers in her favor.

The Republican race is going to be very interesting because of the unwillingness of Vice President Dick Cheney to run, leaving no incumbent (president of vice-president) in the race for the first time in a half century. Social conservatives are leery of Giuliani, who is pro-choice, even though he ranks highly on matters of national security. McCain has a reputation as something of a maverick, not always marching in lockstep with his party. Many conservatives are leery of McCain because of his co-sponsorship of the campaign finance reform legislation with Russ Feingold (D-WI). They feel that this was in violation of the First Amendment (freedom of speech). But McCain has an 86 rating from a conservative watchdog group, and has solidly supported President Bush’s judicial nominees. He has great crossover appeal, and, according to the Fox News poll, only 7% of Republicans say they would not support him. That’s a number, I suspect, that will shrink when the actual campaign begins.

How old will you be in 2008? I suspect that all of you will have reached your 18th birthday and will be eligible to participate in that election. The issues that we are discussing now—the war on terror, the danger of Iran, judicial nominations, gender and race issues, morality, marriage and abortion—are all at stake. One of the candidates in this article is likely to be our president as you begin your adult life. What issues are important to you? What kind of a leader do you want? How do these people measure up? Who’s your early favorite?

Offensive cartoons

Have you ever taken offense at someone’s criticism of Christianity in general, or of you personally? I’ve been following an ongoing discussion about high school basketball on mlive.com, where a certain contributor to the message boards insists that LCS recruits for its athletic teams and intentionally tries to keep its enrollment low so we can compete in Class D. This person has repeatedly mocked Christians as self-righteous and holier-than thou hypocrites. Another poster has patiently and lovingly defended LCS and Coach Brown, but his defense seems to fall on deaf ears. We know that these charges are not true, but certainly each of us can use the criticism for our own self-examination: when I criticize “the world” or “sin,” do I come across as self-righteous? How am I and are we perceived?

In America, we enjoy freedom of religion. People are also free to reject religion and faith. We also have freedom of speech. With this freedom, many people choose to be critical of organized religion in general, but more so, it seems, of Christianity in particular. There are many movies and TV shows (“Saved,” “Dogma,” “The Book of Daniel”) that portray Christians in a negative light, but very few in a positive one. And I would be shocked if you could name for me any movie or program that even hinted at anything negative about any other religion. It’s not just the media, either. It has not been that long ago that a New York art gallery featured a display of the Virgin Mary covered in Elephant Dung, or the National Endowment for the Arts sponsored the work of a photographer named Serrano which included a picture of a crucifix in a jar of urine. Even good old Kanye West was recently pictured on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine wearing a crown of thorns.

What have Christians done in response to these things? It seems like we perpetually put into practice the scriptural command to “turn the other cheek.” We may protest; we may boycott advertisers who promote offensive programming, we may try to use letters to the editor or even blogs to try to wage a battle of ideas and persuasion. What I do not see is the threat of violence against those who dare to offend us or even who mock our Lord Jesus himself. We take our cue from Jesus, who told Peter to put away his sword, and who humbled himself and endured insult as he went like a sheep to the slaughter to give his life as a ransom for us.

What a contrast to the reaction in the Muslim world to the publication of cartoons which, allegedly, are offensive to the prophet Mohammed and to Islam. This story began about five months ago when a little-known Danish newspaper asked cartoonists to sketch some political cartoons that looked at Islam in a critical vein. The editorial board felt that Islam was being treated with kid-gloves. It should also be noted that Denmark has been a steadfast ally in the war on terror with the United States, unlike some of the other western European powers. So several artists submitted their work. Muslims believe that no drawing or portraiture of the prophet is permissible under their law, because they are afraid that it may lead to idolatry. Here is a link to the cartoons in question. Follow the link and look them over before reading on.

Now, some five months later, there has been unleashed a massive series of protests, uprisings, and riots in places as varied as Britain and Syria. In fact, the rioters in Syria have even gone so far as to burn the Danish embassy. Danish flags are being burned across the globe. And now brace yourself. Follow this link to London's Daily Telegraph to see some of the signs that the protesters have been carrying as they protest the cartoons of Muhammad. As I write this, a news story has just come across the wires about how the violence has escalated and Christian churches are under attack, too. Now the Danish leader is indicating that it is no longer an issue of offense at cartoons, but it is being driven by those who wish to see a clash of civilizations come to a head. As one blogger put it, however, it’s not really a clash of civilizations because that would take two.

It has been rather disappointing to see that even our own media buys into the meme that these cartoons are too offensive to be shown on TV. I even heard the hosts on Fox News on Saturday morning say that they would not show the cartoons out of sensitivity to their Muslim audience. Our own state department has seemingly taken the side of the jihadists as well, essentially stating that the freedom of speech should never be used to cause offense or criticize another person’s faith or religion.

This story may only be beginning. How will Denmark react to the burning of its embassies? How will the US stand with its ally? Will the newspaper publishers yield and apologize to the Mohammedans and promise never to say anything critical of Islam or Muhammad again? What does it say for a country’s stand on basic civil liberties if one group can threaten and intimidate with violence in order to silence its critics? And is this, at last, going to be convincing evidence that the mindset of Islam is not peace-loving at all, and that the underlying emotion that drives Muslims is not love, but anger?

Finally, check out this movie from Michelle Malkin’s blog. (Sorry...you may have to scroll down until you see a movie called "First they came for...") And comment away!