Sunday, April 29, 2007
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Here's an excerpt from Doug Wilson's blog, in which he reviews Hitchens' new book. I suspect that if you read this excerpt, you'll know just about everything you need to know about the book.
But the second response is to point out the logical problem with how Hitchens has arranged his thought experiment. Suppose his thesis was not that religion poisons everything, but rather that trousers poison everything. Since trousers are common enough, just like religion, it would not be much work at all for a person of Hitchens' abilities to assemble one horrendous story after another of one atrocity after another, and all committed by men in trousers. See, trousers poison everything.
The problem here is immediatley seen in the availability of counterexamples. We betake ourselves to look at this society, and then that one, and all the men in those societies wear togas. And, sure enough, we find that all the same atrocities are being committed in these differently-appareled cultures. Maybe trousers don't poison everything. Maybe men are a disgrace to trousers. For if trousers poisoned verything, one would think (naturally enough) that to get into a trouser-free zone would pretty much take care of the problem. But toga-men do all the same awful stuff. And then, so do loin-cloth men. Maybe togas don't poison everything either. Maybe men are a disgrace to togas.
The subtitle of this book is "How Religion Poisons Everything." And in this chapter, "Religion Kills," Hitchens points to example after example of religious people behaving badly. And I, for one, don't think he is making this stuff up. But for someone who bases an awful lot on reason, I think he needs to pay closer attention to what he is doing in the name thereof. His conclusion does not follow from the evidence being presented, not unless wet streets cause rain.
Perhaps Hitchens should take a step farther back and argue a much more plausible point, which is that "People Poison Everything." Go back to our trouser example. If trousers were the problem, then getting rid of them should get rid of the basic problem (making all due allowance for societal inertia). In the same way, if religion is the toxic waste in the system, then purging it should deal with the problem. So, then, what did almost a century of religion-free societies (Soviet Union, Red China, and so on) teach us about all this? We had quite a few trips around the sun enjoying life to its fullest, now that religion (that which poisons everything) was banished and gone. But son of a gun, the atrocities sort of picked up speed. The "poison" was purged from the system but the patient was still flat on his back on the hospital bed with his tongue hanging out.
When you look at abominable theistic societies and abominable atheistic societies, the variables are probably not the thing you want to appeal to in order to account for the constant, horrific result. We need to look for the constant. What might that be? People. People poison everything.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Notice the loaded terminology used throughout by the "Coalition" (and Reuters). Religious belief is interfering with personal rights. People with religious convictions are "imposing their points of view," which we know is always a no-no (unless it's your point of view). All 5 justices who voted against partial-birth abortion are Catholic men (not just Catholics, mind you, but also men - highly suspicious). Health care practitioners are exercising a "'so-called' religious or moral objection" (if it's only "so-called," then what is it really?). Women facing "problem pregnancies" should be able to exercise choice ("I'm pregnant. That's a problem. I think I'll have an abortion."). Courts should not interfere with "reproductive health" decisions (what the hell does abortion have to do with a woman's "health"?). And so on.
What's more ludicrous? That some people spout off this fatuous nonsense, or that one of the most respected news wires chooses to publish it?
Here's the article, if you haven't already had enough. And if you think I'm making all this up, here's the link to the original article:
Religious group attacks religion in healthcare
Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:32PM BST
By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A coalition of religious leaders took on the Catholic Church, the U.S. Supreme Court and the Bush administration on Tuesday with a plea to take religion out of health care in the United States.
They said last week's Supreme Court decision outlawing a certain type of abortion demonstrated that religious belief was interfering with personal rights and the U.S. health care system in general.
The group, calling itself the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, said it planned to submit its proposals to other church groups and lobby Congress and state legislators.
"With the April 18 Supreme Court decision banning specific abortion procedures, concerns are being raised in religious communities about the ethics of denying these services," the group said in a statement.
"They are imposing their points of view," Barbara Kavadias, director of field services for the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, told reporters in a telephone briefing.
She noted that the five Supreme Court justices on the majority in the 5-4 decision were all Catholic men -- Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Anthony Kennedy, Justice Samuel Alito, Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Antonin Scalia.
All were appointed by conservative Republican presidents who oppose abortion, including President George W. Bush.
