Fides et Ratio: Thinking it through

Moving on...

2010-03-30T18:00:00.000-07:00

I wanted to let everyone know that I have moved my blog to another website. If you are interested in reading my theologically driven posts, please visit my new blog, Always Reforming. (http://jdriley.wordpress.com/) Add it to your RSS feed or subscribe by email, posts are updated weekly.

Hope to see you there!

Thoughts on ‘Avatar’

2010-01-21T18:00:00.000-08:00

As mentioned in many blogs, articles and Facebook status updates, 'Avatar' was a film that lived up to the hype on the technological side. The visuals were stunning and the technology truly put you on the ground of the extraterrestrial planet called Pandora. While there were certainly blatant and subtle political themes that were interwoven into the plot line, there was also one concept that I thought was very beautiful. Racism, anti-military, anti-colonialism, and hyper-environmentalism have all been listed as possible themes for the film, but I would like to take a second look at the majestic planet in light of the Christian doctrine of the resurrection.
To start off with, our planet is not too shabby. While some moviegoers were depressed with the inability to live on the planet of Pandora, I do not find myself depressed, instead I am encouraged. Encouraged because this planet is incredibly beautiful and is full of majesty in the most unlikely of places. Encouraged because this planet is not operating at its peak level, since it is under the bondage of sin that humanity brought into this world. Encouraged that the cosmos will be corrected when evil has been supplanted. Paul writes in Romans 8 to give assurance,

For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. (8:20-22)

It was the entrance of sin that subjected the universe into disarray. It is through redemption that everything from a slug to an asteroid will be rectified. The universe is not the only thing that has a promise. Paul takes this idea another step further and writes,

And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience. (8:23-25)

I do not believe that Cameron attempted to portray this insight into the film, but it truly was a remarkable thing to think about. To think that our planet will be righted. And that is encouraging.

The Shepherds

2009-12-24T18:00:00.000-08:00

The First Noel, the Angels did say

Was to certain poor shepherds in fields as they lay

In fields where they lay keeping their sheep

On a cold winter's night that was so deep.

Noel, Noel, Noel, Noel

Born is the King of Israel!

What did the shepherds think after being prompted to this stable by angels? What did they think as they left their flock and came to this town to see a scandalous situation? I wonder what the shepherds thought when they left the manger, don't you?

Hail the heav'n-born Prince of Peace!
Hail the Son of Righteousness!
Light and life to all He brings
Ris'n with healing in His wings
Mild He lays His glory by
Born that man no more may die
Born to raise the sons of earth
Born to give them second birth
Hark! The herald angels sing
"Glory to the newborn King!"

All Hail! Lord, we greet Thee,

Born this happy morning,

O Jesus! for evermore be Thy name adored.

Word of the Father, now in flesh appearing;

O come, let us adore Him,

Christ the Lord.

Cloaked in humility, God became man and entered into this world through birth amidst the hay and filth of a stable. The first to adore Him were the shepherds, lonely out in the field. What an entrance!

Then let us all with one accord
Sing praises to our heavenly Lord
That hath made Heaven and earth of nought
And with his blood mankind has bought.
Noel, Noel, Noel, Noel
Born is the King of Israel!

Christmas Lyrics

2009-12-17T18:00:00.000-08:00

Underneath the familiar tunes, Christmas songs and hymns can have incredibly powerful lyrics. That is one reason why I enjoy the Advent season, and this song captures the season quite well.

Take advantage of purposeful quiet times amidst this chaotic time of year.

______________________

Good King Wenceslas looked out
On the feast of Stephen
When the snow lay round about
Deep and crisp and even
Brightly shone the moon that night
Though the frost was cruel
When a poor man came in sight
Gath'ring winter fuel

"Hither, page, and stand by me
If thou know'st it, telling
Yonder peasant, who is he?
Where and what his dwelling?"
"Sire, he lives a good league hence
Underneath the mountain
Right against the forest fence
By Saint Agnes' fountain."

"Bring me flesh and bring me wine
Bring me pine logs hither
Thou and I will see him dine
When we bear him thither."
Page and monarch forth they went
Forth they went together
Through the rude wind's wild lament
And the bitter weather

"Sire, the night is darker now
And the wind blows stronger
Fails my heart, I know not how,
I can go no longer."
"Mark my footsteps, my good page
Tread thou in them boldly
Thou shalt find the winter's rage
Freeze thy blood less coldly."

In his master's steps he trod
Where the snow lay dinted
Heat was in the very sod
Which the Saint had printed
Therefore, Christian men, be sure
Wealth or rank possessing
Ye who now will bless the poor
Shall yourselves find blessing

The First Noël

2009-12-10T18:00:00.000-08:00

Then let us all with one accord

Sing praises to our heavenly Lord

That hath made heaven and earth of naught,

And with his blood mankind hath bought

Noel, Noel, Noel, Noel,

Born is the King of Israel.

It is an interesting thing to think about, that a theology is built upon the concept that an all-powerful Being humbled Himself and became a human child. Traditional religions of the Mediterranean region related that a deity was capricious, cruel and whimsical. The Greco-Roman gods would act out of their own interests, often times instigating human conflict for their own amusement. Christian theology would paint another picture, that the Divine took on the flesh of humanity, born to an insignificant family, in an insignificant region, dominated by a powerful foreign military. This is the way the Logos (Jesus), the second person of the Trinity, would be revealed. The incarnation truly is an amazing, impossible thing!

"The virgin birth proves that God doesn't need us, but he does chose us." - Rich Kannwischer

(Eastern Orthodox Icon of the Nativity. This creation can be explained here)

The Dawning of the Divine

2009-12-03T18:00:00.000-08:00

Light of lights! All gloom dispelling,

Thou didst come to make thy dwelling

Here within our world of sight.

Lord, in pity and in power,

Thou didst in our darkest hour

Rend the clouds and show thy light.

Praise to thee in earth and heaven

Now and evermore be given,

Christ, who art our sun and shield.

Lord, for us thy life thou gavest,

Those who trust in thee thou savest,

All thy mercy stand revealed.

St Thomas Aquinas

The God of the Universe humbled Himself to develop in the womb of a lowly maiden. Amazing. Simply amazing.

The Glory of Me

2009-11-25T18:00:00.000-08:00

I found this post on The White Horse Inn website and thought it was so clever. It is a very pointed criticism of modern Christianity and its emphasis on M-E. Instead of the belief that it's not about you, we are told it is entirely about you, 100% raw individualism. Jesus is your best friend and has a picture of you on his iPhone. While that is certainly true, Jesus does love you, the fact of the matter is is that He is more than that. He is not a therapy coach or Dr. Phil, He came here to set the entire universe right. He came here to bring the cosmos into balance, which also includes you. He came here to bring wholeness to all of the world, both in terms of animate and inanimate object. That is what the resurrection is about, it is about bringing new life.

