Reflections on Christmas

Christmas is a wondrous and joyful time. It provides hope and happiness for all people, even in the darkest time of the calendar year, lights shine triumphantly throughout all of the streets. While it is an amazing time of the year, this holiday can leave people with a tremendous sense of sadness. The end of the season means the silencing of carols, the extinguishing of lights and the diminishing of holiday greetings. Soon, Christmas will end and the New Year will begin. While the joyous time of the year ends, nothing but a cold winter takes its place.

This emotional ending is interesting, considering that the ending of the seasonal Christmas holiday also ushers in the theological celebration of the birth of Christ. The coming of Christ also signifies the end of the material holiday season and all that it entails. I am not making an entry that heaps scorn upon the Dickensian traditions. It is not like that at all, instead it is merely an observation of the realities of the season. While Christians celebrate the Advent (arrival) of the Christ, we are called to quiet our hearts in eager expectation. This is incredibly tough, for the coming of Christ is simultaneously triumphed boldly throughout American stores and homes with song, both secular and sacred. How can one ponder the mysteries of the Incarnation when festivities abound?

While the question certainly leads to tension, the belief in the implications of the First Noel continue to exist. As Scrooge realized, we must strive to keep Christmas all the year. Basking in the knowledge of the incarnate deity, contributing love and charity to the world. Emmanuel, God with us.

O magnum mysterium,

et admirabile sacramentum,

ut animalia viderent Dominum natum,

jacentem in praesepio!

Beata Virgo, cujus viscera

meruerunt portare

Dominum Christum.

Alleluia.

O great mystery,

and wonderful sacrament,

that animals should see the new-born Lord,

lying in a manger!

Blessed is the Virgin whose womb

was worthy to bear

Christ the Lord.

Alleluia!

O Come, O Come Emmanuel

O come, O come, Emmanuel
And ransom captive Israel
That mourns in lonely exile here
Until the Son of God appear
Rejoice! Rejoice! Emmanuel
Shall come to thee, O Israel.

O come, Thou Rod of Jesse, free
Thine own from Satan's tyranny
From depths of Hell Thy people save
And give them victory o'er the grave
Rejoice! Rejoice! Emmanuel
Shall come to thee, O Israel.

O come, Thou Day-Spring, come and cheer
Our spirits by Thine advent here
Disperse the gloomy clouds of night
And death's dark shadows put to flight.
Rejoice! Rejoice! Emmanuel
Shall come to thee, O Israel.

Newsweek and Religion

Newsweek recently published a cover story that sought to outline the disagreements between proponents and opponents of same-sex marriage. However, Newsweek's story hardly was the bastion of journalistic objectivity. Instead, the magazine created an opinion piece that sought to disguise itself as a news story seeking to discredit "fundamentalists." I am not upset that the weekly became an opinion paper, I am upset that the weekly did not accurately represent their opponent's views. Their description of the views of evangelicals, Catholics, Mormons and others were not even remotely accurate. While there certainly were bad arguments on the side of Prop 8, Newsweek disregarded the clear statements of Natural Law thinking and the traditional thought of the Church. The writer selectively picked and twisted words in order to discredit the proponents of Prop 8. This was a blatant attempt to discredit an opponent by mocking them and not defeating them through rational debate.

Newsweek did not delineate clearly, they ignored thoughtful arguments and promoted murky philosophy. The author and Religion section editor Lisa Miller wrote from a position of pure emotion and unfounded accusations. Of course, what they might lacked in rationale surely was amplified in slogans and protest. Christianity Today proposed three possible interpretations about Newsweek's creative essay,

[The article] could mean that Meacham and Miller (the editor and author, respectively) are simply ignorant of the nuanced and careful biblical arguments that religious conservatives have made. But this is doubtful, since as journalists of the topic, they have surely been immersed in the literature.

It could suggest they simply don't understand the subtleties of the biblical arguments. But this can't be, because they are clearly bright people in other respects.

Or it means they have found themselves hamstrung by the richer, nuanced, and thoughtful biblical defense of traditional marriage. And they find themselves utterly incapable of responding to it on its own terms.

In a society such as ours, it is incredibly important to have clarity. I have an obligation to not misrepresent a differing view with the dubious intention of mocking that side. While humor and satire is powerful, seemingly ignorant claims must be refuted by both sides and accuracy must be the aim of all the citizens. Labeling someone as hateful because of an argument does not bring clarity. Good people could have honest disagreements. It is a shame that if one disagrees they will be immediately labeled as hateful or bigoted. Our society thrives on debate and disagreements, that is what makes this nation great. Despite our differences, we remain as a single nation. We must have clarity, labeling people as hateful people because of differences does not help society. We, as a society, must be willing to sit down and have a deep conversation about issues. We cannot live in a intellectual ghetto, instead we must immerse ourselves in competing ideas. Americans must pursue honesty and intellectual honesty, sadly Newsweek did not pursue those goals.

Mumbai Clarification

Something that I have become passionate about is the concept of language and the importance of ideas. With the horrendous actions in Mumbai and their immediate implications for the region, I feel that it is important to stress the need for clarifications. As I wrote in a previous post, "we must call cowardly acts like these what it is, murderous evil." The current trend within media outlets is to call the perpetrators by every name other than Muslim fundamentalists. The cowardly murderers are portrayed as "militants," "gunmen" or "practitioners." The evil that civilization (Western, Far-Eastern, Near-Eastern) faces is the threat from Radicalized Islam.

While American foreign policy does play a role in the tension between the clash, it is not the sole reason. While Deepak Chopra and others might blame America, these attacks were not solely based on American policy. Bali hardly was an extension of American Imperialism when it was bombed several years ago. Turkey stood up against America in the prelude to the 2003 Iraq War, yet it was hit by bombings in Istanbul. This threat touches moderate Islamic states and secular democracies alike, it is a global force that needs to be reckoned with. It is important to also note that this threat is not an easy puzzle that many of my fellow conservatives paint. The government of Iran, the finances of Saudi Arabia and the youth of Central Asia are not mobilized with similar goals or objectives, bonded together in a unified plot. Instead it is going to be a Long War and this war needs differing solutions for different problems. The implementation of Soft and Hard Power will be key.

The murderers in Mumbai attacked civilians and a Jewish center. They targeted a Rabbi purposefully. One of my favorite columnist wrote a brilliant piece that speaks to this issue powerfully. Mark Steyn wrote,

"In a well-planned attack on iconic Mumbai landmarks symbolizing great power and wealth, the "militants" nevertheless found time to divert 20 percent of their manpower to torturing and killing a handful of obscure Jews helping the city's poor in a nondescript building. If they were just "teenage gunmen" or "militants" in the cause of Kashmir, engaged in a more or less conventional territorial dispute with India, why kill the only rabbi in Mumbai? Dennis Prager got to the absurdity of it when he invited his readers to imagine Basque separatists attacking Madrid: 'Would the terrorists take time out to murder all those in the Madrid Chabad House? The idea is ludicrous.'"

Quite frankly, the populace of the West must be honest. We must be able to properly identify who the enemy is and what is their ideology. If we remain dishonest and merely call the perpetrators "teenage gunmen" we will forget the gravity of the situation. Clarification of the issue needs to be also met with restraint in our language as well. All Muslims are not terrorists and the "silent majority" must stand with the rest of the world. The problem is that these murderous thugs use the guise of Islam for their cowardice, thus implicating peace-loving Muslims. As Keith Pavlischek writes in First Things, "They do not appeal to Hindu or Buddhist texts, they do not justify their actions by appealing to Catholic encyclicals and papal pronouncements, they do not appeal to Protestant confessional creeds or to Jewish literature. They justify their resort to terrorist violence, rightly or wrongly, to Islamic canonical sources in the Koran and the Hadith." Moderate Muslims must remember that silence is acceptance. A reformation will only come from within Islamic society, it cannot be forced upon them. Peace loving Muslims must stand against the perverse terrorists, that is when true victory will occur. All that Westerners can do is stand with those vocal people and fight to eradicate the evil, through both word and deed.

