Issues
Web design excursus
0I have given a name to my pain, and it is Internet Explorer (IE).
More specifically, it’s versions predating IE 8, which (IMHO) is Microsoft’s first really solid Web browser and gives me little to no trouble. IE 7 and IE 6, on the other hand, are what Napoleon Dynamite would refer to as decroted pieces of crap.
Here’s my most recent study in IE pain. I’m making a Web page that uses a variation on an accordion menu. Said accordion menu needs to allow users to open more than one pane at a time, so I can’t use the handy little .accordion() method in the jQuery UI plug-in to create it. After a little digging around on teh interwebs (Did you see that subtle, humorous allusion to internet culture there? Did I mention that it was subtle?), I opted to write a little click handler that would apply slideToggle to create the modified accordion effect, like so:
var currentAccPane = $(this).next();
$(this).toggleClass(‘ui-state-default’);
$(currentAccPane).slideToggle(‘fast’);
});
BTW, for all you self-appointed code police (SACP) out there, I’m fully aware that the guts of this function can be chained. For me, this looks cleaner and is clearer. There. Are we okay now?
Anyway, this accomplishes the following:
- When each accordion item is clicked, it sets the variable currentAccPane to the next sibling element, which happens to be the div containing the content associated with the clicked heading.
- It changes the on/off state of the clicked heading by toggling the class ui-state-default.
- Then, it slides the pane of associated content down (on) or up (off).
Everything was just ducky in Firefox, IE 8, and Safari, but IE 7 choked on it. Hours of arduous Googling revealed that IE 7 and slideToggle don’t like each other when you’re slideToggling positioned elements (which I was). In this instance, IE 7 simply ignored the height of the parent element and stretched absolutely positioned child elements vertically to the height of the viewport.
Holy MonT-SteR Consternation™, Batman!
After trying every CSS trick I could find, as a last resort I tried resolving my issue with jQuery in a separate JavaScript file targeting IE 7 and older. All I can say is, “I heart jQuery.”
Here’s what worked:
var currentAccPane = $(this).next();
var divH = $(currentAccPane).innerHeight();
$(currentAccPane).css(‘height’, divH – 24 + ‘px’);
});
The fix occurs in the last two lines:
- After getting the content block associated with the heading, it calculates its pixel height based on the content it contains (which is the same whether open or closed — when the latter, it’s simply hidden) and stores it in the variable divH
- Then it uses divH to assign a hard pixel height to the content’s parent element via inline CSS on the fly (minus the top and bottom padding in the element, which in this case added up to 24px)
Voila! jQuery to the rescue! IE 7 now happily constrains the absolutely positioned blocks that were being inordinately stretched to the size of the containing block in the accordion.
Now, let me preempt the SACP by acknowledging that there may be a more savvy, efficient way to do this. And I admit that this may break the rule of keeping style and behavior separate in Web design. I suppose one could argue that my use of the .css() method here in my script is actually addressing a behavior — albeit a bad one — and so everything’s kosher.
In any case, I’m just getting my feet wet with jQuery, so I’m open to suggestions. But this works without any deleterious effects on other browsers (except IE 6, but that’s a animal beast monster form of torture horse of a different color). And, it solved my IE pain. For a jQuery noob, I think that’s a pretty good day’s work.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Bible tweets?
0David Schuster of MSNBC made a number of tweets today (if you don’t know what that is, go here) decrying Miss California’s stance on gay marriage. In essence, he cited several verses from Leviticus in an attempt to demonstrate that Christians are guilty of cherry picking Biblical prohibitions in order to justify their “bigotry” vis-à-vis homosexuality. The argument goes like this: Christians are happy to ignore all sorts of strange and arcane prohibitions in Leviticus, but they capriciously fixate on the prohibition against homosexuality in Lev. 18:22; if the other prohibitions can be licitly ignored with advantage, there’s no good reason to regard Lev. 18:22 as binding either.
This is actually a common argument, and on its face it has the appearance of merit. Unfortunately, it doesn’t take into account the various categories of law contained in the Mosaic books. Some directly enumerate universal principles that transcend culture (e.g., the Decalogue in Exodus 20). Others apply these universal principles to Israel’s cultural setting; as such, the application cited in the Law is necessarily occasional. In other words, even though the transcendent principle behind certain cultural prohibitions is itself inviolate, we wouldn’t expect it to be applied the exact same way in every cultural context. The task for the modern biblical interpreter is to do the legwork necessary to tell the difference and live accordingly.
