Here are some thoughts, prompted by the Carini-Khelif case and extending beyond it, presented in random order. They will likely lead to my classification as a backward and “transphobic” male chauvinist — so be it, as I am already considered “homophobic” anyway. [1]

• I say “Hats off!” to Angela Carini, who said, “If the IOC allows her to compete, I respect that decision. These controversies made me sad, and I feel sorry for my opponent, who is also here just to fight.” Carini explained that her refusal to perform the customary handshake after the match was a misunderstanding: “It was not an intentional gesture, and I apologize to her and everyone. I was angry because the Olympics were over for me. I have nothing against Khelif; if I met her again, I would hug her.” My respect!
• I generally consider boxing unsuitable as a sport, and even more so for women. It is a skill that certainly belongs in police and military training, and perhaps in self-defense courses, but not in the Olympic Games.
• J.K. Rowling has been advocating for years to differentiate between biological/genetic sex and social gender, which may differ from each other. In this context, she commendably supports maintaining hard-won safe spaces for biological/genetic women. I fully support both positions.
• It is unclear to me whether Imane Khelif is truly a man or a woman. Imane does not seem to fit the typical transgender pattern. However, Khelif’s (biological-genetic) sex is also not entirely clear. [2]
• If sports competitions are held separately for men and women based on biological-genetic sex, for good scientific reasons [3], then there must be objective criteria for determining who is a man and who is a woman, and these criteria must be verifiable in case of doubt.

So much for the specific case of Carini-Khelif. But the discussion about this case also touches on and raises other issues.

• I differentiate between religious beliefs and convictions which apply in my private life and my faith community, and the laws and societal conventions of our largely secular societies and states. Unlike many of my fellow believers, I do not insist that people with other or no religious convictions conform to mine.
• In a democratically governed state, it must be legitimate for people with different beliefs and values to represent and try to implement them politically in accordance with existing laws. This right belongs to conservatives and “progressives,” the right and the left, the religious and the atheists alike.
• I respect the right of every person to live and love according to their ideas, in accordance with existing laws. However, I reserve the right to freely express my opinion on the lifestyle choices of others and resist the compulsive, sometimes even legally enforced, expectation to affirm these choices good and right.
• With the exception of certain physical characteristics such as skin color or gender, I consider anti-discrimination laws legitimate only in the public sector and essential services, and possibly even in public corporations. [4] However, I think they go too far when they interfere with the right of individual citizens to freedom of assuciation,  to determine for themselves with whom they want to work or do business, by dictating, for example, whom they should hire or for which customers they should provide their services.

1. The use of terms like “homophobic” and “transphobic” for anyone who disagrees with the current politically correct views on homosexuality or transsexuality implies that such opinions cannot have a rational basis. This is both ignorant and unhelpful to a reasonable, civilized debate.[↩]
2. One of the major fallacies in the current gender debate is the assumption that issues like gender dysphoria, intersexuality, and purely psychological problems, such as feeling like being in the wrong body, can be easily and seamlessly resolved through hormone treatment and/or surgery, or even simply through legal regulations. The longer medicine, psychology, and legislation follow this approach, the more unexpected, harmful side effects emerge.[↩]
3. there are scientifically proven differences in physical performance between people with male DNA and those with female DNA[↩]
4. In this context, “public corporations” refers to firms or organizations that are not owned or assigned to individual, named persons, and are therefore not as directly connected to the beliefs of these owners as in the case of partnerships.[↩]

Throughout my childhood I had contacts with Flemish (Belgian) and Dutch people who greatly impressed me; in my late teens I came to a living faith in Christ through a group including several Dutch people, and in subsequent years Dutch people including the late author Corrie teen Boom, a Dutch Jewish holocaust survivor, influenced me in many ways. I became a “Holland fan boy”, so much so that I learned Dutch (granted, not too difficult a feat for a linguistically gifted German speaker).