Reemergence of Evil

In the past few months I have been focused on US politics. Debating Iraqi withdrawal strategies, economic plans and social issues have been hot topics in political circles and have preoccupied my mind. These topics, however, have shifted focus from one of the most important issues of our time- evil. There is evil in the world and it attacks defenseless people for the sole purpose of destruction. This evil has a face, and it is the face of twisted ideology. This ideology takes the words of a religion and uses it to enact destruction. These terrorists use the name of Islam to combat the infidels, and by that very definition every non-Muslim is a target. However, that narrow description has broadened, even fellow Muslims have become acceptable targets. Islamic fundamentalism is an anathema to the world, including the Muslim civilization. This anathema must be universally confronted.

The terrorists in Mumbai sought to destroy as many lives as possible, killing tourists and workers at random. These murderous beings also sought to target a Jewish cultural center. In a place that has an incredibly small Jewish population, these terrorists murdered a rabbi and his wife. Of course, we do not have to discuss the ancient belief in Jew hating (we can save that discussion for another day), but we should discuss the evil in the world. There are theories that these acts have been prompted by American foreign policy (which I agree, in part). However, US foreign policy can only provide so much room for excuse. Bali, Turkey, India, Jordan and other traditional non-Western nations have been targeted for retribution. As Fareed Zakaria said on CNN recently, we must place the blame first on the terrorists. Regardless if there were ties from Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, the perpetrators deserve our full wrath. They are the ones who attacked defenseless tourists and civilians. They are the cowards and they are the root source of this evil.

In the remembrance of the murderous acts in Mumbai, we must regain vigilance against this evil. The Western, Muslim, Hindu and Far Eastern nations must stand against this evil and work to eradicate it. This will have to be a blend of military, economic and diplomatic solution. Hard Power must be joined with Soft Power to create a lasting solution. Our military might must be used with caution and our culturally based Soft Power should be deployed to its fullest extent. The first step that we must take is the realization that it exists and then work to counteract it. We must call cowardly acts like these what it is, murderous evil. If we do not achieve intellectual and moral clarity than we will never win.

The Power of Words

Words are incredibly powerful. Clear articulation of ideas can inspire revolution, free the enslaved, rally a dejected army or challenge others to greatness. The English language has many colorful and important words that paints a picture and, if mastered, can move legitimate mountains. Unfortunately, political campaigns choose words that best suit their particular interests and activist groups use loaded terms to slur their opponents. It is important that people be cautious in their choice of words and bring powerful ideas to the table instead of loaded rhetoric. It also important to have these powerful ideas grounded in reality. As Wilfred McClay wrote in his article "The Danger of Abstract Words" in First Things:

That caution is especially appropriate in a modern democratic culture, and so it is not surprising that Tocqueville had a keen awareness of it. “Men living in democratic countries, then, are apt to entertain unsettled ideas, and they require loose expressions to convey them. As they never know whether the idea they express today will be appropriate to the new position they may occupy tomorrow, they naturally acquire a liking for abstract terms.” The chief virtue of an abstraction, he observed, is that it is “like a box with a false bottom; you may put in it what ideas you please, and take them out again without being observed.”

It is important to note that the Obama campaign was not the only culprit of using generic terms. While the Obama campaign used the generic words of 'hope' and 'change' to argue for their victory, the McCain campaign used words that boast populist sentiments, 'elitist' and 'socialist' are just two out of many words. It is incredibly expedient to use broad words than to advocate for a clear worldview. When the word Nazi is constantly used, one loses the sense of evil that the ideology embodied. When the powerful nature of love is devalued through 'free love,' the word is diffused.

When we devalue a terms meaning by using them inappropriately the speaker merely alienates their opponents and adds a layer of unneeded complexity to the dialogue. The term 'Nazi' is thrown around so often and is applied so broadly that it stifles legitimate conversations. When talking about words, we must look to the incredible orators of the past to gain a better understanding about dialogue and statements. Martin Luther King was able to articulate ideas and used words with power, clarity, and meaning. As Dr. King said in his famous I Have a Dream Speech:

In a sense we’ve come to our nation’s capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the “unalienable Rights” of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Dr. King used words to advance a cause. He drew upon the principles of the past and progressed forward with them (conservatism at its most basic philosophical form). He could have inflamed his opponents by using loaded terms. Instead Dr. King brought people together with a cohesive argument. That is what our postmodern society must regain. Words are powerful and they should be used with respect.

Post-Election Thoughts

Religion and politics are two things that people should not talk about with strangers. I do not have that option, because politics is something that I do and religion is something that I love. Although I do not have the luxury of remaining in an aloof state, it is important for anyone who dabbles in either area to learn to compartmentalize certain aspects of those passionate subjects. In an environment that is filled with partisanship and rampant opinions, it is important to not become consumed by something, especially politics. Political junkies must live a balanced, whole life. Even when your particular team loses an election you have to make yourself not feel distraught. Of course you should not bury the emotion completely, but you should not let it drive your life. A balanced life is something that every political activist and thinker must develop, and is something that I constantly must remember.

Dennis Prager, an intellectual mentor of mine, mentioned a quote that has greatly impacted his life. The rabbinic statement goes: "It's not up to you to complete the task, but you're not free to desist of trying." It is not up to an individual to make the world a perfect place, but that excuse does not give us the right to stop trying. In every instance, Utopians always make the world an evil one, because it is not up to us to make things possible and to obtain a just society. Whether in Revolutionary France or in communist countries throughout the world, the desires for imposing economic equality always have turned foul. Even within religious circles, we must realize that perfection will not come about in this age, because our nature will not change. The three monotheistic religions all believe in coming perfection. Jews believe in a coming Messiah, Christians believe in the Second Coming of their Christ and Muslims believe in the fulfillment of their scriptures. The broken nature of mankind will always be present and it is important for every person to realize that. Moses did not get into the "promised land" and neither shall we.

Utopia literally means nowhere. Those who want to make the promised land reality on earth inadvertently create hell on earth. We must remember that we cannot transform earth, but that does not mean that we must stop trying. We cannot foster a mentality that does not help the weak simply because "the poor will be with you always." We cannot live for the present, instead we must try within reason to make things better on earth. In a theological perspective, we must work for the Kingdom of God with the comprehension that perfection will never occur. In short, we should always work towards a better world.

We also must realize that "this too shall pass." A certain political party or ideology will not obtain power and perpetually keep it. You accept the loss and you continue to fight for your values. The Republican Party was resoundingly rejected at the ballot boxes and that rejection should prompt people within the party to think about what that means for them. It is important for a minority party to ask the powerful question of "where did we go wrong?" Was it in your tone, the denouncing of everyone else as elitist or un-American? Was it the concept of limited government turned expansive government that propelled the GOP into an abyss? The party must then direct their course towards becoming a purer conservative party, move towards the center as a Progressive Republican Party or take a dramatically different course. (Simply resurrecting Ronald Reagan will not solve the problem, as I said in a previous post) Ideas have consequences and they should be measured and debated.

Aristotle was correct when he once noted that man by nature is a political animal. That same political drive, however, should not destroy our broader being. Enjoy life! There's more to life than politics. We need to compartmentalize our political frustrations and not allow it to overflow into our other interests. It goes with the broader maxim that we should not be held hostage to emotion, instead we need to learn to be content. We need to learn to be happy and practice that ability. Learning to live with passion and purpose is essential; after all, politics is only one piece of that life. We must become whole people and learn to act accordingly. We must redeem the time and work to bring justice to the world.

Why Proposition 8 Matters

Proposition 8 has provoked extreme emotions on both sides of the issue. It is generally shaped as being about tolerance and equality on one side or about morality and tradition on the other. While they are polar opposites, it is important to realize that both sides have boasted faulty arguments. There are agents of intolerance within both camps, whether intolerant of free speech or hateful of a different lifestyle. The most important thing within a pluralistic society is the ability to construct sound arguments and not get caught up in overwhelming emotions. Please hear me out and let me explain why I endorse Proposition 8.