So to reiterate, it is not about you or me. He wants to bring you into a sweeping narrative of redemption that includes setting humanity right. I am thankful for the reminder that it is not about me, but about being made whole within God's unfolding story.

Life with Emotion

2009-11-05T18:00:00.000-08:00

I was watching the movie Equilibrium the other night and was struck by the beauty of life. This beauty I pass by on a daily basis, neglecting the majesty and mundane things of life. I do not stop and look at the remarkable mountains that border the county. I do not take advantage of gazing into the deep, blue sea, staring out into the horizon. How often do I walk through the majestic groves of trees or contemplate the absolute beauty of a small flower? Not nearly often enough.

What would it be like without emotion? What would it be like to live without laughter, anger, love, hatred or shame? It would be hell. To have no feeling as Barber’s Adagio for Strings is playing? To not have feelings towards a Monet painting or a Michelangelo sculpture? To have no emotion would be an awful way to live. If I should have another day, it would best be spent in constant amazement of little things, like the chirping of the birds and the brilliance of the sun.

I am fortunate to be greeted almost every morning by a hummingbird. She flaps her wings and hovers by a bush, and all I can do is smile. Smile that God blessed me with little objects and acts. Small beautiful gifts that remind me that one day things will be made right. One day things will be rectified.

Magnificent

2009-10-29T18:00:00.000-07:00

I have been captivated by U2's song Magnificent for awhile now. I have tried to discover why I relate to the lyrics and have a new theory. I think the reason why the lyrics capture me is the constant cry for something beyond myself, a cry for something more than my own self absorbed life. It plugs me into something greater, "I was born I was born to be with you." (Or as St Augustine would say, "Our hearts are restless until they rest in you.") This song prompts me to connect to a story, a story that infuses me with purpose and vision, a story that comes from the Magnificent. What lyric has captured your attention these days?

Magnificent
Magnificent

I was born
I was born to be with you
In this space and time
After that and ever after I haven't had a clue
Only to break rhyme
This foolishness can leave a heart black and blue

Only love, only love can leave such a mark
But only love, only love can heal such a scar

I was born
I was born to sing for you
I didn’t have a choice but to lift you up
And sing whatever song you wanted me to
I give you back my voice
From the womb my first cry, it was a joyful noise…

Only love, only love can leave such a mark
But only love, only love can heal such a scar

Justified till we die, you and I will magnify
The Magnificent
Magnificent

Only love, only love can leave such a mark
But only love, only love unites our hearts

Justified till we die, you and I will magnify
The Magnificent
Magnificent
Magnificent

Surprised by Hope

2009-09-24T18:00:00.000-07:00

I recently discovered N.T. Wright and have just finished his book 'Surprised by Hope'. His ideas are so basic and yet so profound that I have been reminded about truths that I have overlooked. We as a society have been so influenced by Greek philosophy that even Evangelicals mix-up the theology of Paul with the philosophy of Plato.

I highly recommend you buy the book and slowly read through it with a deliberative, open heart. If you do not want to purchase the book, whet your appetite with this article from ABC. I also found this video of Bishop Wright on 'The Colbert Report' (I know, I know) and thought he did an excellent job of explaining the premise of the book to Mr. Colbert.

So many thoughts

2009-09-17T18:00:00.000-07:00

I wish that I could recount in this space what I have been discovering in the past few months. I am documenting constant revelations in my trusted Moleskine, and as I thumb through the worn pages I cannot help but smile. I feel as if large blocks of grand skyline have been torn down inside my mind, crumbling ruins surround me. Dilapidated skyscrapers that once held prominent ideas and concepts from my youth, ideas of politics and theology, concepts of relationships and presuppositions, all have been destroyed. These things have always been a part of me, until now.

I have taken a shovel to a mental hill and an axe to my former thoughts. Ruins are great, if they are then cleaned up and planted with something else. Small seeds will be scattered and sown in the once foreboding tangle of thorns that was in my mind. I hope that those ideas will be rooted in the resurrection and in the Kingdom. If they are not, then all the pain has been for naught!

All I know is that amidst the glorious wreck of my theological and political identity I can smile, because it is glorious ruin.

----
See, Surprised by Hope for more iconoclastic ideas

Origins of Moral Value

2009-07-23T18:00:00.000-07:00

I stumbled upon this question on a website and was stunned by the findings:

Q. What is the ultimate origin of moral value?

Final Results
200 user(s) polled.

1. God 17.5%
2. Nature 23%

3. Culture 38%

4. Other 21.5%

The reason that I found this astounding is because of the implications of this are so profound. The ultimate origin of moral value was seen by 38% of those polled to be culture. All cultures, regardless of their values, are equal. The cultures promoting peace are the same as those promoting imperialism. Slavery and abolition are of the same essence, since after all, moral value (albeit separate moral values and separate ends) were derived from their culture. Who am I to say that one is right and one is wrong? Who am I to say that Communism is inferior to a republican form of government? Both derived their own moral value from their respective cultures.

Secondly, all moral value could come from nature. That means the natural order of things (read, Darwinian evolutionary theory) comes from "progress" and domination. I look around and nature says that the strongest survive. Social Darwinism and Eugenics surely follow closely behind on the heels of this theory.

Thirdly, other is the origin of all moral value. What could 'other' mean? Perhaps it means from extraterrestrials? It could mean it is derived from the automobile? Seriously though, what other possibilities could there be? Other is just an out for people who are too timid to say what's on their mind.

Finally, the ultimate origin of moral value could come from God. One of the reasons from my Top 10 list "Why I believe in God" would have to be that if there is no God, then there are no rights. Where would our rights to liberty come from? If they came from culture, then culture can change those original assumptions. As a theist, I firmly fall in this camp. There are absolutes in this world (besides, to say that there is no absolute laws in the world is itself absolute...). There is Truth in this world. There is a reason for living in this world. This came in the form of the Word becoming incarnate. Quite honestly, I don't know how else moral values can come into this world except through that pathway.

I am still in complete shock by the winner of the poll. We are talking about the ultimate origin of all moral value coming from cultures, regardless of their stance. Yet, why should this outcome surprise me?