The group also complained about Catholic-owned hospitals that refuse to sterilize women who ask for it, refuse to let doctors perform abortions and do not provide contraception.
"Doctors, pharmacists and nurses are also increasingly exercising a so-called 'religious or moral objection,' refusing to provide essential services and often leaving patients without other options," the group said in a statement.
"And now, to make it worse, the government is codifying these refusals, first through legislation and now with the recent Supreme Court decision, where five Catholic men decided that they could better determine what was moral and good than the physicians, women and families facing difficult, personal choices in problem pregnancies," it added.
The group includes ordained Protestant ministers, a Jewish activist, an expert on women's reproductive rights and several physicians.
"The threat comes from a few, but powerful, religions and a few ... powerful religious leaders who pretend to speak for all religions," said Larry Greenfield, executive minister of the American Baptist Churches of Metro Chicago.
"Health care decisions ought to be made freely, based on medical expertise and individual conscience," he added.
The group wrote up a series of guidelines and asked for all health care providers to implement them.
They include allowing doctors to use best medical practices, providing comprehensive counseling on sexual or reproductive health and an agreement to honor advance directives -- including "do not resuscitate" orders.
"Refusal to provide health care would be balanced by alternate service delivery so that no one would be victimized when another exercises his/her conscience," the guidelines read.
Marie Hilliard of the National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia said she had grave concerns about the report.
"There is no recognition of the true meaning of the separation of church and state, which mandates that the free exercise of religion, including that of the provider, be respected," she said.
"What we have tried to avoid is to be coercive ourselves," Greenfield said. "We have tried to allow for the freedom of conscience of every participant in the health care system."
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Here's a site that provides comparative statistics about the world's demographics (it's more interesting than the way I just worded the description!): www.miniature-earth.com. The Flash presentation is maybe 5 minutes long.
In a similar vein, globalrichlist.com will show you where you rank among the world's richest people. You may be surprised, especially when you see your percentile. Of course, we have a high cost of living here in the "first world," but still . . .
Monday, April 23, 2007
Since this whole thing started out with him asking what I believe, I guess I should answer the question. What follows is hardly a Summa of my beliefs, but I intend for it to be a fair representation thereof.
Unless I've missed something, all of the commenters, including Boethius, would agree on the inspiration of the Bible and that our doctrines must not contradict the Word.
The difference is in epistemology. How do we know what we know? From the Church, from our hermeneutic, or from the Spirit leading us? In reality, I think it's some combination of the three - though I tend to think of "Church" as being somewhat synonymous with "historically orthodox beliefs." I'm always skeptical of anyone who shows up with novel doctrines that he believes he's just discovered after 2000 years of false Christianity. True divergence must always be suspect.
Admittedly, evangelical independence coupled with American individualism has led to some Protestants - leaders and otherwise - having some pretty wacky ideas. I won't attempt to defend Pat Robertson, Creflo Dollar, or Jim Jones. But in practice, it's not really happening that mainstream evangelicalism is coming up with novel theology all the time. In fact, our core beliefs are remarkably static.
That barely begins to address the question of "whose authority," but it's a start.
As for eternal security, I don't think this issue would be debated as hotly as it sometimes is if there were no ambiguity in the Scriptures. I don't believe that God is ambivalent on the subject, but His Word to us does not provide the indisputably clear answers that we would wish for.
I think you can make a case for salvation being "loseable," but I don't think that's the best answer. Here's why:
- John 10.28, 29. Jesus says he gives eternal life to his sheep, and no one can snatch them out of his hand. If a shepherd is going to protect the sheep from all foes, even to the point of endangering his own life, I can't imagine that he will let them wander off on their own, no matter how badly they want to go.
- 1 Cor. 11.27-32 talks about being judged by the Lord so as not to be condemned with the world. I suppose this passage could be taken to support or disprove eternal security, depending on the efficacy of God's judgment. But why would it be inefficacious?
- Eph. 2.13, 14 has a sense of permanence when it talks about how we've been brought to God through the blood of Christ.
- Heb. 10.14 says that Jesus, by his one ultimate sacrifice, has "made perfect forever" those who are being made holy. I don't see how I can be made perfect forever today, and lose that being made perfect forever tomorrow when I sin in a particular way. Rather, it sounds to me like the fact of salvation is settled, even as the outworking (aka sanctification) of that salvation is progressive.