It is very important to outline what is marriage and what is the role that it plays in society. Marriage is typically outlined by society and it is shaped by the culture, whether through religious or legal customs. Historically, cultures have outlined that marriage is between people of the opposite sex- regardless of an Eastern or Western philosophy. However now, this is seen as both hateful and bigoted. The archaic understanding of marriage should be modified, after all racial matters were decided through government intervention. Although the racial legacy of the USA has been tainted with slavery and hostile welcoming of immigrant groups, the California court's decision in the beginning of this year cannot be equated with the rejection of interracial marriage. The racial tension and restrictions were morally deplorable and were against legitimate moral teachings. The current debate cannot be honestly tied to the past struggles on moral grounds for clarity's sake. Although marriage between two people of different faiths have been banned periodically throughout history, that ban has not been on racial grounds. Since people of different ethnic groups could convert, interracial marriage was not condemned within religious texts. Certainly the question of American bans on interracial dating and marriage within ultra-conservative groups is often raised as a parallel. In order to rebut this erroneous claim I will turn to a quote from columnist and thinker Dennis Prager,

"American bans on interracial marriages were not supported by any major religious or moral system; those bans were immoral aberrations, no matter how many religious individuals may have supported them. Justices who overthrew bans on interracial marriages, therefore, had virtually every moral and religious value system since ancient times on their side. But justices who overthrow the ban on same-sex marriage have nothing other their hubris and their notions of compassion on their side."

Certainly my libertarian friends will object with the limited concept of imposing morality on other people. I want to be perfectly clear that it is really impossible to not impose your worldview on other people. Even the belief that all beliefs should be tolerated and debated is imposing one's belief on someone else. In other words, there is no such thing as objectivity or universal acceptance. Some compassionate people might say that the rejection of this proposition would be a reinstatement of human rights. After all, Thomas Jefferson once penned, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." Human rights are applicable to all people, and through the vigilance of the state, people should be protected. Although perfect equality will not happen due to the natural condition of humanity, it does not mean that we should not strive for legal equality. Homosexual and heterosexual couples should receive and continue to receive equal legal rights. The legal benefits between my wife and I should be granted for two partners through civil unions. There are rights that can be given but do not call it marriage. Prejudice should be fought against and tolerance of other lifestyles should be sought, but an abandonment of all societal ties for the sake of 'progress' must not be attempted.

One of the classic arguments in support of same-sex marriage that must be addressed is that we must support same-sex marriage because a heterosexual marriage will not be impacted by a homosexual marriage. Congratulations on making a non sequitur. It is completely irrelevant to the debate, no one ever said that it would. Even in my conversations with the most conservative of Evangelicals this topic does not come up. We are not discussing individual marriages, instead we are talking about foundations of society. The elimination of the mores that bind us to our foundation is precarious and that is what this debate is about. Of course, advocating for marriage between a man and a woman is now the equivalent of being a sexist or racist. And soon, I am certain, it will be a hate crime. Even though one might have all the love and respect for someone of a different sexual orientation, the sentiments that only a man and a woman should marry is hateful. The playing of the hate card is intellectually dishonest and blackmail. If everyone else is labeled hateful by you if they oppose a measure, than you are promulgating hate.

Marriage is at the very foundation of civilization. Society lives and dies through the ability to sustain its culture and grow as a people by reproducing. Three traditional views on marriage is that marriage a social contract, sacrament and/or a legal binding. According to my Protestant worldview (with a bit of Catholic influences), the issue leans more towards all of the above. Marriage redeems society and should be a blessing unto it, through the dynamic of two different people coming together-- building society through stability and furthering society in childbearing. This (potential) ability is what sets marriage apart from other relationships. If it is a purely legal matter, than allow the society to legitimately decide the definition. Please correct me if I am wrong, but marriage has never been regarded as a universal human or civil right. Marriage has been chosen from within society and is bestowed on whom it chooses.

Words are incredibly important. The description of a piece of legislation as either a bailout or an economic stabilization plan could cause significantly different public reaction. With this constitutional amendment the phrasing could make all the difference. The proposition originally read: "Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Attorney General Jerry Brown changed the wording to: "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment." The changed wording should melt even the hardest of hearts. Attorney General Brown changed the phrasing to manipulate popular sentiment, framing those who oppose gay marriage (even those who have no animosity towards gays) as bigots. Just as O'Brien would famously ask Winston in George Orwell's 1984, many now ask "How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?" Even if you reply four they will force you to say five. Why? Because up is down and down is up. There is no Truth, morality is dead. After all, we are simply a nation of sheep.


Marriage has always been defined by society, secular or sacred. If society chooses to allow same-sex marriage, then so be it. It should be defined through the ballot box, not through judicial and dishonest actions.


-----------------------------
For more, please see:

Opposition to California Proposition 8: Hate in the Name of Love

by Dennis Prager

California's Decision will radically change society
by Dennis Prager

The Meaning of Marriage
by John Witte, Jr. in First Things

Natural Law, the Two Kingdoms, and Homosexual Marriage

by R. Scott Clark

The Rise of the Rest

I was introduced to the writings of New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman several years ago. His masterpiece The World is Flat altered my outlook on life for many years. Friedman forcefully argued that the world was becoming more competitive through the spread of information and the proliferation of technology. Small businesses and developing countries can close the distance with larger rivals. It is a phenomenon known as the "Rise of the Rest."

The past 500 years witnessed the dramatic and dominating growth of Western Europe. Once mired in the "Dark Ages" it grew into a powerful region. A rebirth of Classical philosophy led to the pursuit of knowledge, the Reformation led to the Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment. The Rise of the West was phenomenal and allowed Europe and its offspring (the United States, Canada, etc.) to dominate the globe. Within the Twenty-First Century we are not necessarily seeing a precipitous decline of the West but the Rise of the Rest. This flattening of the world, in my opinion, can be traced to two events in the Twentieth Century.

1. The two World Wars led to the exhaustion of Western resources. The will of Europe to wage war was spent and much of the colonies they once had was gradually released. Those who lived under the imperialist nations witnessed how Japan could fight against European powers and become successful. Decolonization and the principles of self determination led to the rise of non-Western powers.
2. The information age and rise of IT helped to further flatten the world. China, India and Brazil are rapidly growing in economic and international power. Brazil's economic growth has been astounding, flourishing into a regional power (US News and World Report examined this growth more intensively). Thomas Friedman was right, The World is Flat.

As I wrote in a previous post, the American Republic will fall eventually. Every empire and nation has an expiration date, they will be replaced by another world power. America is not necessarily collapsing on its own, but is rapidly being replaced by the rest of the world. Fareed Zakaria would point out in his book The Post American World (for an excerpt, visit this site) that the world is moving beyond America. The world is catching up to the Superpower. They are not surpassing it in military might or leadership, but the developing nations are rapidly becoming part of the strata of elite nations.

The developing nations are taking distinct advantage of the Pax Americana, much like the United States took advantage of the Pax Britannica. A large nation can stabilize the world or region and allow other groups to simultaneously flourish. Global peace and prosperity will usher in the era of Brazil, India and China- the Rise of the Rest. This is not as disconcerting or pessimistic as my previous post asserted, instead the world is growing incredibly interconnected. The demise of a great power will lead to the decline of other great powers. The Rise of the Rest is still linked to the West and the demise of the West still leads to the decline of the Rest because the world is incredibly flat.

The Decline and Fall of an Empire

Amidst turbulent times and troubles, one can only fall back onto the recesses of the past to look forward. I look back to the heroes and villains of history, seeking to learn from both their triumphs and disasters. Things will rebound and times will get better, they always have. Things might change, new leaders might emerge, but the sun will still rise from the east.