In recent decades, however, the country that once stood up to the inhumane nazi ideologies including euthanasia and antisemitism has embraced euthanasia, and most recently demonstrated a disturbing tolerance for the sexual abuse and rape of children.

29-year-old Dutch beach volleyball player Steven van de Velde was sentenced to four years in prison in 2016 after confessing to the 2014 rape of a 12-year-old girl in the UK. Under a treaty between the UK and the Netherlands he was transferred to the Netherlands to serve his sentence, where his conviction was changed to “fornication” and his sentence reduced to one year, which he served in a Dutch prison. About a year after his release from prison van de Velde resumed his sports career, competing in beach volleyball. This year he was selected to represent the Netherlands in the Paris Olympics.

In response to protests against his participation from victim advocates both in the UK and the Netherlands itself the Dutch Olympic Committe asserted that “Steven is not a pedophile,” that he is not a recidivist[1] and that all necessary safeguards have been put in place.

But recidivism is not the issue here.

Firstly, considering the quasi-religious role and importance of competitive sports in our culture–something that is evidenced by the pomp and ritual surrounding both the Olympics and other international competitions as well as the adulation of successful athletes–fielding an athlete at a major international competition like the Olympics amounts to a sort of canonization, a presenting of this athlete as a saint and role model, as someone worth emulating. Is that really appropriate in the case of someone who was convicted of three counts of rape of a 12-year-old.

Secondly, this shows enormous disrespect to the victims of sexual abuse, most of whom struggle with the ill effects, often physical but always psychological, while abusers, even if the serve long prison sentences and even more so when their incarceration was rather nominal as in van der Velde’s case, have moved on psychologicallly and even with successful careers. Seeing them put on a pedestal exacerbates the violence done to these victims.

I am very disappointed that the Dutch legal system had the temerity to reduce a conviction for rape into one for “fornication” and a four-year sentence to one year; I am disappointed that there is not a groundswell of protest in the Netherlands against the fielding of a convicted child rapist, and that the rest of the Dutch team apparently also has no problem with the presence of this man in their ranks.

Finally, I think the assertion that van der Velde is not a pedophile is also very troubling. Pedophilia is defined as a pathology, an abnormal, almost addictive or compulsive sexual attraction to children; and while acting on this attraction is definitely culpable, and the effects are devastating for the victims, the pathology of the condition implies at least a certain mitigation of guilt. If, however, someone abuses children, particularly sexually abuses them and going so far as rape, without suffering from the pathology of pedophilia, that is motivated and driven by pure, unmitigated evil.

Of course we assume that a criminal having served his prison sentence has paid for his crime, or in a Christian context, has repented of his sin and received forgiveness from Christ, his crime should no longer be held against them; but there is a lot to be said that certain crimes, even after they have been atoned and forgiven, disqualify a person from certain roles. This is true of pastors, priests, teachers, and others which our culture elevates to role models. Atonement (secular and religious) and forgiveness do not imply that there are no lasting consequences.

1. likely to re-offend[↩]

About eight years ago we moved from Vienna to Gross-Schweinbarth, a village about 30km or 20mi north of Vienna. We had used Geraldine’s share of her parents’ estate to purchase a 30-year old house on 1600 sqm of land, as well as the attached, rather dilapidated “Presshaus” or wine cellar (empty, unfortunately). To the right (west) of our wine cellar were two others, and on the western border of our property one of our neighbours, a winegrower, produced his wines.

A year ago this neighbour approached us and said  he wanted to buy our winecellar as well as the other two next to it, as he needed more space for his wine production. We declined, as we did not want the view from our kitchen window to be obstructed, so he ended up coming to terms with the owner of the other two cellars and has just started construction, by demolishing the two cellars.