For example, Schuster cites Lev. 19:27, which “expressly forbids men from getting their hair trimmed.” In our culture, this seems patently absurd. Most men shave daily before they go to work as a simple matter of personal hygiene and professionalism; to suggest that we are offending God by doing so smacks of lunacy. But the men of the cultures surrounding Israel commonly shaved their hair and beards for occultic purposes (this could be inferred from the context, especially given vv. 26 and 28). Thus, Lev. 19:27 isn’t an arbitrary and silly prohibition; it is, rather, a culturally-attuned application of the universal, Decalogic proscriptions against idolatry and worshiping other gods.
A couple more statements by Schuster, intermingled with my comments:
- If a narrow read of the bible is the last word on “marriage,” what about bible based condemnations of cosmetic surgery?
It’s certainly valid to consider whether or not cosmetic surgery is biblically sanctioned, but does he really mean to suggest that breast implants and homosexuality are morally equivalent? I hope not… - Lev. 19:19 forbids planting two different crops in the same field or wearing two different kinds of thread Penalty? Lev. 24:10-16 death.
Here, Schuster makes a common error by reading these verses sheerly through the lens of modern experience and sensibilities. In order to make sense of the Bible—particularly the OT—we have to make an effort to understand the milieu of the ancient Near East (ANE). In a nutshell, Israel was an agrarian culture utterly dependent on a good harvest for its very survival. If Schuster’s going to invoke modernity with respect to Lev 19:19, he might do well to observe that modern farmers judiciously avoid planting corn, wheat, and soybeans together in the same field. Perhaps science and experience have taught us that mingling crops ruins both harvest and subsequent generations of seed. If so, God’s prohibition takes into account the fact that such activity in ancient Israel would not only threaten livelihood, but life itself. I don’t know about you, but I can understand why a God who cares for His people would tell them in no uncertain terms, “Do NOT do this.”
Schuster had more to say, which I will address in another post (it’s getting late). But the overarching point here is that the cherry picking Schuster is declaiming against actually isn’t cherry picking at all. It’s a very reasonable bow to the difference between 21st century America and ancient Israel. Even so, a little detective work reveals that these prohibitions Schuster et al find so silly and superfluous actually have both warrant and wisdom behind them. In any case, the occasional nature of these Levitical proscriptions does not give us license to dismiss or ignore the God-given, trans-cultural absolutes they depend on.
I daresay, Mr. Schuster, that Lev. 18:22 is no exception.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
The tide turns
0Uh-huh.
A year ago, I wouldn’t have thought this possible. But lately, I’ve had a sense that the global warming hysteria juggernaut is losing steam. Big time.
Between this year’s record, world-wide low temperatures and snowfall and recent data showing that a year of global cooling has practically eradicated more than a century of warming, it seems that Al Gore and his Chicken Little brigade are having a hard time blaming humanity’s collective carbon footprint for any and every calamitous or anomalous weather phenomenon.
Check out this story in the Telegraph: 2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved.
It’s about dadburned time.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Rebel against the cult of celebrity
0The now-notorious Chris Crocker made a somewhat embarrassing YouTube video (warning: the video contains profanity) pleading with the masses to “Leave Britney (Spears) alone!” after her lackluster performance at the MTV Video Music Awards. You may be surprised, but The MonT-SteR thinks Chris Crocker has a point — one that leads our insatiable hearts inevitably to the grace of God. Take a listen and I’ll try to explain.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
More global warming grousing
0Regular readers know very well that we here at The MonT-SteR REPORT regard the Evangelical Statement on Climate Change (ESCC) as a grossly ill-conceived document — largely because of its dependence on the faulty premise that the scientific community is united in its certainty that climate change is a man-made phenomenon. The ESCC has this to say:
Since 1995 there has been general agreement among those in the scientific community most seriously engaged with this issue that climate change is happening and is being caused mainly by human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels.