"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
– John Adams (1814)

Ever since I discovered this quote from my friend it has challenged me to think about the future. Empires rise and fall. St. Augustine wrote "The City of God" during the decline of the Roman Empire as Visigoths, Vandals and Persians raided the land. What caused the great and powerful empire of Rome to fall into decay? Economic, martial and political chaos led to the fall, yet while the demise occurred Augustine chose to remind the people about the hopes of an eternal land- the City of God.

The Bishop of Hippo contended in his treatise that there were two rival factions, the earthly and heavenly. While the former was beautiful and tempting it was entirely temporal. The City of God was magnificent, the very foundations would never be shaken. St. Augustine desired to invoke to his fellow Romans that temporal pleasures pale in comparison to the everlasting joy that they shall receive. Sin and selfishness were finally beaten, true peace would reign forever.

When the American Republic will fall, the Believer must not doubt about God or their faith. It is an entirely natural course, the rise and fall of powers are not based upon God. As the sun sets each evening, surely each government has its appointed day of expiration. Our faith is rooted in the City of God, our pilgrimage will only last so long. Eternity must be written on our hearts.

As a sojourner, it is comforting to think that the City of God shall stand against the ebb and flow of time. Things may falter, but the Kingdom of God remains ever strong. I am reminded of Martin Luther and how he stood while evils and corruption abounded. He reminded us all that a "Mighty Fortress is our God"! Might we remember that still.

Because Wall Street affects Main Street (Part 3)

Final entry in the "Wall Street impacts Main Street" series.

It is a somber day for the American economy.

Plan Will Save Free Market, Not Destroy It

By REP. JOHN CAMPBELL

This free-market, Milton Friedman devotee, conservative Republican congressman will be voting strongly in favor of the $700 billion bailout for Wall Street. What, you ask? Has the California sun fried my last brain cell?

No. I will vote for this bill because it will likely not cost anything, is not a bailout of anybody and will help every American with a bank account, a job or a retirement plan. It also will save the free market, not weaken it.

Allow me to explain.

The $700 billion figure so often mentioned will not be spent, but actually entirely invested with three different mechanisms to ensure that the taxpayers get all their money back.

First, these "troubled assets" will be purchased at less than the expected net present value of their cash flow. That means taxpayers should make a profit by holding them to maturity.

Second, taxpayers will get warrants to purchase stock in the companies from whom these assets are bought. That is more profit potential if the companies recover.

Third, whoever is president five years from now is required to offer to Congress a proposal to recover from these same companies any net loss incurred by the taxpayers to that point. No investment's return is certain, but this one looks pretty good. It for sure will not cost anything close to $700 billion over time.

Furthermore, you are not bailing out companies when you buy assets from them at 30%-60% of what they paid for the asset. That's a bath, not a bailout.

And they should take a bath. They made an investment decision, and it turned out to be a bad one, so they lose money. The purpose of the purchase plan is to create a market where one does not now exist and allow these companies to move that capital back into productive use in the economy. It is not giving them any kind of deal.

If this bill does not pass and Congress does nothing, Wall Street will suffer for sure. But so will everyone with a retirement plan as those values drop precipitously and their nest egg disappears.

Just imagine a whole week of days like Monday. People with bank accounts or money market funds may find their money inaccessible as the debt markets freeze over. And nonfinancial businesses that rely on short-term borrowing to meet payrolls and finance inventory spikes may be unable to get that credit, resulting in layoffs. In short, we all lose, whether we live in Manhattan or Peoria.

So has the free market failed us and that's why we need the government to take it over in this way?

No again. Free markets work. They are still working. They are rational. But on both sides of any free market transaction are two human beings who are subject to emotional behavior. The market cannot correct for overwhelmingly irrational behavior, whether that behavior is fear and panic or risk-ignoring exuberance.

When the short-term debt of some of the world's most profitable companies has no buyers, that is evidence of widespread fear bordering on panic. The objective of this bill is to remove the object of that fear, the bad mortgage-backed securities, from the market so that rational behavior will return.

In some ways, this bill is more of a free-market solution than other actions that have been taken. The government will not take over any companies here. Even the warrants will be nonvoting. No one will be compelled to sell the government their assets if they don't want to.

Even the "reverse auction" process of establishing pricing for the assets, where sellers submit bids to one buyer rather than the other way around, is a market-based pricing method.

Other ideas are out there to correct this problem. I have seen most of them. None has a better chance than this one to stabilize the credit and equity markets. Furthermore, no other plan has the broad base of political support that this plan has from leaders in both parties.

The credit markets in particular are too fragile. We cannot afford the time delay of starting over.

If we do not pass anything, I shudder to think of how bad things might get as that fear turns to full-fledged panic.

If we pass this plan, some banks and other companies will still fail. The world economy will still struggle and have problems for months if not years to come.

But markets will function again, and we will likely avoid the abyss. That will save our free-market economy, not jeopardize it. I hope and pray that at least 217 of my colleagues in the House of Representatives will see it that way on Friday.

Because Wall Street affects Main Street (Part 2)

I cannot say it any clearer than David Brooks. Unfortunately, much of the GOP is stuck in this perpetual time warp. Wake up! To do nothing is unacceptable and to tout populist ideals is dishonest. If Wall St. fails, it will impact every single person in the US- regardless of class or occupation.

-----------------------------

Revolt of the Nihilists
By DAVID BROOKS

In 1933, Franklin Roosevelt inherited an economic crisis. He understood that his first job was to restore confidence, to give people a sense that somebody was in charge, that something was going to be done.

This generation of political leaders is confronting a similar situation, and, so far, they have failed utterly and catastrophically to project any sense of authority, to give the world any reason to believe that this country is being governed. Instead, by rejecting the rescue package on Monday, they have made the psychological climate much worse.

George W. Bush is completely out of juice, having squandered his influence with Republicans as well as Democrats. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is a smart moneyman, but an inept legislator. He was told time and time again that House Republicans would not support his bill, and his response was to get down on bended knee before House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

House leaders of both parties got wrapped up in their own negotiations, but did it occur to any of them that it might be hard to pass a bill fairly described as a bailout to Wall Street? Was the media darling Barney Frank too busy to notice the 95 Democrats who opposed his bill? Pelosi’s fiery speech at the crucial moment didn’t actually kill this bill, but did she have to act like a Democratic fund-raiser at the most important moment of her career?

And let us recognize above all the 228 who voted no — the authors of this revolt of the nihilists. They showed the world how much they detest their own leaders and the collected expertise of the Treasury and Fed. They did the momentarily popular thing, and if the country slides into a deep recession, they will have the time and leisure to watch public opinion shift against them.

House Republicans led the way and will get most of the blame. It has been interesting to watch them on their single-minded mission to destroy the Republican Party. Not long ago, they led an anti-immigration crusade that drove away Hispanic support. Then, too, they listened to the loudest and angriest voices in their party, oblivious to the complicated anxieties that lurk in most American minds.

Now they have once again confused talk radio with reality. If this economy slides, they will go down in history as the Smoot-Hawleys of the 21st century. With this vote, they’ve taken responsibility for this economy, and they will be held accountable. The short-term blows will fall on John McCain, the long-term stress on the existence of the G.O.P. as we know it.

I’ve spoken with several House Republicans over the past few days and most admirably believe in free-market principles. What’s sad is that they still think it’s 1984. They still think the biggest threat comes from socialism and Walter Mondale liberalism. They seem not to have noticed how global capital flows have transformed our political economy.

We’re living in an age when a vast excess of capital sloshes around the world fueling cycles of bubble and bust. When the capital floods into a sector or economy, it washes away sober business practices, and habits of discipline and self-denial. Then the money managers panic and it sloshes out, punishing the just and unjust alike.

What we need in this situation is authority. Not heavy-handed government regulation, but the steady and powerful hand of some public institutions that can guard against the corrupting influences of sloppy money and then prevent destructive contagions when the credit dries up.