Lessons from Machiavelli and Ferris Bueller

2009-07-09T18:00:00.000-07:00

Recently I have tried to start digging into the classics of the Western World. Reading through a few of the great authors of Europe, I have realized certain themes and ideas that permeate our modern society. However, I do not want to bore you with those concepts here (at least for today's post). Instead, I want to challenge you with a picture from the great political thinker Niccolò Machiavelli's life. Machiavelli loved Florence and the political scene within its walls. However, he was forced out of that beloved atmosphere and he chose a life of exile at his family's farm. The farm, within view of the dome of the cathedral, was the place that he spent a portion of his life, taking up chores and tasks around the property. In the mundane nature of manual labor (I'm not blasting manual labor, I love Mike Rowe and Dirty Jobs!), this political thinker used that time to his advantage. Machiavelli mused on the political atmosphere during the day and studied his books in the evening. He wrote, thought, and immersed himself in the political realities of the day even though his situation was less than ideal for him.

The period of Machiavelli's life reminded me about the necessity to live wholly during the seasons of your life, even if they are tough. I once heard a sermon about the nature of humanity to perpetually want the next best thing in life. As a child you will want to go to high school, then you will want to attend college, then you will want to date someone, then you will want to be married, then you will want to have kids, then you will want the kids to move out, then you will want grandkids, then you will want retirement. Unfortunately, by the time you have retired, you will then realize that you want to be a kid again! Besides the fact that this is entirely exhausting, this lifestyle misses the entire point of life. Even during the season of want and plenty, we ought to enjoy those times and take advantage of the unique opportunities that they afford. Even in the darkest storm, there could be a small sliver of opportunity for your growth. Perhaps this current season of your life has provided you a chance to perform that goal. Even though Machiavelli wanted to be in the bustle of Florence, he took advantage of the quiet evenings to expand his knowledge. Even though you look forward to the next step in life, you should take advantage of life right now. All we have is this season, who can ever tell what next month will bring?

In the wise words of Ferris Bueller, "Life moves pretty fast. You don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it." Seasons of our lives provide times to grow and it is incredibly easy to miss it. Keep your eyes open and enjoy each season of your life.

Real Sex

2009-07-02T18:00:00.000-07:00

I was speaking with a friend the other day about a book that I recently read called Real Sex. The book talks about sexuality and the non-Gnostic view that Christianity should take towards it. It affirmed our sexuality while simultaneously tying our physical bodies into a higher calling. During the conversation, I mentioned how the book spoke about reality instead of the fake illusion of sexuality that is peddled to us. Ironically, there is a show by the same name on HBO that promotes their depictions as Real Sex. This prompts me towards today's question. What is real sex? Is it the sex that is outlined in the book or in the show?

I am not going to give my opinion, all I want to do is provoke you to thought and a period of reflection on this important part of humanity.

Natan Sharansky's take on Iranian Protests

2009-06-25T18:00:00.000-07:00

Below is an excellent column from Natan Sharansky in the LA Times. Sharanksy is a former Soviet dissident and respected thinker (at least by me). As a former dissident, Sharansky analyzed the brewing protests in Iran and what it could mean for that country.

The prescience of protest

The West should listen to the dissidents in Iran craving freedom -- they can feel the future.

By Natan Sharansky

Once again, the world is amazed. As with the seemingly sudden appearance of the Solidarity movement in Poland in the 1980s, or the gaudy, grand-scale collapse of the Soviet empire at the end of that decade, the massive revolt of Iranian citizens has elicited the unmitigated surprise of the free world's army of experts, pundits and commentators. Who would have known? Who could have predicted this eruption of protest in a system so highly repressed, where a generally quiescent populace lives under such a deeply entrenched revolutionary regime?

And yet, just as in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, there were those in Iran who did know all along, who foresaw and even foretold today's events. These were Iran's democratic dissidents, some at home, some in exile, some having served long sentences in Iranian prisons or on their way to those prisons right now.

At various Western conferences and forums in recent years, some of these dissidents even succeeded in gaining the ear of leaders of the free world. They were greeted with sincere expressions of sympathy and support -- but also with silent skepticism. Surely their assessments of the Iranian situation were unreliable at best. Heroic they undoubtedly were, but objective? After all, they lacked access to classified information, to satellite photography and the other tools of modern intelligence-gathering. They could not see the whole picture.

Now it turns out that, like their predecessors in the Soviet Union, they were right.

How is it that dissidents rotting in the gulag were able to predict, many years earlier, not only when but how the Soviet Union would collapse -- something that escaped all the world's scholars and intelligence agencies alike? Andrei Amalrik's book, "Will the Soviet Union Survive Until 1984?," published underground in 1969, is only one of many examples of such predictions. How did the experts miss it? The reason is simple.

Every totalitarian society consists of three groups: true believers, double-thinkers and dissidents. In every totalitarian regime, no matter its cultural or geographical circumstances, the majority undergo a conversion over time from true belief in the revolutionary message into double-thinking. They no longer believe in the regime but are too scared to say so. Then there are the dissidents -- pioneers who dare to cross the line between double-thinking and everything that lies on the other side. In doing so, they first internalize, then articulate and finally act on the innermost feelings of the nation.

People in free societies watching massive military parades or vociferous displays of love for the leaders of totalitarian regimes often conclude, "Well, that's their mentality; there's nothing we can do about it." Thus they and their leaders miss what is readily grasped by local dissidents attuned to what is happening on the ground: the spectacle of a nation of double-thinkers slowly or rapidly approaching a condition of open dissent.

To see the telltale signs, sometimes it helps to have experienced totalitarianism firsthand. More than once in recent years, former Soviet citizens returning from a visit to Iran have told me how much Iranian society reminded them of the final stages of Soviet communism. Their testimony was what persuaded me to write almost five years ago that Iran was extraordinary for the speed with which, in the span of a single generation, a citizenry had made the transition from true belief in the revolutionary promise into disaffection and double-thinking. Could dissent be far behind?

This suggests another notable fact about present-day Iran. In Moscow in the 1970s, demonstrations organized by dissidents in an effort to attract the world's attention would often consist of no more than five to 10 individuals. Otherwise, the KGB would find out about the demonstrations in advance. They would last no more than five minutes. That was the longest we could last before the KGB would come, arrest us and ship the less fortunate to Siberia. Our main objective was to make certain that at least one foreign journalist was present so that, the next day, at least one Western news source would come out with a story that could in turn elicit a chain reaction of more and greater press attention and, we hoped, a vocal Western response.

This week, there were hundreds of thousands on the streets of Tehran, with the entire world following them in real time. My assistant, sitting in Jerusalem, received daily updates on Facebook from two dozen Iranian friends before they set out to demonstrate and again on their return. One can only hope that, in the White House and at 10 Downing Street, the leaders of the free world are as well connected as my assistant.