I thought I would share how things are changing around here, so here are some pictures of how things looked last week. First, here is our house, and in front of it our “Presshaus” or wine cellar:

And then to the right are the two other cellars, one without a roof and the other one still reasonably intact, which until recently belonged to a woman in the village; the yellow building on the right is our neighbour’s current wine making business;

Then, early this week we woke up to construction noise outside our kitchen, and by today the two cellars were already mostly gone:

We’ll se what sort of building he puts up there; since the only real window in our house facing the street is our kitchen window above our cellar, whatever he builds there is not really going to obstruct our view.

Photos: Google Streetview

Here is Catholic World Report on the fact that the Republican Party platform has been stripped to a large extent[1], at Donald Trump’s insistence, of the pro-life position which was part of it for fifty years: They pat themselves on the back for having returned abortion law to the States, and say they oppose late-term abortion. They have removed the support for the traditional family and inserted a paragrap about gender ideology, stopping short of condemning hormones and surgery for minors.

I have said all along that Donald Trump’s pro-life stance was merely a tactic, a clever ploy to win the support of gullible (sorry!) religious folks, and I have been dissed for this view by my American Evangelical friends.

And while the “pro-life” justices Trump has installed in the Supreme Court have overturned Roe v. Wade they have also just given him carte blanche to effectively become an unaccountable, absolutist king.

Congratulations, my friends.

«Nor do most observers seriously believe that abortion (much less the defense of traditional marriage) are issues that Trump is personally much concerned about, given his notorious personal life and the pro-choice and otherwise socially liberal views he expressed for decades before running for president in 2016. The most plausible reading of Trump’s record is that he was willing to further the agenda of social conservatives when doing so was in his political interests, but no inclination to do so any longer now that their support has been secured and their views have become a political liability.»

1. I just looked at the 2016 GOP and Democratic platforms, and here is how they differ on abortion and marriage:

   GOP 2016 on abortion:
   “We assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution.”
   “We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion or fund
   organizations like Planned Parenthood, so long as they provide or refer for elective abortions…We will not fund or subsidize healthcare that includes abortion coverage.”

   GOP 2016 on marriage:
   “Traditional marriage and family, based on marriage between one man and one woman, is the foundation for a free society and has for millennia been entrusted with rearing children and instilling cultural values.”
   “We do not accept the Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage and we urge its reversal, whether through judicial reconsideration or a constitutional amendment returning control over marriage to the states. We oppose government discrimination against businesses or entities which decline to sell items or services to individuals for activities that go against their religious views about such activities.”

   GOP 2016 on Gender Ideology:
   Nothing. That wasn’t a hot-button issue yet.

   And here is what’s changed:

   GOP 2024 on abortion:
   We proudly stand for families and Life. We believe that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees that no person can be denied Life or Liberty without Due Process, and that the States are, therefore, free to pass Laws protecting those Rights. After 51 years, because of us, that power has been given to the States and to a vote of the People. We will oppose Late Term Abortion, while supporting mothers and policies that advance Prenatal Care, access to Birth Control, and IVF (fertility treatments).

   GOP 2024 on marriage:
   Nothing.

   GOP on Gender Ideology:
   We will keep men out of women’s sports, ban Taxpayer funding for sex change surgeries, and stop Taxpayer-funded Schools from promoting gender transition, reverse Biden’s radical rewrite of Title IX Education Regulations, and restore protections for women and girls.

   Here is the GOP 2016 platform, and here the GOP 2024 platform.[↩]

Recently someone on Facebook asked about my health status, so here is a quick update:

In April of 2022 I had surgery for an abscess on my right inside thigh, and was laid up for several months with a “vacuum-assisted closure” device. When that was removed after about three months I found my leg muscles had atrophied to the point where I could no longer get up or even lift my butt off the bed.

After a lot of work, by October 2023 I was almost back to being able to get up with the aid of a heavy-duty walker when I was laid up for two weeks in the hospital with pneumonia. When I got out I was back at ground zero, and it’s been very slow going since then.

