{"id":4486,"date":"2017-06-02T16:18:56","date_gmt":"2017-06-03T00:18:56","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/glenandpaula.com\/wordpress\/?p=4486"},"modified":"2017-06-02T16:18:56","modified_gmt":"2017-06-03T00:18:56","slug":"things-glen-found-interesting-volume-103","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/glenandpaula.com\/wordpress\/archives\/2017\/06\/02\/things-glen-found-interesting-volume-103","title":{"rendered":"Things Glen Found Interesting, Volume 103"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n

On Fridays I share articles\/resources about broad cultural, societal and theological issues. Be sure to see the explanation and disclaimers at the bottom. I welcome your suggestions. If you read something fascinating please pass it my way.<\/p>\n

Things Glen Found Interesting<\/h3>\n
    \n
  1. Praise & Questions: How Kendrick & Chance Talk to God in Different Ways<\/span><\/a> (Miguelito, DJ Booth): \u201cI\u2019ve encountered two different kinds of religious believers, generally speaking. The first are those who focus on the gifts of God and the blessings in their life and take an optimistic approach to humanity. The other group is made up of those who become gripped by the mystery surrounding such a figure and keep an air of skepticism about them.\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n
  2. How Oxford and Peter Singer drove me from atheism to Jesus<\/span><\/a> (Sarah Irving-Stonebraker, Veritas): \u201cI grew up in Australia, in a loving, secular home, and arrived at Sydney University as a critic of \u2018religion.\u2019  I didn\u2019t need faith to ground my identity or my values\u2026. [however, while at Oxford] I began to realise that the implications of my atheism were incompatible with almost every value I held dear.\u201d The author is a history professor at Western Sydney University.<\/span><\/li>\n
  3. Listening: An Antidote to the Modern University\u2019s Incoherence<\/span><\/a> (Dominic Burbidge, The Public Discourse): insightful breakdown of the three sub-universities we dwell within: the university of rationalism, the university of revolution, and the university of subjectivism. The author is an administrator at Oxford. <\/span><\/li>\n
  4. Wonder Woman and the Gender Wars<\/span><\/a> (Russell Moore, personal blog): \u201cWonder Woman does indeed represent power, but she also is, in every iteration, designed to be sexually attractive to men. The 1970s-era television series noted in its theme song, \u2018Fighting for your rights, in your satin tights, and the old red, white, and blue.\u2019 The rights and the tights were both part of the package\u2014and, from the looks of things, still are.\u201d This piece is quite good.<\/span><\/li>\n
  5. The Marines Can Treat Women Honorably Without Putting Them in the Infantry<\/span><\/a> (David French, National Review): \u201cThe women-in-infantry debate is the luxury of a society that hasn\u2019t fought a large-scale ground war in generations, and a serious mixed-gender experiment wouldn\u2019t survive first contact with a well-equipped and well-trained opposing force.\u201d The author is both a veteran of the Iraq war and a graduate of Harvard Law School. A short but thoughtful response to the widely-shared Vox article <\/span>The Marine Corps has a \u201ctoxic masculinity\u201d problem<\/span><\/a><\/li>\n
  6. If you haven\u2019t seen it yet, there\u2019s quite the controversy at Evergreen College. There\u2019s a good summary at <\/span>The blasphemy case against Bret Weinstein, and its four lessons for professors<\/span><\/a> (Jonathan Haidt, Heterodox Academy): \u201cI generally oppose zero-tolerance policies, but if we are to have one, it should be for violence and intimidation on campus.\u201d And this is a good op-ed on the situation: <\/span>When the Left Turns on Its Own<\/span><\/a> (Bari Weiss, NY Times): \u201cLiberals shouldn\u2019t cede the responsibility to defend free speech on college campuses to conservatives. After all, without free speech, what\u2019s liberalism about?\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n
  7. I\u2019ve seen lots of opinions about Trump pulling America out of the Paris climate agreement. I was most struck by these two reactions that both grant that the agreement was in some sense just for show but arrive at different conclusions from that premise:<\/span>\n