- In several passages, the NT uses the picture of adoption to describe what happens to us as those who belong to Christ. To my knowledge, in the Greek and Jewish cultures of the NT time, adoption was a one-way street, as it is in our society today. Once you get adopted into the family, you can't get "de-adopted" - not by the initiative of the parents, nor by the initiative of the child. Adoption is never conditional upon the child's assent or compliance.
THE DOCTRINE OF THE SAINTS PERSEVERANCE, Explained and Confirmed.
OR, The certain Permanency of their 1. Acceptation with GOD, &
2. Sanctification from GOD. MANIFESTED & PROVED FROM The 1. ETERNALL PRINCIPLES 2. EFFECTUALL CAUSES 3. EXTERNALL MEANES Thereof. IN, 1. THE IMMUTABILITY of the 1. Nature 2. Decrees 3. Covenant and 4. Promises Of GOD. 2. The OBLATION and INTERCESSION Of JESUS CHRIST. 3. The 1. Promises 2. Exhortations 3. Threats Of The GOSPELL. Improved in its Genuine Tendency to Obedience and Consolation. AND VINDICATED In a Full Answer to the Discourse of Mr JOHN GOODWIN against it, in his Book Entituled Redemption Redeemed. With some DIGRESSIONS Concerning 1. The Immediate effects of the Death of Christ. 2. Personall Indwelling of the Spirit. 3. Union with Christ. 4. Nature of Gospell promises, &c. ALSO A PREFACE Manifesting the Judgement of the Antients concerning the Truth contended for: with a Discourse touching the Epistles of IGNATIUS; The EPISCOPACY in them Asserted; and some Animadversions on Dr H:H: his Dissertations on that Subject.
JOHN OWEN Servant of Jesus Christ in the Worke of the Gospell.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Friday, April 20, 2007
Dwight Hill is an acquaintance of mine whose ministry is devoted to helping Christians be more Christlike in the working world (and beyond). He publishes a weekly e-mail you can subscribe to called "Facts of the Matter," and those messages are collected on his website, factsofthematter.org .
I have nothing against McDonald's, and I love their fries. But Dwight makes a good point about spiritual growth and life change not being amenable to the McDonald's formula. We'll get farther with a glass of wine and a nice, big cigar.
April 18, 2007
THE “McDONALDIZATION” OF OUR SPIRITUAL LIVES (Part 1 of 3)
Amidst the hustle and bustle of your professional life, God has a spiritual work he intends to accomplish in and through you to the effect that you become the very character of Christ. In today’s hurried and harried “get it done now” world, three modern day values can well prove to be the bane of your spiritual life and ministry. These values are utilized in guaranteeing the successful production of McDonald hamburgers: Efficiency, calculability, and control.
Efficiency: Today, we are overloaded with Christian literature, and church related programs and methodology that promise quick and efficient fixes to complex spiritual life issues: Apply these 6 simple steps and viola: Victory is guaranteed over vexing sexual problems, a troubled marriage, or wounded past, etc. In previous generations, solutions to the sinful human condition came through deep commitment, as one poured and prayed over the Scriptures. This was a process that followers of Christ understood extended over a life time. Classic Christianity saw the journey “as a means of personal growth, engagement and transformation. The sorrows, tiredness, and dangers of the journey led to renewal and transformation…Today, however, the idea is to get to the journey’s end as quickly as possible with a minimum of inconvenience…”
The reality is that God’s working of His life into ours will not be accomplished in mini sound bites or by quick fix methodology. At best, the modern mind seems to demand a shortened process of shallow doses of time alone with God, to be caught on the run and sandwiched in between our work and our toys. The very idea that
spiritual transformation is a slow, deliberate process is vexing to most moderns who move at warp speed in the concrete jungle of PDA’s, Wi Fi, the “Journal”, multi-tasking, and pressurized deadlines.