Thanks to my Kindle, Youtube, and live streamed church services in the wake of Covid, as well as occasional visits and regular phone calls from friends I have kept my sanity while being confined to the 2 square meters of my bed.

I owe a debt of gratitude to my wife Geraldine who faithfully took care of me throughout this time.

1. This rash of abusive pastors should also give pause to those who blame the R.C. scandal on the celibacy requirement for Roman Catholic clergy — all these evangelical pastors are married.[↩]
2. The passage talks about giving offense to children, and the most recent case I was referring to is about child abuse, but I do not want to in any way imply that the abuse of adolescents or adults is any less abhorrent[↩]

German Evangelical magazine idea (Nr. 27.2024, p. 7) quotes from a taz interview with Alexander Korte, a German specialist in child and adolescent psychiatry and psychotherapy, who comments on the statement that gender identity is innate:

“That’s absurd. Neurobiological research definitely owes proof that gender identity could be genetically determined. Even from a developmental psychology perspective, it is absurd to assume that identity is something one is born with. From my point of view, identity is always the result of an individual’s bonding and relationship history – and also physical history.” [1]

Politically speaking, I agree with this statement but consider it irrelevant to most of the controversial gender debate. That debate is not primarily about identity, but about biology. Separate sporting events for women and men are justified by the biological differences between (biological) women and men; the same applies to gender-segregated toilets, showers, changing rooms, etc. All of this has nothing to do with identity.

And frankly: it is also absurd to assume that perceived gender identity should take precedence over biological sex in every respect and in all situations. That is postmodern, post-scientific nonsense, and where, for example, the rights of the small but very vocal number of “trans people” are supposed to trump the rights of the large majority of “cis people,”[2] it is profoundly undemocratic.

Also, for the assessment of this issue in traditional Christian theology[3] this question is not particularly relevant: the theological evaluation of societal phenomena and human behaviors is not based on genetics or whether something is innate, but on what God’s Word, the Bible, says. After all, the Bible clearly states that we all have an innate inclination to sin (Romans 3:10-18: [4], which manifests differently in different people. Nevertheless, sin is never justified.

Whether and to what extent the Bible represents an identity differing from biological sex as a result of fallen and therefore sinful nature can certainly be discussed. It is clear that the Bible does refer to men in women’s clothing (and vice versa) as “an abomination” (Deuteronomy 22:5[5], but spends far more time and has far more condemnation for other behaviors and attitudes, calling them sin, “abomination,” and “wickedness.” And how did Jesus put it? “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone.”

(The cover picture of this post is a screenshot from Merriam-Webster‘s entry for “transgender”.)

1. Dr. Korte is indeed critical of gender ideology, as a quick Google search clearly shows.[↩]
2. The term trans-(men, women, people) refers to individuals whose perceived gender identity does not align with their biological sex, in contrast to cis-(men, women, people), whose gender identity and biological sex match. Additionally, there are the adjectives transgender and cisgender. All of these are neologisms (late 20th century) based on the Latin words trans (beyond) and cis (on this side of) as well as the originally grammatically term gender.[↩]
3. i.e. a theology which starts from the premise that the Bible is God’s revelation of and about Himself, that it doesn’t and shouldn’t be changed, and that it is still the standard for Christian faith and theology today.[↩]
4. “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one. Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit. The poison of vipers is on their lips. Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood; ruin and misery mark their ways, and the way of peace they do not know. There is no fear of God before their eyes.” Paul quotes here various passages from the Hebrew Bible (“Old Testament”) which describe the innate inclination of humans towards sin.[↩]
5. “A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.”[↩]

Until I retired four years ago I used to run a Lenovo Thinkcenter as a kind of universal server, using Proxmox as the  virtualization solution.

Proxmox is based on Debian Linux and integrates QEMU/KVM for virtual machines and LXD for containers. When I first encountered it it only ran on x86_64 machines (i.e. Intel and AMD processors), but recently support for the ARM architecture (aarch64) has been added.