But will those leaders act? With all their sympathy for peoples striving for freedom, Western governments are fearful of imperiling actual or hoped-for relations with the world's ayatollahs, generals, general secretaries and other types of dictators -- partners, so it is thought, in maintaining political stability. But this is a fallacy. Democracy's allies in the struggle for peace and security are the demonstrators in the streets of Tehran who, with consummate bravery, have crossed the line between the world of double-think and the world of free men and women.

Listen to them, and you will hear nothing more, and nothing less, than what you your- self know to be the true hope of every human being on Earth. Listen to them and you may be amazed, but you will never again be surprised.

Natan Sharansky spent nine years in the Soviet gulag. He is chairman of the Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies of the Shalem Center in Jerusalem.

On Fire

2009-06-11T18:00:00.000-07:00

Have you ever had a song weigh heavily upon your heart? For the past couple of weeks this amazing song by Switchfoot has been on my heart, especially the theme of longing for something more. The Beautiful Letdown album is so powerful and the theme of purpose constantly weaves itself throughout the songs. The notion of belonging to something better than this world is so incredible and 'On Fire' captures that poignantly. What song captures your heart's longing?

(If you have time, watch this song live in concert on YouTube)

On Fire

Tell you where you need to go
Tell you when you need to leave
Tell you what you need to know
Tell you who you need to be

Everything inside you knows there's more than what you've heard
So much more than empty conversation filled with empty words

And you're on fire when He's near you
You're on fire when He speaks
You're on fire, burning at these mysteries

Give me one more time around
Give me one more chance to see
Give me everything You are
Give me one more chance to be

Everything inside me looks like everything I hate
You are the hope I have for change, You are the only chance I'll take

When I'm on fire when You're near me
I'm on fire when You speak
I'm on fire burning at these mysteries
These mysteries

I've been standing on the edge of me
standing on the edge of me
standing on the edge of me
standing on the edge of me
standing on the edge of everything I've never been before
And I've been standing on the edge of me
standing on the edge

And I'm on fire when You're near me
I'm on fire when You speak
I'm on fire burning at these mysteries

The Folly of Philosophy

2009-05-28T18:00:00.000-07:00

CS Lewis' The Great Divorce presents a very unique tale about the afterlife. It is one that is told in a refreshingly new way, dispelling the preconceptions that 21st Century humanity often bring to the table. Harps, clouds, flames, and pitchforks aside, Lewis brings something different to the theological subject. He highlights and personifies the things that so often hinder people from capturing the purpose of human existence. The plight of humanity can be addressed and remedied, and Lewis offers this hope within his writings. The personifications within this book can hopefully free you and I from the pitfalls of life (and I hope you read this short, hard-hitting story). Wherever you find yourself on the journey of life, know that there is hope for better days.

Lewis has an especially interesting character that speaks to me. As someone who enjoys philosophy and ideological debates, I can say with certainty that arguing can be fun. Debating ideas and jousting ideologies can be very stimulating, but ideas are also very dangerous. Ideas change the world and can inspire good or evil. The character in chapter five of The Great Divorce is a man who falls into this philosophical category. A solid person (read: a citizen of the bright, solid world) meets a friend from his former life who is nothing but a shadowy ghost (read: a citizen of the gray lands). The ghost came to this idyllic Eden on a trip and meets his friend and begins to converse. Towards the end of the conversation came an interesting exchange:

'Listen!' said the White Spirit (The solid person). 'Once you were a child. Once you knew what inquiry was for. There was a time when you asked questions because you wanted answers, and were glad when you had found them. Become that child again: even now.'

'Ah, but when I became a man I put away childish things.' (replied the ghost)

'You have gone far wrong. Thirst was made for water; inquiry for truth. What you now call the free play of inquiry has neither more nor less to do with the ends for which intelligence was given you than masturbation has to do with marriage.'

Inquiry was made for truth. What a stunning statement to be made in a postmodern world! There is truth in the world and there is a necessity to find that truth. Not truths or a devout, honest opinion that this ghost would propose in The Great Divorce. Philosophy and theology has an ultimate goal. Philosophizing for the sake of philosophizing should not occur. Philosophizing for the pursuit of truth and clarity, that is the proper vehicle. (The ghost, funny enough, was an Episcopal minister. He boldly denied the Resurrection and even organized a theological paper presentation!) Philosophy is a great subject and vehicle of pursuit. But that search must always be towards truth and clarity. And yes, that is my devout, honest opinion.

----
Kingdom Talk series

Problems of Democracy

2009-05-07T18:00:00.000-07:00

Democracy is an incredibly difficult form of government to have. Throughout the years I have come to certain conclusions about this "least worst" form of government. Two topics that I have been thinking about are transparency and growth. Below are my thoughts about these topics. As always, let me know what you think!

Transparency is a hallmark of a good government and often times it requires that the government release potentially embarrassing items. The Obama Administration recently released memos and photos about the acts of "enhanced interrogation methods" and they will probably have more documents released in the future. I am of the opinion that a transparent and accountable government requires that, even though it might produce a backlash among Middle Eastern countries. The stains and dirty laundry of our past ought to be revealed, debated and examined. In addition to the memos, the outcome of the interrogations should also be fully revealed (within reason, not all of the intelligence can be fully revealed only a few years after the fact). The American people should be informed to an extent. Sadly, the hyper partisan nature of political debates and the constant barrage of infotainment journalism on the cable news channels will not provide a true quiet place to think, deliberate and decide on the proper course of action for our country.

______________________

Another issue that democracy encounters is in regards to growth and the ability to compete with authoritarian regimes. Fareed Zakaria's book "The Post-American World" shows that democratic India has many more hurdles in the way of it and economically flourishing than the authoritarian China. China can build large projects to advance growth with limited opposition in a short period of time. India has such a diverse and democratic system that there is bound to be several roadblocks to complete modernization. Stability produces (and needs) a slow, conservative growth pattern. China can and does grow quickly, but it does not cause a true societal transformation. India is being made by its diverse, vibrant society with the private sector causing a good chunk of the growth (Does this sound familiar?). Ultimately, the societal makeup of a country needs to drive the state, not the state driving society.

A Question for You

2009-04-23T18:00:00.000-07:00

Lately, I have been wrestling with the concept of the Kingdom of God. What does this mean term even mean? This subject has haunted me like no other!

Thy kingdom come, thy will be done.