The truth is that if God is to be known, He simply will not be rushed. Therefore, he is infinitely more concerned about the deliberate maturation process than he is in its “efficient” accomplishment. If we are to be transformed and liberated into His freedom, the maturing progression demands relaxed, quiet periods alone with God and His word as we ponder, soak on, and apply His eternal truths. In this context, there simply is no quick substitute for times of healthy introspection and soul-searching. Generic to this process of transformation is learning to cultivate the art of disciplined listening to the quiet voice of Jesus through the Spirit. “…My servant [Jesus]…will not shout or cry out or raise his voice in the streets.” (Isa. 42:1b, 2b) Yet we tend to resist His wooing: "In repentance and rest is your salvation, in quietness and trust is your strength, but you would have none of it.” (Isa. 30:15b)
QUESTION: In today’s inch deep and mile wide McDonaldized brand of efficient, “get it done now” Christianity, are you willing to break with this trivialized sub-culture and deliberately set aside sufficient, daily time to allow yourself to de-compress, and slow down – until the Spirit can penetrate, speak, convict, heal, transform, and lead? If not, you have already joined the McDonaldized “Christian” society of callow, trendy, will of the wisp, here today, gone tomorrow brand of insipid Christianity. And that, my friend is a modern day tragedy.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Calvin, of course, is believed to have taught the doctrine of "Perseverance of the Saints." I say "believed to have taught," because no one on earth has actually read his complete works (smile). Some 50 years after his death, the Synod of Dordt formulated a response to an Arminian document. The five points they offered as contradictory to Arminianism have become known as the Five Points of Calvinism. In English, the five spell the acrostic TULIP, and the "P" stands for Perseverance of the Saints.
So let's take a look at Calvin's "P". Anyone care to comment on my reader's question?
Good morning Arnold,
I just read your post on Islam/Trump and it raised a question for me.
As I understand it, your theological convictions constitute an elegant hybrid: a practice-driven compilation of various strands of Protestantism. From the title of your blog it is clear that you are not trying to resolve all of the tensions within scripture into a neat systematic package. Though not the main point of your entry, your statements at the end of the entry about "security" prompted a few reflections (and a question). There seems to be two positions at play behind your words: eternal insecurity (Islam) and eternal security ('once saved always saved'- Baptist). Of course the latter could also be derived from a Calvinist view (we did not choose to become Xians and therefore cannot "unchoose"). I looked up the verses you cited and while they certainly overthrow the "insecurity" position, they do not seem to support (necessarily) the Baptist/Calvinist position. I wonder if you have considered a third position (which the verses also support): we respond to God's initiative/grace in becoming a Xian, and continue to respond to such grace throughout our lives, i.e., we (mysteriously) live in three temporal orientations at once: we have been saved, we are being saved, and we will be saved. But, since freewill is an essential part of our created human nature, we can reject God's grace through an extreme act of the will, thereby making "shipwreck" of our faith. Yet such a shipwreck is not easily achieved. (He is, after all, the hound of heaven!) While we live in the state of grace (i.e., we continue to respond to and cooperate with Christ's gracious initiative) we have "security."
Applying this at the personal level, I know that I am in a state of grace and that all of the verses that you cited apply to me. I do not need to prove my worthiness of X's love or hold on to the hope that somehow, just maybe, I may squeak into heaven. But at the same time (since I do not hold to the Baptist/Calvinist view of eternal security) I cannot know that I will not, at some point in the future, turn away from God and reject him. In that sense I do not have "eternal security." This was, of course, the main psychological (and perhaps pathological) issue for Luther. He could not believe that he was in a state of grace. He needed assurance not only for the present, but for the future as well. I spent the first 18 years of my life in the hell of eternal insecurity. I am very sympathetic to Luther's problem. These fears are what made Calvinism so very attractive to me (in addition to its rigor and coherence). Furthermore, given modern, Protestant Xianity's rejection of the sacraments as "means of grace," it is not surprising that most Evangelicals would cling to an "eternal security" position. I would very much like to hear more of your current thinking on this matter.
Of course, this is an extremely important question for anyone engaged in evangelism and discipleship. Al Kimmel (a.ka., the Pontificator) wrote extensively on the various ways of understanding "security" in light of seeking to share (and live) the gospel. If your head isn't already hurting, you might find these entries to be of interest.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
I like the wisdom of “old age,” but not the look. Seeing myself in the mirror was never a pretty sight, but now it’s downright disorienting: Who is that old guy, and what’s he done with my body?