The Congressional plan was nobody’s darling, but it was an effort to assert some authority. It was an effort to alter the psychology of the markets. People don’t trust the banks; the bankers don’t trust each other. It was an effort to address the crisis of authority in Washington. At least it might have stabilized the situation so fundamental reforms of the world’s financial architecture could be undertaken later.

But the 228 House members who voted no have exacerbated the global psychological free fall, and now we have a crisis of political authority on top of the crisis of financial authority.

The only thing now is to try again — to rescue the rescue. There’s no time to find a brand-new package, so the Congressional plan should go up for another vote on Thursday, this time with additions that would change its political prospects. Leaders need to add provisions that would shore up housing prices and directly help mortgage holders. Martin Feldstein and Lawrence Lindsey both have good proposals of the sort that could lead to a plausible majority coalition. Loosening deposit insurance rules would also be nice.

If that doesn’t happen, the world could be in for some tough economic times (the Europeans, apparently, have not even begun to acknowledge their toxic debt) — but also tough political times.

The American century was created by American leadership, which is scarcer than credit just about now.

Because Wall Street affects Main Street

Call it the bailout bill, Paulson plan or socialism on steroids, the US Treasury plan is all over the papers. Liberals yell that this is throwing free money at the CEO's of failing corporations and Conservatives cite that no government intervention is required. Many high-profile Republicans are standing firm against any solution, because principles must stay when financial hell has risen. As we sit on the brink of a grave situation, there are handfuls of congressman who actually get the situation. There is no good answer right now, but no answer would be the worst solution to it all.

Doing nothing is not a valid option. Conservatives do not realize how close we are to the brink of an economic catastrophe. The markets must be stabilized. We must restore trust to the banking industry. The shrinking of credit will affect every person in the United States, regardless if you have direct contact with Wall Street. The implosion of the financial structure will freeze all of your assets, hurt every business and will touch every American.

In the 1930s, a lot of people who had nothing to do with Wall Street were deeply impacted by the crash. Today, we are incredibly entangled with the financial sector. The bad choices of a few will dramatically impact the many. Irresponsible people should and will be punished. CEO's should not obtain the "golden parachutes" and oversight should be created for the implementation of the plan. These and other issues should be discussed and included in the legislation. Bad lending and greed will be reckoned with, but the crisis has gone by too far to stand back and do nothing out of principle.

Is this plan anti-markets? Hardly. The market is not this mystical force with no players, instead it is made up of people and these people engage in transactions and investments. Human beings can act completely irrational, stoking fear into outright panic. People do not realize how close we were to financial panic last week in regards to money market accounts and the ongoing exodus from these accounts. The trust has dissipated between financial institutions, banks and consumers. Markets cannot correct itself if fear remains within the system. Take the fear out of the system (through the removal of bad assets) and the market will correct. And besides, the assets that the government will acquire are less than what they were worth. The government stands to make a profit on these purchases and loans.

If action is not taken everything that you and I own financially will be cut dramatically. The savings account that we have will not yield the original amount. Retirement accounts will be hammered. I cannot stress this clearer that the financial system is in grave danger. A point can be made that one's ideology should trump all circumstances. A quote from a respected thinker says it best, "My ideology guides my thinking, but it does not replace my thinking." Ideology must not get in the way of logical decisions. There is no good solution, but out of all of those solutions lie the controlled crash solution. Quick, consistent government intervention is necessary to the health of the economy. Otherwise, the ramifications will be unconscionable.

Freedom and Responsibility

Freedom is a very dangerous thing. Freedom grants the ability for anyone to follow their own desires and motives. However, is complete freedom ever truly free? I wrote in a previous post that,

Mankind can never be truly free. Even as a Lockean Liberal, I am bound to the philosophy of personal freedom. This belief drives me to follow those ideals, for better or for worse. We are all ensnared in our ideologies, and only change into some other concept that drives us to walk in that newfound belief.

In other words, our beliefs are never fully free. My personal political philosophy is chained to the notion of liberty. Anarchy is not true freedom and relativism is false liberty.

The greatest historical example I can give comes from the pivotal era of the Protestant Reformation. Among other things, Martin Luther believed that every person should be able to read the Bible for themselves. This understanding allowed the untrained person to read and think for themselves. Yet, with this freedom came the option for incredible abuse. The Bible could be interpreted erroneously and abused by every reader. The various Protestant denominations splintered more and more, Biblical passages could be interpreted in a variety of ways. With this freedom, came a significant risk of unorthodoxy and incorrect thinking. Nevertheless, this freedom was worth it.

As the below video from the Acton Institute explains, freedom is more than just doing whatever one wants. Freedom is not choosing things arbitrarily, but choosing what makes us better as human beings. Freedom is much more than merely hurling a dart randomly at the wall. Freedom requires us to make correct decisions. A player has the ability and right to press piano keys haphazardly, but is that really the best thing to do? True liberty is doing what is right.

Civil Discourse

Since I was introduced to the journal First Things, I have been profoundly challenged to go deeper in my faith. This challenge has made me take a stronger stand on incorporating my faith into my broader worldview, both in practical life and political thought. A recent posting on the blog of First Things spoke to an issue that I feel passionately about. Civility within passionate discourse.

The writer quoted from an excerpt from a letter of St. Thomas More to Erasmus, written on June 14th, 1532. St. More wrote:

Congratulations, then, my dear Erasmus, on your outstanding virtuous qualities; however, if on occasion some good person is unsettled and disturbed by some point, even without making a sufficiently serious reason, still do not be chagrined at making accommodations for the pious dispositions of such men. But as for those snapping, growling, malicious fellows, ignore them, and, without faltering, quietly continue to devote yourself to the promotion of intellectual things and the advancement of virtue. (Emphasis mine)

Partisan talk is always appealing. Since the very foundations of civilization, mankind has formed into collective groups. From City-States to Nation States, deep pride in ideals have instilled deep emotions amongst its inhabitants. Within a society, competing ideas and rival groups attempt to rule their government. Ancient Rome boasted soaring orators, Parliamentary England had its great statesmen and Early American history had dynamic debaters. Factional leaders often ranged from mild to bombastic temperament. Nevertheless, passion for various causes were rarely lacking.

One cannot be lost in nostalgia. There were vitriolic characters and vicious attacks. Within the borders of a nation as diverse as ours, it is incredibly important to remember the importance of civility. Different worldviews and assumptions exist, and oftentimes we must disagree without being disagreeable. The two competing mainstream philosophies in the contemporary American political spectrum is conservatism and progressive-liberalism. The presuppositions of both worldviews are immense! Even though there are different foundations, a big culprit in the intolerance and polarization of modern society is the creation of ideological ghettos.

The lack of exposure to other ideas and merely staying within one's own ideology is detrimental to true growth. Caustic language and attacks should not be employed in political debates, all it does is lower the level of communication and push citizens apart. Whether it would be an liberal Olbermann or conservative Savage, vitriolic rants should be replaced with passionate civility. Communicating ideas and advancing causes is the best course for a national group. As Thomas More would say, "as for those snapping, growling, malicious fellows, ignore them, and, without faltering, quietly continue to devote yourself to the promotion of intellectual things and the advancement of virtue." Civility, a functional society depends upon it.

"Things which are Caesar's and things which are God's. "

I have often wrestled with the notion that Christians should not engage in earthly politics. Some assert that as a sojourner, we should skip the temporal debates and focus directly on "Kingdom work." On the other hand, I firmly believe that the believer has a duty and obligation to engage in their world. We live in this tension of the now and the not yet. We must impact our world, even within the sphere of politics and governing. Richard John Neuhaus in First Things wrote about this issue on his blog. Neuhaus referred to A.D. Lindsay, author of The Modern Democratic State. Lindsay states:

The Christian always knew that he had two loyalties: that if he was to remember the Apostle’s command “to be subject unto the higher powers,” he was also to remember that his duty was “to obey God rather than man.” There are things which are Caesar’s and things which are God’s.