What is so important about this Kingdom and what are the implications for people here on earth? I will explore this topic in several upcoming posts, but as I try to grapple with this subject, I wanted to initially ask your opinion. What do you think about the Kingdom of God? What are your reflections on this topic? What does a person look like if they truly followed the Kingdom of God?

The House of Darwin

2009-04-16T18:00:00.000-07:00

I have discovered that humanity needs some core focus, something to place their hope in. For billions of people, that hope is in some sort of deity. Whether it is Allah or in mystical self realization there is something that grounds our actions and informs our decisions. In short, there is a god that rules over us and commands our allegiance. Even people who are atheists and deeply scientific place their hope in science and the achievement of reason. The BBC had an article by atheist Andrew Marr who explores this concept and points out the reality that Darwinism can be a religion. Darwinism seeks to uproot religion and plant another form in its place, albeit a secularized version.

The French Revolution sought to uproot the ideology of God and replace it with reason. The regime removed the altar devoted to Christianity in theNotre Dame and replaced it with the goddess of reason. Whether it is the belief in a divine purpose for life or an accidental explosion, the assumptions on the origin of life informs one's worldview. Marr wrote about religion, "I believe Darwin was right and that as science advances, he is proved more prescient, not less. But religions are absolute. They bring their truth and then repel all boarders. They divide mankind into the saved and the ignorant damned." The same can be said of Darwinism. Man turns to science for the answers and will shun those who say differently. Religion is dressed in a different cloak of reason.

I do not believe that Christianity hampers logic, instead it helps build a foundation for it. While Christianity can stifle growth (Galileo's trials are perfect example of this), it also has fostered expansion in science, government and social issues. Darwinism does not merely uproot religion and replace it with science. It places reason upon a pedestal for all to behold. While Darwinism can solve scientific dilemmas, it cannot solve the thirst for worship. It could even open up problematic areas in terms of ethics and morality. While someone can believe in evolution and also in God, the belief in a purposeless world designed on accident has philosophical implications. As Vonnegut would say "so it goes," the belief in a cosmic accident frees up an individual from having a purpose and gives them the space to act on their own accord. There is no firm basis for morality because might will always make right. In the end, Darwinism morphs into the target that it intended to disprove, a dogmatism steeped in intolerance.

He Who Knew No Sin

2009-04-09T18:00:00.000-07:00

As my choir was practicing for Maundy Thursday services I could not help but think about the dark days that descended upon Christ. Darkness. Rejection. Loneliness.

He who knew no sin was made sin for the world.

He was oppressed and He was afflicted,
Yet He opened not His mouth;
He was led as a lamb to the slaughter,
And as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
So He opened not His mouth.

As I reflected on this event the images of icons at a Greek Monastery flashed before my eyes. The centurion marveling at this man who must have been the 'Son of God.' The few followers who did not run into hiding stood at the cross, shocked at the outcome of this movement. The agony and terror that must have been upon the minds of the dejected disciples. Their fate, they must have thought, could also lie upon that tree. What terror and darkness!

He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His stripes we are healed.

Fortunately, the darkness was soon eclipsed by brilliant beauty. Venom was replaced with honey and our wounds were healed.

You are Rest

2009-04-02T18:00:00.000-07:00

You are rest, gentle peace; the longing, you, and that which satisfies it.

I consecrate to you, full of joy and sorrow, as a dwelling place here, my eyes and heart.

Come commune with me, and close quietly behind you the gates.

Drive other pain from this breast.

Full may this heart be of you joy.

The temple of these eyes from your radiance alone brightens; oh, fill it completely.

- Franz Schubert

Social Bonds

2009-03-26T18:00:00.000-07:00

President Obama relayed to the American people that the only way this country can become better is through Americans working together for a common good. While this statement is certainly true, it is important to qualify his statement. The way that Americans work together is through the pursuit of their own individual desires. Adam Smith once wrote, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." Like Smith's philosophy, the desires of bettering a community for gain is what makes a nation progress. This of course is self-centered but the pursuit of anything is by definition self-centered. Even the pursuit of humility and servanthood is an act of self-centeredness - the person is trying to become better through selflessness. Being self-centered is not necessarily wrong, it is how that self-centerdness is used that makes it either wrong or right.

America was built through the rugged individualism that was a hallmark of its western expansion. But at the same time, the American way of life was forged through the belief that America as a whole was an exceptional nation. A collectivist sense of responsibility was instilled on the people, particularly at the lower levels of community. Whether in small towns or in large cities, ethnic, social, and cultural ghettos brought people together. Whether under the banner of a "melting pot" or a "tossed salad," the diverse people that make up this land has come together under the banner of America. The collectivist mentality has always been a part of the American experience and that mentality has been brilliantly forged with the desires of the individual person.

The American spirit is at its brightest when a governing body acts as passive referee, allowing the people to live as they choose (within reason, of course). The people are bound in a Social Contract, promoting community and direction for the group. The government must enforce this contract as the embodiment of the people's will. By the individual seeking to promote their own interests they will also help others in the process. President Obama is correct when he said that Americans must work together for the common good, but the collectivist mentality must be paired with the individualistic spirit that helped build America.

Financial Jargon

2009-03-12T18:00:00.000-07:00

In case you've been living under a rock or are Amish (which in the latter case, you probably won't be reading this post...), you might have noticed that the financial system is struggling. Insolvency, balance sheets, FDIC and TARP are only a few terms that have been launched into the consciousness of the American public. While it is certainly confusing, I have found myself personally struggling to keep up with the jargon and inside baseball stats that have been thrown around. Luckily, I have stumbled across a podcast that clears up some of the confusing language surrounding the financial debacle. It is a 59 minute broadcast from This American Life that explains the cause and effects of the crisis in common terms.

As of right now, various banks have received TARP funds that were meant to be given out in the forms of loans, unfreezing the credit market. However, this purpose was not met since the balance sheets (see podcast or transcript to learn about this) were worse than originally anticipated. The banks gave out too many loans prior to TARP, becoming immensely overstretched. Once people began to default on their repayment of the loans, the banking system began to falter and crumble. As the show explained, to merely lend more is to go back to the root origin of the problem, over-lending. While members of congress are grandstanding on many issues and dumbing down the problem into populist nonsense, they do not confront the problems of the banking industry openly. The remedy to this could come in the form of letting banks fail, making the Bank of America truly become the Bank of America by nationalizing banks or anything in between (click here for one view that lies somewhere in between). We must talk openly and frankly about the crisis. Hopefully this podcast will allow more people in on that important conversation!

Victor Davis Hanson Column

2009-03-05T18:00:00.000-08:00

Obama: The Great Divider?