Actuaries could tell you how much longer I’ll be on this earth, but they only calculate averages. In fact, my life is somewhere between 45% and 99.9% over. “What is your life, but a vapor?” (James 4.14).
On the other hand, if Jesus’ promise of eternal life is true, my life has barely yet begun.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Monday, April 16, 2007
Friday, April 13, 2007
It is vital to grasp that traditional and even mainstream Islamic teaching accepts and promotes violence. Shariah, for example, allows apostates to be killed, permits beating women to discipline them, seeks to subjugate non-Muslims to Islam as dhimmis and justifies declaring war to do so. It exhorts good Muslims to exterminate the Jews before the "end of days." The near deafening silence of the Muslim majority against these barbaric practices is evidence enough that there is something fundamentally wrong.
The grave predicament we face in the Islamic world is the virtual lack of approved, theologically rigorous interpretations of Islam that clearly challenge the abusive aspects of Shariah …
…[It] is ironic and discouraging that many non-Muslim, Western intellectuals--who unceasingly claim to support human rights--have become obstacles to reforming Islam. Political correctness among Westerners obstructs unambiguous criticism of Shariah's inhumanity. They find socioeconomic or political excuses for Islamist terrorism such as poverty, colonialism, discrimination or the existence of Israel. What incentive is there for Muslims to demand reform when Western "progressives" pave the way for Islamist barbarity? Indeed, if the problem is not one of religious beliefs, it leaves one to wonder why Christians who live among Muslims under identical circumstances refrain from contributing to wide-scale, systematic campaigns of terror …
Western feminists duly fight in their home countries for equal pay and opportunity, but seemingly ignore, under a façade of cultural relativism, that large numbers of women in the Islamic world live under threat of beating, execution and genital mutilation, or cannot vote, drive cars and dress as they please.
The tendency of many Westerners to restrict themselves to self-criticism further obstructs reformation in Islam. Americans demonstrate against the war in Iraq, yet decline to demonstrate against the terrorists who kidnap innocent people and behead them …
Tolerance does not mean toleration of atrocities under the umbrella of relativism. It is time for all of us in the free world to face the reality of Salafi Islam or the reality of radical Islam will continue to face us.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
- Japan 1.6%
- China 1.7%
- France 7.2%
- Germany 20.7%
- U.K. 22.9%
- U.S. 39.2% We're #1! We're #1!
American dominance is always comforting, but aside from American superiority, what conclusions can we draw from these statistics?
- Speaking English makes you fat. It's probably because of all the lazy vowels (which, in the U.S., are worst in the South, and that's where the fattest people are).
- Speaking Asian languages makes you skinny, because it takes a lot of energy to speak such difficult languages.
You can't really disagree with this. Statistics don't lie.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
At the AmericanAtheists convention, there were more women (at least ratio-wise) than I’ve seen at just about any other atheist/skeptic event. It was nice to have them there, but this convention, like all others, was short-lived.
It raisesthe question of why there are relatively few women in the secular movement. Why is it when I go to any atheist gathering (a convention, a local group, or a campus group), there are an overwhelming number of men?
It’s a strange question to ask, considering the presidents of American Atheists (Ellen Johnson), Atheist Alliance International (Margaret Downey), and the Freedom From Religion Foundation (co-president Annie Laurie Gaylor) are all women.
What’s more, even the previous presidents for each organization (Madalyn Murray O’Hair, Bobbie Kirkhart, and Anne Nicol Gaylor, respectively) were women. O’Hair and Gaylor were also their groups’ founders.
(How many major Christian organizations can say all that?)
Plus, we have the always-awesome Skepchicks.
So where are the other secular women?
Here are some possible theories that were brainstormed at a bar with a group of guys over the weekend:
- The men scare them off
- Girls don’t enjoy philosophical discussions
- There are too many gay men at atheist events… why should women bother coming?
That’s a short list that needs to be expanded.
I’d argue for the first one. Imagine an Atheist Meetup event (or any situation, really) with 9834823 men and one woman. She will be hit on by damn near everyone. It’s frightening. And it changes the whole dynamic of how the guys act. If there was a more even split between the sexes, this wouldn’t be so bad, but we’re nowhere close to that. And if the girl is cute, we’re all in trouble.