So I am going to begin a project of installing it on both a Raspberry Pi 4 and a Raspberry Pi 5, primarily as an experiment and to keep my mind busy and in the game.

I will be using the tutorial, “How to Install Proxmox on the Raspberry Pi” by Emmet at the PiMyLifeUp site, an Australian project and resource site for all things Raspberry Pi, Linux, Arduino, etc.

First I need to get my Raspberry Pi up and running with an M.2 SSD in an Argon One case; I find the connectors for the ribbon cable between the Pi’s SSD port and the one on the Argon board challenging, to say the least.

I will update this post as I make progress.

I am just starting to watch a video podcast series called “Through Theology In One Year“, produced and presented on YouTube by Michael Patton[1] Michael is a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary and presents theology from an Evangelical, Reformed perspective.

As of today there are 16 episodes online and they are presented in a YouTube playlist which would be very useful –except that the playlist is arranged with the most recent episode at the top, and so will play in reverse order, and YouTube does not offer a way to reverse the order in which playlists are presented.

Because I do not fancy having to navigate backwards so I was looking for a solution outside YouTube — and in this article I just found one: The website Playlist.Tools allows you to find a playlist URL and paste it in a text box on the site, and will then present you with the playlist in reverse order — i.e. with the first episode at the top.[2]

For my own convenience and for anyone else interested I am presenting the URL of the reversed playlist for “Through Theology In One Year” right here, hoping that it is persistent and doesn’t change over time or when new episodes are added (we might have to deal with that if it happens).

Here we go: “Through Theology In One Year” in correct viewing order.

1. C. Michael Patton has been in ministry for twentyfive years as a pastor, author, speaker, and blogger. Find him on Patreon. Th.M. Dallas Theological Seminary (2001), president of Credo House Ministries and Credo Courses, author of Now that I’m a Christian (Crossway, 2014) Increase My Faith (Credo House, 2011), and The Theology Program (Reclaiming the Mind Ministries, 2001-2006), host of Theology Unplugged, and primary blogger at Parchment and Pen. But, most importantly, husband to a beautiful wife and father to four awesome children. Michael is available for speaking engagements. Join his Patreon and support his ministry.[↩]
2. I would have preferred to use a browser plugin but I could not get any of the plugins presented to work.[↩]

EN / DE

According to today’s Daily Telegraph, “Labour will reverse Brexit if it wins the general election, UK Business Secretary Kemi Badenoch has warned.”[1]

As a convinced Remainer I would welcome this if it happened, but  I am not sure this is more than Kemi Badenoch‘s desparate attempt to warn voters against a Labour government.  I think that if Keir Starmer actually believes he can do it he is highly delusional.

Britain joined the EU in 1973,[2] and eventually secured several very favourable concessions, such as a major rebate on the country’s financial contribution to the Union[3]. Yet in the years since then a very vocal faction of Eurosceptics mostly in the Conservative Party has kept agitating against membership, culminating in David Cameron’s ill-advised 2016 Brexit referendum and the UK’s eventual departure from the EU at the beginning of 2020.

During the Brexit negotiations Britain very much took the attitude that the EU needed the country more than the UK needed the Union, and demanded all sorts of continued membership privileges despite wanting to leave. In the years since then the UK keeps demanding changes to the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement — with the result that many in the EU, both politicians and bureaucrats, have become sick and tired of the British and are not very keen on re-admitting them to the club.

Since re-admitting Britain to the European Union would very likely re-start all the same phenomena of the UK’s 47 years of EU membership (i.e. vocal Eurosceptic agitation, etc) and sooner or later result in Brexit 2.0, any suggestion of a Bre-Entry[4] will meet with little enthusiasm in Brussels. I am afraid it is nothing but a pipe dream.

1. Starmer will reverse Brexit, warns Badenoch[↩]
2. UK Membership[↩]
3. UK Rebate[↩]
4. British Re-Entry to the European Union[↩]