One of the sources they cite in support of this assertion is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) recent Summary for Policymakers, which “projects that the average global temperature will continue to rise in the coming decades, and attributes ‘most of the warming’ to human activities.” What the ESCC does not tell you (possibly because its authors were unaware) is that 1)the IPCC is not entirely made up of scientists, 2) those who serve on the IPCC are not monolithically united in support of the notion of man-made global warming, and 3) some of those who have resigned from the IPCC in protest against the blind acceptance of pop global warming theory are nevertheless listed as contributors to the IPCC’s report. These facts alone refute the ESCC’s assertion that there is undiluted scientific consensus on the issue, even within the IPCC.
The ESCC also rudely characterizes skeptics of pop global warming theory as a ragtag, minuscule, marginalized segment that is “in denial” about the supposedly unassailable scientific consensus. This assertion simply isn’t credible, especially in light of the growing list of leading scientists worldwide who are reversing their positions on climate change.
Even so, the ESCC encourages Christians that we can trust the output of the IPCC’s assessments and deliberations because it is chaired by an evangelical Christian. Sorry guys — evangelical Christians, no matter how devout or sincere, can be WRONG. And that’s just what the signatories to the ESCC are. The very foundation of the ESCC itself depends upon an underlying premise that is dubious at best, patently false at worst. Oddly enough, the ESCC lays the groundwork for its own demise:
Because all religious/moral claims about climate change are relevant only if climate change is real and is mainly human-induced, everything hinges on the scientific data.
Precisely. And the demonstrable lack of scientific consensus on pop global warming theory serves to illustrate that the ESCC’s certitude on the matter is unwarranted. That means, ladies and gentlemen of the Evangelical Climate Initiative (including the likes of people I admire, such as Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, and especially Jack Hayford), that you messed up. And I think that the commitment to truth that is a requisite of the Christian lifestyle dictates that you ought to withdraw your signatures and support from the ESCC, posthaste.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
I’m a Christ follower, not a Christian
1My friend and fellow blogger, Nathan (who runs the Christians Behaving Badly blog), drew my attention to an interesting YouTube phenomenon today.
In case you haven’t noticed, parodies of Apple’s current “Get a Mac” ad campaign have been in vogue on YouTube for awhile now, so I figured it was only a matter of time before creative, media-savvy churches got in on the act.
That day has arrived. Now, courtesy of Community Christian Church — a multi-site congregation in Illinois — we have some pretty nifty faith-based “Get a Mac” parodies. In essense, they contrast external, superficial expressions of what is mistakenly taken for Christian faith (represented by the up-tight, insecure, condescending nerdy guy) with an incarnational lifestyle, i.e., Christ following (represented by the laid-back, regular looking guy who actually has some social skills). Take a look:
Video 1
Video 2
Video 3
Video 4
Clever, amusing, and in most respects, very helpful and accurate. Jesus defined the eternal life He promised to bring in this way:
Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. (John 17:3)
Thus, Christian faith is characterized chiefly by a dynamic of relationship between Creator and creation, God and man; Christ Himself makes such relationship possible through His death, resurrection, and ongoing ministry at the right hand of the Father. These videos camp out on that truth, communicating it in simple, entertaining fashion — and I’m quite happy about that. So let me say up front that I commend this church for its creativity, for the apparently high production value of these videos (the church should exemplify excellence), for their faithfulness to a core message of the Scriptures, and for the risk-taking inherent in doing something a little different.
There are, however, a few things that trouble me a bit about these videos:
- I object to how they disparage the term “Christian.” I understand that the idea of who a Christian is and what they ought to look like is egregiously muddied in our culture, often because many who take the name to themselves have no business doing so. But I think a creative church could and should have found a way to communicate the content of these parodies without dragging the name and idea of “Christian” through the mud. After all, it’s a biblical name that has been associated closely with discipleship — or what these parodies would consider “Christ following” — from the times of the early Church forward (see Acts 11:26). To my way of thinking, we ought to work to make “Christian” synonymous with “Christ follower,” not antithetical to it. In this respect, I find these videos damaging and confusing.
- This is perhaps unintentional, but I think the first video has the effect of disparaging Christian scholarship. It seems to imply that bookishness is innately pharasaical, whereas somebody who is really close to the heart of God (i.e., a Christ follower) doesn’t need (nor should they desire) such gobbledy-gook. Of course, the point is well taken that being Christian is by no means a function of mere education or scholarship. But the church has benefited in every age from the work and witness of plenty of Christians who were also highly educated — including none other than St. Paul, who had the educational equivalent of a Ph.D. and could be considered an archetypal example of a Christ follower.