What are the solutions to this problem? Besides trying to tell men to stop being so damn creepy, I’m not sure…
One suggestion that was mentioned was that we should ban women from attending the conferences altogether. They’ll get mad, organized, and show up to the events to boycott. And that way, we’ll have some more women at the conferences.
There must be a better way, though.
Monday, April 9, 2007
Sunday, April 8, 2007
Saturday, April 7, 2007
While at the concert last week of Bach’s St. John Passion, I had a new thought – new for me, that is. The text from the book of John says that Jesus was laid in “a new tomb, in which no one had ever been laid” (John 19.41). For some reason, it struck me that this is a parallel with his birth. He was born from a virgin womb, and He was buried in (and rose from) a virgin tomb. If there’s any theological significance to this, I haven’t yet figured out what it is. But it is a nice symmetry.
News You May Have Missed: Ahmadinejad, The Press, and Easter
When the 15 British sailors were released from Iran a couple days ago, the press uniformly reported that President Ahmadinejad said he was releasing his prisoners as an Easter gift. For example, the New York Times ran this AP version: "Irans's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said he had pardoned the sailors as an Easter holiday gift to the British people.”
That caught my eye, because I wouldn’t expect the president of Iran to care much about a Christian holiday.
What did he really say? MSNBC ran a longer version of his remarks, and they’re informative:
“Ahmadinejad said he had pardoned the sailors as a gift to the British people and to mark the birthday of Islam's Prophet Muhammed and Easter. On the occasion of the birthday of the great prophet (Muhammad) ... and for the occasion of the passing of Christ, I say the Islamic Republic government and the Iranian people -- with all powers and legal right to put the soldiers on trial -- forgave those 15."“The occasion of the passing of Christ.” Would somebody please tell the press that the death of Jesus isn’t the definition of Easter?
(More about this story at GetReligion.org.)
Friday, April 6, 2007
(From the Orthodox Liturgy)
If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.
But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead . . .
. -- The Apostle Paul, 1 Corinthians 15
Thursday, April 5, 2007
- The Last Supper
- Jesus' washing of the disciples' feet
- The Upper Room discourse
- The institution of the Eucharist (Communion, for my Methodist friends; Lord's Table, for the Presbyterians)
It's also the evening when Judas betrays his master and Peter denies knowing him at all.
Our mental picture of the arrest is usually something like this:
But if we had been there, I think it would have felt more like this:
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
die sich wie Körnlein finden
des Sandes an dem Meer,
die haben dir erregt
das Elend, das dich schläget,
und das betrübte Marterheer.
I, I and my sins,
as numberless as the grains
of sand on the seashore,
have brought down on you
this misery that you face,
and this woeful host of torments.
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
Monday, April 2, 2007
»Durch dein Gefängnis, Gottes Sohn,
ist uns die Freiheit kommen.
Dein Kerker ist der Gnadenthron,
die Freistatt aller Frommen.
Denn gingst du nicht die Knechtschaft ein,
müßt‘ unsre Knechtschaft ewig sein.«
It’s from your bondage, Lord, alone,
That now our freedom flowers.
Your dungeon is our mercy-throne
And liberty is ours!
Had you not chosen a slave to be,
We’d all be slaves eternally.
Sunday, April 1, 2007
For example, I was at the airport last week, coming back from a business trip. As I attempted to exit the terminal and get to the West Economy parking lot, I was blocked by several policemen who had closed off all passage to the West side of the building. Apparently, a construction crane had gotten stuck with a full load, and there was some concern the cables would snap. So no was allowed to walk over to the parking lot or to any of the shuttle buses that went to rental car lots, other parking lots, etc. As you can imagine, people were getting irate, everything was disorganized, and there was no indication how long all this was going to last. The airport authorities redirected the shuttle buses to the South side of the building, but there’s no shuttle bus to West Economy – it’s way too close for that. And meanwhile, cars were still allowed to drive in all the lanes – it was just pedestrians that couldn’t go anywhere. So, in my impatience, I decided after about 20 minutes of this silliness to walk in the street and go to West Economy. One of the shuttle bus drivers warned me that I’d probably get arrested, but I told him I’d take my chances. I made it to the lot in about 3 minutes, didn’t get run over, and no one stopped me. And as it turned out, that was probably a good move, because they ended up blocking the area for 4 hours (if you can believe it).