There is a wall separating our faith and government, guarding against theocracy. Although, it is important to remember that one's faith and those values that come through that belief cannot be removed from an individual- they are inextricably tied. It is important to remember as a religious person that there are things that are God's and things that belong to Caesar. Nationalism must not interfere with religious principles. Faith must not be overbearing on government. As a Christian, we have a duty and an obligation to recognize this dichotomy and act accordingly.

Nostalgia and Ideals

The issue of Ronald Reagan and his role in the Republican Party has made me think deeply about my affiliation and philsophy. My conclusion is that we must not be nostalgic, instead we must reinvigorate the narrative of the party. As a Republican, I believe we must retrace our roots and become a 21st Century party, not a retro 1980's one. Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels brought about several hushed gasps and raised eyebrows as he lectured a crowd that it was “time to let Ronald Reagan go.” During the GOP primary season Go. Daniels said:

“Nostalgia is fine and Reagan’s economic plan was good,” Daniels said. “But we need to look towards the future rather than staying in the past.” Daniels added that the GOP needed to work on uniting behind Sen. John McCain instead of constantly comparing the Arizona senator with the Gipper.

It is in my opinion that we must look to the past to move forward. To be conservative is to be cautious and draw from the examples that have gone before us, but we must resist the urge of nostalgia. We should not retreat to a nostalgic era for the love of a particular president (Reagan or Kennedy) or thinker, instead we must have progress. Looking back to the past and remaining conscientious of where we came from is important, but then we must press forward. While we are rooted in our past, we must grow positively as a nation and society. It was incredibly refreshing when I read this column by the Wall Street Journal about Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota. Part of the article stated:

While Mr. Pawlenty tiptoes around the Bush political legacy, he allows that the party's years in power left it with a "name brand a little damaged and out of fresh ideas." Merely retreating to Reagan nostalgia won't do. "I love Ronald Reagan," says Mr. Pawlenty, who at age 47 came of age during the Reagan years. "But we have to recognize that to voters younger than me he is an historical figure."

I ask him later what lessons he imbibed from Reagan. "He was proudly conservative," he replies, "but we sometimes forget he got things done as governor and president that represented compromises. If today you went to someone and outlined Reagan's record without using his name some conservatives would want to throw him out of the party. But he never wavered on core principles and he made the country a better and more conservative place."

Compromise. Principles. These two words can coincide in governing. The party must look at itself in the mirror and remove the corruption, inconsistencies and bad ideas that have tainted the original principles. We ought to return to the core principles of the Constitution and abide by them. Reagan did great things for the nation and he did some not so great things. Heroes are human beings and make mistakes. Something that should mark an American hero is the drive to make America great and to keep America safe. The GOP has some soul searching to do. Unfortunately, it might not be in time for November.

T-Shirts, tattoos and culture

I read an article at First Things by R. R. Reno and it reminded me of a t-shirt I once saw at the mall. A Gothic looking young man wore a shirt with the words across the chest reading: "You all laugh at me because I look different. I laugh at you because you all look the same." Ironically, later I saw that same shirt in the window of a trendy store in the mall.

I like to call this situation nonconforming conformity. Youth culture want to be different, but in all reality they are the same as those who want to be different. Rarely can a person be purely individualistic- there are always communities of individualists. We are social and political creatures by our very nature.

An example that furthers the point are tattoos. Tattoos are no longer reserved for "tough guys" but are socially acceptable for anyone. The author of the First Things article asked a younger friend of his about the phenomenon of tattoos. “Well,” she said, “I guess it’s just a way to express your individuality. Everybody’s doing it.” To be truly individualistic, you cannot answer that everybody is doing it. Whether one rebels against their conservative parents or leaves a church, there are others who eventually follow suit. Blue jeans and rock music became the social norm and carrying a non-Starbucks latte speaks loudly to indie crowds. To be anti-corporate while wearing a Che Guevara shirt is inherently an oxymoron.

Russia and the West (Part 2)

The United States has made a profound error in handling the current tension between Russia and the former Soviet satellites (Georgia and Poland). Of course, Poland has a right to pursue military cooperation with America and Ukraine can seek close ties with Western Europe, but the emotions of recent oppression can provoke the more aloof American diplomatic corps. There are three actions that the US ought to adopt. The US must support the integrity of the small, democratic state of Georgia. The US must oppose the aggression of Russia. The US must look at Russia's grievances with the former Eastern bloc and attempt to ratchet down the rhetoric between the factions. Russia is no longer the USSR, instead it is a nationalistic burgeoning country.

It is important to note that Georgia did provoke the fight that Russia longed for. Georgia invaded South Ossetia, seeking to bring the semi-autonomous region back under the control of Tbilisi. Russia was preparing for a possible attack and seized the moment like a starving bear (pardon the analogy). The US must include the perspectives of our old rival- to at least attempt to understand their point of view. The historical context and necessity of the situation demands it.

We must stop alienating the Russians and hand an olive branch to them. The two outcomes that will arise is we either end up with a friend or expose their ambitions.

----Update----

An excellent analysis of the reality of the recent Georgian-Russian conflict from Foreign Policy magazine

Georgia Without the Spin
It’s time for the West to realize that Mikheil Saakashvili is no saint and that Georgia is not quite an innocent victim.

Russia and the West

I feel as if the current administration is missing opportunities to foster better relations with Russia. Russia, of course, is aggressive and ambitious in its nationalistic goals. Within its historical context, Russia is trying to obtain esteem and international clout, something that was lost during the 1990's. The US diplomatic corps, led by Russian expert Secretary Rice, has been disappointing in regards to reaching out to their rival. Especially within the current Russian-Georgian war, historical context is essential. (For a detailed description of the recent conflict, see this LA Times article)

One of the great obstacles between the US and Russia is the proposed missile shield. The creation of the missile shield can be explored between the US and the Eastern European nations. However, that exploration is viewed by Russia as expansionistic and encroaching on the Russian sphere of influence. Historically, Russia sought to have a buffer between itself and its Western neighbors. Since the Russians view the missile bases (within close distance to its borders) as a threat and the US views the shield as a necessity, why not counteract that with signs of inclusion? Why not incorporate some of the territory of Russia's close neighbors into the system, even if it is more of a symbolic gesture?

Old rivalries and emotions are stirred up when new events occur. Conflict and passions flare up occasionally and the flames can begin to grow. As Gwynne Dyer (a London-based journalist) said in a recent column:

In those Eastern European countries that were so recently ruled from Moscow, the presence of Russian troops in Georgia has reawakened all the old fears. Poland hastily agreed last week to let the United States place anti-ballistic missile sites on its soil, on condition that there must also be a full-fledged U.S. military base in the country. Why? Because then, if Russia attacked Poland, the United States would automatically become involved.

Is NATO ready for a sustained conflict (hot or cold) with the resurgent Russian Bear? Hardly. Western Europe is uneasily content in the status quo while the Eastern European nations urge more confrontational approaches toward Russia. What can bridge the gap between the two opinions in Europe? Like most things, somewhere in between lies the solution. For this situation, historical context must be analyzed. The US is willing to confront the Russians in rhetoric but does not have the strategic "hard power" of military deterrents (thanks to two conflicts in Asia). President Reagan at least could talk firmly while carrying a large stick. President Bush, on the other hand, can only talk firmly since the military is stretched thin. With NATO split in terms of priorities and principles, the West can hardly act with a hammer. We ought to speak softly but firmly. Offer a compromise about the missile shield for Russia's promise to leave Georgia and to cool the rhetoric. It would call either expose their ambitions of resurgence or bring them into amiable ties with the West. It is certainly worth attempting.

All the sides within the European power structure have a story and arrive at the situation with tremendous amounts of baggage. We must view conflicts from another point of view and grasp motives. Without being relativistic, our reactions must be rooted in the truth that there are always points of views- good international relations depends upon that reality. It is time for diplomacy to take the upperhand. The US could be able to exit the standoff with some grace.