- I’ve mentioned in previous posts that I am an unashamed participant in the Charismatic movement. As such, I’ve had my share of debates with mainline evangelicals about the proper understanding of the charismata as they relate to modern faith and praxis — some of these discussions were friendly, and some, sadly, resulted in broken relationships with other believers. The defensive part of me reacts a bit to the last video, and perceives it as something of a swipe at the Charismatic/Pentecostal practice of exercising the gifts of the Spirit (namely tongues and prophecy) in a worship context. If that was part of the video’s intent, then it’s essentially asserting that people like me aren’t Christ followers. That’s unfair, unhelpful, patently unscriptural, and untrue. If, on the other hand, the point is merely that worship ought to be an exercise in genuine heart response to God as opposed to an outward, artificial affectation of spirituality that is actually a fleshly attempt to make something happen, then I can say a hearty amen.
I also found the following video on YouTube, which I thought was a healthy, positive response to the videos Community Christian Church produced. It ministered to me, so I wanted to share it with you.
Am I being too sensitive, or do you think I brought up valid points?
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Again with the global warming…
0Well, friends, I just can’t let it rest.
Today, I stumbled across a remarkable, eminently sensible British documentary about climate change. It affirms many of the points I made in my last two installments of From the MonT-SteR’s Mouth™, and essentially pokes devastating holes in the theory of global warming as a human-induced phenomenon.
Among the documentary’s highlights:
- It dispenses with the ridiculous notion that scientists who are skeptical about abiogenic CO2 emissions as the cause of global warming are invariably in the employ of “big oil” and therefore suspect. Ellen Goodman used such arguments in her recent op-ed piece, giving the false impression that scientists who ascribe to popular global warming theory are as pure as the wind-driven snow and free of all bias or self-interest. Nothing could be further from the truth. Scientists compete for funding, friends, and are very adept at capitalizing on the zeitgeist of the moment in order to finance their research. As Nigel Calder states, one might not get funding for a simple study on squirrels; but mention that the study has a special concern for the effect of global warming on their nut gathering habits, and the grant is much more likely to come through. Why don’t we ever hear about the corruption of science at the hands of hysterical global warming apologists in the employ of big government?
- It makes the point, as I have, that climate change is nothing new. It’s a natural phenomenon whose engine is comprised of multiple factors, all ancient and far more powerful than all of humanity combined, and in some cases, lightyears away.
- The chief premise of Al Gore’s Oscar-winning documentary (ahem!) is thoroughly torpedoed.
- It frames the battle over global warming as a social justice issue. This aspect should be of grave concern to prominent Christian leaders who have embraced the activist community associated with popular global warming theory (Rick Warren, are you listening?). Impoverished, developing nations are being told by the likes of Greenpeace that they mustn’t use fossil fuels and other natural resources to propel their economies forward. They are told they must use alternative fuels, such as solar energy and wind power — all out of a misguided concern to avert further proliferation of CO2 emissions. But these forms of energy are so expensive and difficult to harness that the wealthy West has trouble using them. Thus, they are untenable for use in poor nations, where staggeringly short life expectancy rates can be directly linked to the unavailability of electrical and gas power that we take for granted every day. In short, “green” thought vis-a-vis global warming actually has the effect of compounding and solidifying the misery of millions in third-world countries. I don’t know about you, but I don’t find it “Christian” in the least to support such a paradigm.
I often wonder if the debate can even be won by the right people at this stage. The global warming propagandists have enjoyed unfettered access to the public ear for nearly 20 years. But I’m encouraged that informed, credible skeptics are increasingly finding a voice. The fine documentary I’ve described above is evidence of that.
So, for your viewing pleasure, here is “The Great Global Warming Swindle.” Hope you find it thought-provoking and eye-opening:
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Hapless Gore plagued by more than Oscar
0Katie Couric has been wringing her hands over the marginalization of Al Gore due to the Oscar nod his silly global warming movie got this weekend. Recent news shows that her concern is misplaced. It’s not that Al Gore is Hollywood’s anointed climate change activist — his real problem has to do with walking his talk.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR