My Journal

I've recently come across a 2008 film "Nothing But the Truth" by Rod Lurie about how a journalist was accused of treason for not revealing the source of her story. The film is an inspiration from a 2005 true case of journalist Judith Miller mainly about her contempt of court on concealing federal leak.

The background regarding national security and patriotism is a stretch of drama attained by judicial lingual.

The ethical problem is not solved. True, journalist Rachel Armstrong has been serving times in jail and even prison and gotten beat up, but the end doesn't have any ethical conclusion to me. If it is about promoting the principle of a journalist's right to retain confidentiality of his or her source and the first amendment, it is not fooling me and I wouldn't categorize that in ethic.

In the movie, the original source (revealed in the end) is the little daughter of the ex-CIA agent Van Doren who was murdered after the story got out. Little Alison was merely making a conversation in the school bus with Armstrong during a field trip. Ergo the "it's illegal for a government official to reveal the identity of an undercover CIA agent" commotion is off the table. However, the drama went on with everyone trying to find out who the source is in order to charge him/her of treason: Who would expect a little girl over hearing her parents talking about it.

My question would be, if the show is about the right of a journalist, how would this venerate Rachel Armstrong? For using information from an innocent girl who didn't know her left hand from her right, for Armstrong's own personal gain? Would her time in jail and 2 year prison and the end of marriage be justified enough for the death of Alison's mother? If this is qualified for the Pulitzer then I don't know what the prize is really about. I'm sure revealing the source in this case may have cause more damage than just the consequence of distrust from future informants. People would be enraged about how Armstrong used the innocence of a little girl for her "right of the First Amendment"...so sure, it is better not to reveal the source, to avoid personal shame.

Integrity and principle about truth here is twisted. A hack at the federal law's loophole? Perhaps. But it does not justify selfish journalism. Might as well con the innocent little girl, would have made a difference. As much as I hate to say it, "score one for homeschool".

To promote evolution in the name of science, is equivalent to promoting heresy in the name of God.

For neither science nor God support evolution or heresy respectively.

Sunday passed. First morning session of the adult sunday school at 10:30am using Dr. Stephen Tong's Expository series on the book of Romans. I heard good feedback.

Come what may, now I can see who truly belongs to fellowship. Not because of Rev. Tong, but because of the desire to seek after God's word.

There are perhaps a few who really wanted to come but just couldn't due to long distance and early schedule. I already know who they are. I'd say it's understandable...it could even be a lapse in memory of the first session schedule.

I also get some feeling, especially from some old pastor, a negative one. One that is as if he doesn't want others to get any advanced knowledge in the word of God or just a matter of disagreement in Dr. Tong's interpretation or fame or whatever. How did I come with such conclusion since there's no apparent proof...I don't have any strong ground for that: I don't notice him giving credit to quotes he used in his sermons. And sermons that are like some text book reading instead of congregational relationship whether in preaching or teaching, just somewhat seem like coming from someone who prefers less responsibilities as possible and thus intend others to be less knowledgeable so as to be heeded by them for whatever small knowledge he has. Of course, I am just speculating for now. On the positive side, a pastor is a pastor, I'll just accept him as that. Rev. Tong on the other hand, a pastor and a mentor.