By Victor Davis Hanson

I confess I did not believe Barack Obama entirely during the campaign when he bragged on working across the aisle and championing bipartisanship.

You see, as in the case of any other politician, one must look to what he does--and has done--not what he says for election advantage.

And in the case of Sen. Obama, in his nascent career in the Senate, he had already compiled the most partisan record of any Democratic Senator. He had attended religiously one of the most racially divisive and extremist churches in the country. His Chicago friends were not moderates. His campaigns for state legislature, the House and the Senate were hard-ball, no-prisoner affairs of personal destruction, even by Chicago standards. Campaign references to reparations, gun- and bible-clingers, and Rev. Wright's wisdom were not words of healing.

In short, while the rhetoric was often inspirational, I found no real reason then--or now--to believe that Barack Obama wishes to be a uniter. And nothing in his first five weeks of governance has disabused me of that first tough impression.

Nevertheless, here are five modest recommendations that he might adopt if he were really interested in bringing the country together.

1) Forget talk radio. During the campaign, President Obama, you went after Sean Hannity on numerous occasions--which are recycled ad nauseam almost daily as sound-bites on his radio program. Once in office, both you and your staff have zeroed in on Rush Limbaugh by name. But Presidential candidates and elected Presidents must seem above the fray, and not descend into tit-for-tat with media celebrities. There is a reason why even your closest associates have ceased calling you Barack and now quite properly address you as "Mr. President"--and it is not due to your persistence in demonizing talk radio.

Did George Bush go after Bill Maher or Air America or Keith Olbermann when almost daily they slandered his character? Did he serially evoke Michael Moore? To have done so by name, would have demeaned his office. Worry about refuting conservative ideas, and governing the country, rather than dueling over the airways with those who get paid for only that. The country wanted a Lincoln, not another Nixon going after Dan Rather at a press conference. So far your administration resembles the latter, not the former.

2) Forget about George Bush. We got the message already that he is near satanic, you angelic. Yet even in your inauguration speech, you could not leave well enough alone, and so once again went after a predecessor who won two elections, and so far has been circumspect in his criticism of your own brief tenure. Even ex-Presidents--cf. Jimmy Carter's self-serving ankle-biting and Bill Clinton contorted snipes--reduce the office when they engage in schoolyard "they did it, not me" finger-pointing.

Again, in your first address to the nation, you went out swinging: "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." But President Bush never set up such a Manichean either/or situation, as you yourself must accept, when you embraced his protocols on FISA, the Patriotic Act, the Bush-Petraeus Iraq withdrawal plan, and kept rendition, and so far have not quite closed Guantanamo.

And there was more still in that address: "A surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy instead of an opportunity to invest in our future. . .Regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market."

But Mr. President, deficits arose from out-of-control spending, inasmuch as the Bush tax cuts resulted in increased revenue. It is fair to fault the past eight years of profligate spending, but when you engage in such demagoguery, the American people can detect your subtext: "I won't criticize Bush's spending because I found it not enough and will trump it; I will criticize his tax cuts, since I want to make the wealthier pay for my even greater borrowing."

Cutting taxes on everyone who pays them is not transferring wealth, unless you believe that one's own income belongs to the government in the first place. Under Bush, nearly 50% of the tax filers for the first time paid no income tax at all--hardly a transfer of wealth.

As far as "gutting" regulations go, I don't think you wish to go there--given the careers of Franklin Rains, a disgraced Jim Johnson (of your recent hire), Barney Frank, and Chris Dodd, who not only really did gut regulations that were at the center of the financial meltdown, but profited from such complicit laxity.

3) Drop the messianic style. The campaign is over. The Victory Column and Parthenon facades belong to last summer. Remember, it's hard finding elites to serve in government that are not tainted. You yourself discovered that depressing fact when you nominated tax-dodgers and lobbyists to your own cabinet. Not only did you have far more trouble on such ethical fronts than did Bush in his first month of nominations, but you suffered the additional wage of hypocrisy after adopting the prophetic rhetoric about your own virtue. 2012 will come soon enough without vero possumus at every turn.

4) Enough of the evil "rich." We've heard now about the proverbial jets, parties, and 'they want us to eat cake' rhetoric that is approaching the sloganeering of the French Revolution. No one likes a Bernie Madoff, or supports AIG and Citicorp execs wanting federal subsidies to cover their lavish lifestyles.

But a little humility is in order: the problem is not just Richard Fuld at a bankrupt Lehman Brothers, but also Clintonites like Robert Rubin at Citicorp, and liberals at Freddie and Fannie who took millions while destroying the financial integrity of hallowed institutions.

A William Jefferson, Charles Rangel, or John Murtha is an advertisement for ethical impropriety. Nancy Pelosi's private jet is as worrisome as those of the Big Three auto execs now on public assistance; both Ms. Pelosi and the car CEOs get federal monies and preside over bankrupt entities--and fly in class.

You are our President; so, please, begin seeing greed as an equal opportunity vice that infects liberal and conservatives alike--and anyone else with all too human frailties. If anything, the liberal egalitarian suffers the additional wage of hypocrisy for engaging in Rangelesque schemes or Robert Rubin 'me-first' bonuses--in the same manner conservatives do when caught with women or drugs after boasting of the need for old-time morality.

5) Stop the dissimulation. Your plan might work for a while given the incineration of trillions in stock and home equity and the need for replacement cash, but its revenue-raising component is not just aimed at the miniscule number of "rich", which you imply to the American people are flying the skies of America in private jets while being unpatriotic in avoiding taxes and violating regulations.

In fact, for your plan to succeed, you must go after the upper, upper middle-class, those making between $250,000 and $600,000 who are restaurant owners, home builders, labor contactors, architects, surgeons, engineers, hospital executives, college administrators, Ivy-League law professors, and many dentists.

These households are wealthy, yes; but they don't own or even fly on $50 million private jets or host private Super Bowl parties. Their income is all reported, and with such good salaries come high insurance and, in the case of business, constant reinvestment and expensive inventories. They are not greedy, but the bulwark of the United States' productive classes who in aggregate pay over 40% of the collective income taxes, and provide most of the jobs in the country. Under your plan many in these high-tax states will pay nearly 70% of their incomes in FICA, Medicare, federal income, and state income taxes. Why gratuitously mislead the American people that those for whom you will lift FICA ceilings or up their IRS bites to 40% are in any way synonymous with the super-rich? Remember the very, very wealthy voted overwhelmingly in your favor precisely because their riches gave them immunity from high taxes, and in many cases they were far removed from the everyday risk and worry of owning a hardware store or trying to keep together a family-owned construction firm. George Clooney is a world away from a paving contractor, just as making $400,000 a year on call 24/7 is not quite making $40 million investing or $2 million for a cameo.