The Power of the Olympic Games

Games truly bring people together. Sporting events can bridge divides and can instill peace, even for a few moments. I believe that the big picture of the Olympics should be reached for, the dream of cooperation and common humanity ought to be sought and promoted.

World War I had some of the worst fighting in history, massive casualties ensued across Europe. However, even in the midst of carnage, Christmas Day bore witness to the common humanity on the Western Front. Central and Allied powers muted fighting for the day in one sector and came together. Ball games, feasting and laughter rang throughout the hellish landscape. In recent times, Cubans and Americans played against each other, the Koreans walked out together twice in the opening ceremonies of the Olympics. Georgia and Russia were fighting over a breakaway province thousands of miles away from Beijing, yet the two nations had athletes on the medal platform and competed in volleyball. While their armies were locked in conflict, the two athletes were embracing each other. For a few moments, belligerent nations were fellow humans and colleagues.

Of course, there were cases where Arab nations would not compete against an Israeli and boycotts trumped athletics. In this year's Beijing Olympics, North Korea refused to march behind South Korea. Competitive nations sometimes cannot be friendly on the court. Even with the negative examples, the positives outweigh the negatives by a wide margin.

The "Coming Together" of the world does not necessarily mean a New World Order. The realization of our common humanity and openness for dialogue is important. Of course there will be differences and hostilities. Post-nationalism will not occur this century. Its profound impact on nation-states will remain, but something that must grow is the understanding of others history. Cultural knowledge must come about and historical awareness must grow. Differences will continue, but striving to overcome can bring about incredible things. Just look back at Post-War Europe! France and Germany, once bitter enemies, are now friends. Sometimes the impossible is plausible.

Politics, Polarization and the Digital Age

My generation is cutting themselves off from the outside world, focusing more and more on a new artificial arena. Children focus more on computer gaming and television in ways that alienates themselves from the known natural wonders of previous generations. Although information technologies can truly do open up a world of storytelling and hand-thumb coordination. Information is everywhere and the ability to cultivate true wisdom is possible. Sadly, many do not take advantage of that chance. Some even become addicted to surfing the web.

The Internet is a wonderful tool for communication, but it can be used to balkanize opinion. Liberals live in a left leaning ghetto and conservatives frequent right leaning shantytowns. It is incredibly sad that a middle consensus cannot emerge. The polarization, I believe, will only get worse in the future. True knowledge is not pursued. The Right and Left must read books within their own ideologies. As a political person myself, I find it exceedingly easy to slip into the rut of blatant partisanship. But for the good of the Republic, we must learn to disagree without being disagreeable and debate ideas.

Second Life, World of Warcraft (WOW) and other Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games (MMORPG) have sucked in a good deal of people. People connect with others across the face of planet earth, yet neglect those next door. I have known people who communicate with their significant others through cyber space in WOW. Relationships arise through AIM, email and Facebook. We check in with our dear closest friends with "Hey, haven't heard from you in awhile. What's new?" Is that all we can afford? Creating a false sense of networking and reality is not the best course for relationships. It is time for "we the people" to reconnect with others. It is time for us to reestablish our roots in a community. It is time to think deep about critical issues and have awareness for the world around us, understanding that we are all interconnected.

Even though there are many people within my generation who revel in the fact that remaining ever a child is in vogue, there are a remnant that will not stand. Many participated in World Youth Day in Australia, as Catholic youth stood up as one. I certainly hope this begins to spread. It is okay to be countercultural and fight against the stereotypes of do nothing youth. My generation has a historic opportunity for dialogue and revolutionizing the way our society operates. I hope we seize the moment!

Excellent Satire

He ventured forth to bring light to the world

The anointed one's pilgrimage to the Holy Land is a miracle in action - and a blessing to all his faithful followers

Gerard Baker

And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness.

The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow.

When he was twelve years old, they found him in the temple in the City of Chicago, arguing the finer points of community organisation with the Prophet Jeremiah and the Elders. And the Elders were astonished at what they heard and said among themselves: “Verily, who is this Child that he opens our hearts and minds to the audacity of hope?”

In the great Battles of Caucus and Primary he smote the conniving Hillary, wife of the deposed King Bill the Priapic and their barbarian hordes of Working Class Whites.

And so it was, in the fullness of time, before the harvest month of the appointed year, the Child ventured forth - for the first time - to bring the light unto all the world.

He travelled fleet of foot and light of camel, with a small retinue that consisted only of his loyal disciples from the tribe of the Media. He ventured first to the land of the Hindu Kush, where the

Taleban had harboured the viper of al-Qaeda in their bosom, raining terror on all the world.

And the Child spake and the tribes of Nato immediately loosed the Caveats that had previously bound them. And in the great battle that ensued the forces of the light were triumphant. For as long as the Child stood with his arms raised aloft, the enemy suffered great blows and the threat of terror was no more.

From there he went forth to Mesopotamia where he was received by the great ruler al-Maliki, and al-Maliki spake unto him and blessed his Sixteen Month Troop Withdrawal Plan even as the imperial warrior Petraeus tried to destroy it.

And lo, in Mesopotamia, a miracle occurred. Even though the Great Surge of Armour that the evil Bush had ordered had been a terrible mistake, a waste of vital military resources and doomed to end in disaster, the Child's very presence suddenly brought forth a great victory for the forces of the light.

And the Persians, who saw all this and were greatly fearful, longed to speak with the Child and saw that the Child was the bringer of peace. At the mention of his name they quickly laid aside their intrigues and beat their uranium swords into civil nuclear energy ploughshares.

From there the Child went up to the city of Jerusalem, and entered through the gate seated on an ass. The crowds of network anchors who had followed him from afar cheered “Hosanna” and waved great palm fronds and strewed them at his feet.

In Jerusalem and in surrounding Palestine, the Child spake to the Hebrews and the Arabs, as the Scripture had foretold. And in an instant, the lion lay down with the lamb, and the Israelites and Ishmaelites ended their long enmity and lived for ever after in peace.

As word spread throughout the land about the Child's wondrous works, peoples from all over flocked to hear him; Hittites and Abbasids; Obamacons and McCainiacs; Cameroonians and Blairites.

And they told of strange and wondrous things that greeted the news of the Child's journey. Around the world, global temperatures began to decline, and the ocean levels fell and the great warming was over.

The Great Prophet Algore of Nobel and Oscar, who many had believed was the anointed one, smiled and told his followers that the Child was the one generations had been waiting for.

And there were other wonderful signs. In the city of the Street at the Wall, spreads on interbank interest rates dropped like manna from Heaven and rates on credit default swaps fell to the ground as dead birds from the almond tree, and the people who had lived in foreclosure were able to borrow again.

Black gold gushed from the ground at prices well below $140 per barrel. In hospitals across the land the sick were cured even though they were uninsured. And all because the Child had pronounced it.

And this is the testimony of one who speaks the truth and bears witness to the truth so that you might believe. And he knows it is the truth for he saw it all on CNN and the BBC and in the pages of The New York Times.

Then the Child ventured forth from Israel and Palestine and stepped onto the shores of the Old Continent. In the land of Queen Angela of Merkel, vast multitudes gathered to hear his voice, and he preached to them at length.

But when he had finished speaking his disciples told him the crowd was hungry, for they had had nothing to eat all the hours they had waited for him.

And so the Child told his disciples to fetch some food but all they had was five loaves and a couple of frankfurters. So he took the bread and the frankfurters and blessed them and told his disciples to feed the multitudes. And when all had eaten their fill, the scraps filled twelve baskets.

Thence he travelled west to Mount Sarkozy. Even the beauteous Princess Carla of the tribe of the Bruni was struck by awe and she was great in love with the Child, but he was tempted not.

On the Seventh Day he walked across the Channel of the Angles to the ancient land of the hooligans. There he was welcomed with open arms by the once great prophet Blair and his successor, Gordon the Leper, and his successor, David the Golden One.

And suddenly, with the men appeared the archangel Gabriel and the whole host of the heavenly choir, ranks of cherubim and seraphim, all praising God and singing: “Yes, We Can.”

Competent Turks

Many speculations have begun in regards to the selection of the vice president. Mitt Romney has been rumored as an occupant of the coveted VP short-list. However, evangelicals balked at the inclusion of the former governor of Massachusetts. Foxnews reported:

“McCain and Romney would be like oil and water,” evangelical novelist and Huckabee supporter Tim LaHaye was quoted telling the Times. “We aren’t against Mormonism, but Romney is not a thoroughgoing evangelical and his flip-flopping on issues is understandable in a liberal state like Massachusetts, but our people won’t understand that.”

It is extremely sad and disheartening when I read and hear the words of many evangelicals who disagree with a person's religion. It is not a thoughtful critique of their belief but is a knee jerk reaction that hampers their own faith. One can disagree vehemently with Mitt Romney's religion but can vote for him based upon his stances on issues. What does the phrase from LaHaye even mean? "Our people won't understand that." It is very disturbing when that can be a valid excuse.

Gov. Romney's faith is the major factor stopping some prominent pastors, as argued in a recent Washington Times article. Although there is a prohibition for a religious litmus test within the Constitution, many evangelicals take a dogmatic approach. As an evangelical Protestant, I must draw the example from Martin Luther when it comes to governments and religions. He said he would rather be ruled by a competent Turk than an incompetent Christian. Faith and politics can mix, but ultimately government is about ruling effectively and justly. Sometimes the most evangelical of Christians might rule more ineffectively than a competent Turk.

Idealistic America

NRO's The Corner had an interesting post in regards to Sen. Obama's appeals towards American ideals. Michael Novak said,

The Berlin speech also explains why Obama is more likely to praise an “ideal” America than the real America. He is bewitched by abstractions and lofty ideals. That is how he touches the secret chords of the heart of so many millions, the teenage romanticism of a world without different real interests, without the clashes of culture, the force of political arguments about who gets what, when, and how.

Now this commentary has some merit to it; after all, the senator often times does point to idealistic America. In my assessment, there is nothing wrong with pointing back to the revolutionary ideals of the Founders. These ideals can help ground us in reality and push us forward, striving for those goals. Martin Luther King stood upon the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and called for the people of the United States to look back to the founding. In that sense, both Sen. Obama and Dr. King are inherently conservative.

I know that this is not a common way of viewing the flag pin debacle or the Berlin speech. Wearing the flag pin shows that you love this country, actions no longer count. The yellow ribbon on the back of the SUV or a sticker on your Prius that states, "I Support the Troops But Not My President" passes for patriotism. Symbols and rhetoric outweigh legitimate action. It is an utter shame that ideologues on both sides of the partisan divide attempt to dilute the national conversation and do not raise the level of discourse. Sound logic and debate is patriotism, not empty speeches and talking points.

Ignorance Is NOT Bliss

Sen. Barack Obama is attracting a wide, diverse audience of young people. He speaks to the very heart of the youth, touching the core beliefs of the digital generation. His soundbites fit well within the confines of YouTube and text messages. Sen. Obama is seeking to capitalize on this new generation, empowering them with rhetoric and hope.

I do not believe that Sen. Obama is entirely empty nor do I think that he is dim. I think that he is incredibly bright and capable. His tactics are capitalizing upon the realities of my generation. It is immensely post-literate. It is one that aspires to quick information and Wikipedia knowledge. It is rather absurd that his generation has incredible tools for success and change yet does not take advantage of them.

I wish that the youth can regain and realize the importance of knowledge and wisdom. The ability to think critically and in depth is so necessary to a vibrant and functioning democracy. As Thomas Jefferson once said, "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." We must analyze those in powers and be critical of them, for only then will we be living by the Founders desires. We must be willing to look at the issues from different points of references, and that is often done through the power of the written word.

Computer screens and the Internet directs us to be more concise and to speed up our information gathering. I am not a Luddite when it comes to electronics. What I want to see limited is the way that people gather information from reading brief headlines or receiving talking points directly from a partisan blogger. It is important to gather strong opinions, but not directly from one side. We must remain ever vigilant in our democracy and fight for our Western rights. It is time to grow up America and start thinking critically.

Equality and equations.

I watched Senator Obama's rockstar speech yesterday. He called forth the proud German people to fight against intolerance and poverty. The last two brilliant speakers in Berlin mentioned the forces that the United States was up against. The Soviet Union was evil. Kennedy and Reagan understood that there was evil in the world. Sen. Obama seems to believe that intolerance and poverty are the true culprits of an unjust world. Intolerance can be a vehicle for evil and poverty can provoke evil, but evil is ultimately the thing that just people must fight against.

To say that the European people (as a whole) are waging war against Islamofascism is rather problematic. The front line of terror, as outlined by Sen. Obama, is in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is the place that al-Qaeda and the Taliban are making their stand against the forces of freedom. As a military excursion by NATO, the full force of the West should be upon our enemies. However, only a handful of nations are in active combat roles. Germany does not engage, unless in self defense. At our present condition, Canadian forces are threatening to pull out of combat missions if there are no additional forces sent to the region. France, under President Sarkozy, could send additional troops to support the operation.

I applaud those nations that are fighting actively against evil. I implore our Western friends who are not actively confront evil to begin. Stand up against tyranny everywhere, foreign and domestic. I beg the governments that proclaim and instill liberty to live up to their ideals and stand with the oppressed. People of the West, stand as one!

Independence!

Faith and Reason

Christianity doesn't necessarily warrant the dissolution of religion and science. Faith and reason can move hand in hand, choosing to focus on specific areas and merging together in unison. Ultimately, it is God, the Creator of all things, that has endowed us with the ability to think, laugh and create. Purpose and human rights have evolved through the fact that there are absolutes in the world. Without a Divine Being, morality is merely cultural. Morality is something that is socially constructed and can conversely be deconstructed.

Christianity does not necessarily hamper logic or reason. Instead, it built the fundamental basis for Western thought and liberty. Christian theology and allowance of reason and free thought helped cultivate the Greco-Roman philosophies. As Kevin Schmiesing, PH.D. would state in an article:

Christianity’s impact on civilization has occupied some of history’s greatest minds, who have both reflected and influenced their respective zeitgeists. Augustine defended the followers of Christ against the accusation that they were to blame for the decline of the Roman Empire; fourteen centuries later British historian Edward Gibbon revived the charge, giving voice to his age’s skepticism toward revealed religion.

Another and better informed English historian, Lord Acton, addressed the problem in the late nineteenth century. The result, The History of Freedom in Christianity, was a masterpiece of historical summary, distilling almost two thousand years into a single story of the gradual unfolding of human liberty. Acton reversed the Enlightenment narrative that he had inherited. The rise of Christianity did not smother the flame of liberty burning brightly in Greece and Rome only to be rekindled as medieval superstition gave way to the benevolent reason of Voltaire, Hume, and Kant. Instead, Christianity took the embers of freedom, flickering dimly in an ancient world characterized by the domination of the weak by the strong, and—slowly and haltingly—fanned it into a blaze that emancipated humanity from its bonds, internal and external.

Christianity did not stifle ideas, it gave them context and allowed them to flourish. Traditional Liberalism ought to give all points of views the freedom to be debated. Although there have been awful points in the history of the faith that bigotry rears its ugly head- freedom of thought and growth have been a hallmark of Christian lands. Inquisitions and Crusades have not been the overwhelming norm. Let us not forget that Renaissance and Enlightenment Europe came about through Catholic and Protestant lands.

Faith and reason can coexist. It is reason that cannot exist apart from faith. Without an absolute anything that someone says can be disputed and nullified. Men and women are not created equal, because we are all descendants of luck and chance. Moral relativism is inherently contradictory.

(Rodney Stark's Victory of Reason furthers this point.)