So please no more intellectual dishonesty, Mr. President. Those in great numbers who will pay your higher taxes are not really the rarer Warren Buffets, Bill Gateses, Diane Feinsteins, Teresa Heinz Kerrys, Sean Penns, George Soroses, Oprah Winfreys, or Tiger Woodses, whose mega-wealth really does result in private jet rides, and yet exempts them from worries that increased taxes might wreck their small businesses.

A final note. You are engaged on a vast revolutionary agenda, one that if successful will create a high-tax, big government, large entitlement, UN-centered, and European-emulating country, far different from America of the past. Given your political skills and the current economic crisis, you, as FDR once did, may well pull it off.

Such radical transformation ipso facto creates winners and losers and means radical readjustments that stir passions. But the challenge of a President is to show empathy for those you must target, and some sensitivity to counter-arguments made from good intentions and sound logic.

Instead, you are beginning to create an 'us/them' climate of increasing passionate intensity, and unleashing zeal that cannot be healthy for the country. So far your soaring rhetoric, untraditional background, and the good will of the American people have mitigated such extremism as your Attorney General calling the nation collective "cowards" or your own serial invective against "the rich," "bankers" and Rush Limbaugh.

But there will come a time, when you will rue the politics of class warfare and the rhetoric of the demagogue--and may find the very intensities that you are unleashing for political advantage now, later on will be precisely those that you most regret that even you cannot control.

So a little less 'Bush did it' or Rush this and Sean that, and a little more of the need of all Americans to debate in calm and respect dissension in these times of uncertainty in which no one has all the answers.

Solzhenitsyn and the Nature of Man

2009-02-19T18:00:00.000-08:00

"Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor political parties either- but right through every human heart- and through all humans hearts."

- Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Humanity has long told itself that its nature is good and the philosophies that periodically proliferate are a testament to this. Locke based his philosophy upon this notion, and by extension, Jefferson's Declaration of Independence drew from this idea. The Enlightenment thinkers based their views on human nature through the lenses of progress and the societal evolution of humanity. Humans can work their way into a better society, through logic and reason. While some of their principles do apply in certain instances, it does not pertain to the character of human beings. Although the Constitution provides a phenomenal structure for our nation, it grants extreme limitation of power. The Founders might have had positive views pertaining to man's character but the dynamic nature of the Constitution was created in such a fashion that it limited the chances for corruption and abuses.

Wickedness within societal structure will always remain within the body. Since man is a political animal, as Aristotle noted, every person comes to the table with ambition, for better or for worse. It is by the restrictive nature of "separation of powers" that the nature of man is limited. Power, of which politics is primarily concerned, is a dangerous item. Lord Acton speaks to this powerfully when he said, "power corrupts but absolute power corrupts absolutely." Military dictators and persuasive orators might be beneficial in certain aspects of societal growth, but power concentrated in a few hands tends to pervert the reformer, no matter how principled. People of great character like George Washington comes around rarely. Washington's ambition and dreams of being an American Cincinnatus were rooted within his character. The rare exception to the rule does not and should not counter the general rule and axiom of Lord Acton.

Is mankind's situation as dire as Hobbes' philosophy of life being "nasty, broodish and short"? In short, no. Men also have a disposition to perform incredible good. Admittedly, it is a paradox. Humanity is neither good nor are we 100% rotten to the core. Rays of hope glisten throughout the mired soul of man. Out of the Holocaust arises tales of heroism. Out of the the Rwandan genocide stories of courage dot the landscape of despair. Human beings can be wicked beyond compare or just and kind to their fellow man. It is a paradox that is shown throughout history. The propensity of evil is great within men and women, but goodness can occur. Glimpses of what could have been can appear. Solzhenitsyn was correct when he stated that the dividing wall of good and evil runs its course through the hearts of men and women. Hopefully that dividing line allows more room for the good side to flourish.

Lilies that Fester

2009-02-12T18:00:00.000-08:00

The Dark Knight is one of the great movies of the early 21st Century. Phenomenal acting and eternal themes are woven throughout the dark tale. These themes can touch any discerning viewer and cause them to pause and reflect. Although there was a phenomenal performance from Heath Ledger in the role of the Joker, the most impacting character on me would be Harvey Dent. For me, the most powerful undercurrent is the corruption of the good person and their decline into a moral abyss. The promise and purpose to bring justice to the world is so appealing, especially for someone who has interest in the political sphere. Dent was a phenomenal man who turned into a corrupt villain. A fallen moral hero.

The landscape of life is strewn with fallen heroes. Great moral leaders are stripped of admiration, taken down by their own faults. There used to be a time in America where people venerated presidents, pastors and powerful people. Now, these groups are viewed with outright or subtle disdain. Trust has evaporated because of negligence on the part of these leaders. Only the "true believers" find themselves following personalities with reckless abandon. Our skepticism has only been reinforced with the postmodernist philosophy that destroys all truth and teaches a generation to disregard all principles behind a flawed leader. Often times, the stupidity of a leader is the cause of the decline in leadership and trust within society. The larger a lion he or she might be, the more spectacular the fall.

As William Shakespeare once said, "lillies that fester smell far worse than weeds." A good man who chooses to forsake the right path for the path of darkness are by far the worst of creatures. As C.S. Lewis once noted, "of all bad men religious bad men are the worst. Of all created beings the wickedest is one who originally stood in the immediate presence of God." Even before time, Lucifer was the most beautiful of angels, powerful beyond compare. It tore creation away from its true purpose and cast the realm into constant warfare. The most beautiful angel perverted life and helped provoke rebellion.

Lewis was right, religious bad men are by far the worst of all men. Wickedness must be restrained as much as possible. That is why the American system has been devised so ingeniously to constrain the ability of man's ambition. Although it is deeply flawed, it does a tremendous job to slow abject corruption. Of course my cynical friends would say otherwise, but the Constitutional framework has been organized in such a manner that it ushered in an era of political stability, even when opposite ideologies took power from each other (with a minor exception in the 1860's...). May the tale of Dent remind us all how precious integrity is and how it must be zealously guarded against corruption. We all have a role to play in life, may it be one marked by integrity.

The Life of Benjamin Button

2009-02-05T18:00:00.000-08:00

It's never too late, or in my case too early, to be whoever you want to be.
There's no time limit.
Start whenever you want.
You can change or stay the same.
There are no rules to this thing.
We can make the best or the worst of it.
I hope you make the best of it.
I hope you see things that startle you.
I hope you feel things you never felt before.
I hope you meet people who have a different point of view.
I hope you live a life you're proud of, and if you're not, I hope you have the courage to start it all over again.

- Eric Roth screenplay
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Like most Americans, I love a good movie. Stories that are driven by dialogue, characters and timeless themes are usually my favorite, films that offer something much more than shallow messages. To say the least, when I saw The Curious Case of Benjamin Button I was not moved. I found that tale to be merely a tale like Forest Gump, a good story with nothing to take away. While others in my party gleaned much more and found a deeper, more profound meaning, I was left in the dust of popcorn and sticky floors. It took me several days until the message finally settled into my mind. Talking it over with loved ones, I finally discovered the power of the film. As Roth wrote in the above quote, Benjamin Button is about so much more than a novel story. It is about life, death and living well, things people have sought since the beginning of time. Living life.

Oftentimes when I encounter older people, they ask me what I want to do with my life. When I tell them my dreams and goals they look at my quizzically. I receive questions like, "Why don't you become a lawyer, engineer or businessman?" While money and a steady job is alluring, I would rather live my life in pursuit of a passion. "Better is a dish of vegetables where love is Than a fattened ox served with hatred." This Proverb could equally apply to vocational desires, for I believe it is better to live meagerly yet complete than to live in wealth with bitterness. Although it can be very nice, money is not the thing that should be a goal in life. Living a lifestyle of mass consumption of infotainment and purposeful purposelessness should be far from us. The central message the movie conveys is that at the end our life, we should be able to look back on our lives and know that it was lived well.

While we live in a culture that is obsessed with youth and adamantly shuns old age, I must take a different position. Benjamin Button shows how growing younger is not an ideal process. It is OK to grow old and to age gracefully, to obtain wisdom and embrace the natural cycle of life. Ponce de León's fountain of youth is not obtainable. While everlasting youth is not feasible, living life well is always within reach. As Roth reminds us, it is never too late to change your life's trajectory and become a different person. Of course it is harder as one ages, it is certainly not impossible. As we are told in Revelation, "whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life." Now is the day to change. Now is the time to live well and to live life to the fullest capacity.

Bipartisanship

2009-01-29T18:12:00.000-08:00

What is bipartisanship? This questions came to the forefront of my mind during the recent House debate of the stimulus package. Is it really being partisan if the proposed legislation is the antithesis of one's beliefs? Is the spirit of bipartisanship the equivalent of rolling over for the majority party or is it being cordial and agreeing to disagree? I would say that it is the latter. Working together is important, but if the intended goals of party A is not in the interest of the intended goals of party B, why should party B acquiesce? Opposition members are not being obstructionists by not voting for legislation that can be overwhelmingly passed. Pres. Obama reaching out to the GOP conference is wonderful, but the outreach can be embraced while the party simultaneously votes against Obama's plan.

The spirit of bipartisanship that Pres. Obama is trying to usher in is admirable, but if the definition of bipartisanship is to merely roll over than call me partisan. Why can't we agree to disagree? That is the spirit that we need in the country, not hotheaded anger against opposite ideology. Working together to accomplish a better future while simultaneously realizing that there are some issues that will never bear witness to both sides coming together.

A Conservative Perspective on Pres. Obama

2009-01-24T11:00:00.000-08:00

As I sit here on the dawn of the Obama administration, I must clarify one important issue for my conservative friends. The inauguration of Barack Obama is not the end of conservatism, far from it! Conservatism as a political movement will regroup and march forward into the annals of time and ideas. Conservatism, as a traditional philosophy, has been underlined and emphasized by the election of Pres. Obama. Now please let me explain.

Traditional conservatism meant that the adherent ought to hold onto something, a conserving of the past if you will. It is a philosophically rooted within the writings of Edmund Burke and furthered through people like William Buckley and other contemporaries. Although many view it with a vague notion as "anti-progress" (which is certainly the case with many nostalgia laden individuals), conservatism seeks to stop people in their tracks and think about this "progress" that people proclaim. Drawing from the past, they institute a core system of beliefs into current policies, this system is called First Principles. These principles are ideals and should be lived up to and we should strive for them every generation. For Americans, the unique declaration that boldly proclaimed that "all men are created equal" speaks resoundingly in the face of injustice and hatred. Although the nation did not live up to its ideals, the unjust nature of the government needed to be aligned with the first principles.

America has had a mixed history, mired by the blatant ignorance of the truth laid down through natural law. The truth that were self evident needed to be rediscovered and obeyed through the trials of bloodstained lands of Antietam and Atlanta. The truths needed to be proclaimed through the teaching of preachers and the example of civilly disobedient citizens. As St. Augustine reminded us that an unjust law is no law at all, many parts of our history had perversions of the truth that all men are created equal. We are fashioned in the image of God and that similar nature warrants equality. To be opposed to this is to be in flagrant violation of natural and fundamental law. Without this sure foundation, the notion of equality is left in a precarious state, left to the whims of the majority.

President Obama, in a way, captures this ideal. He is a strong symbol that clearly shows the ideals of the founding are true. All men can become presidents and leaders. All women can make a difference in this great nation, even amidst bigotry, whether soft or institutionalized. Pres. Obama's story is uniquely American. Throughhardwork , persistence and personal application, anyone can make it, that is the fruit of traditional conservatism. Perfect equality will never be realized in a fallen world, but that should not stop us from trying. Together, we can rise up and make this a better place. Come, we have much work to do.

Talents

2009-01-14T15:10:00.000-08:00

In Matthew 25, Jesus gave a parable in regards to talents. The story is told that there was a master who had three servants. The master gave five, two and one talent to three different servants expecting a wise investment. While the first two individuals took their money and doubled the amount, the last one simply buried it. He did not capitalize on the blessing that he received, instead he played it safe.

The master returned from his trip and inquired about the outcome of the three potential investments. The first servant doubled his investment to ten and was rewarded with a handsome prize. The second servant accumulated six talents and was rewarded the same amount as the first, with "many things." The third person merely dug a hole and stuck the talent in the ground, not investing it and earning a return. The master took away the talent from the third servant and cast him away, upset that the servant did not invest his amount wisely. While the master expected proportional gain for the investments, his servant chose the easy way of merely existing. He did not take advantage of what was given to him, instead he sought to a role of merely 'being.'

The master understood that each person is only given so much and is capable of a finite possibility. He gave disproportionate ability to each servant but would reward them equally if they used their investment wisely. He expects more from the person who is given much than the person who is given the least. Nevertheless, the master would reward them equally, "You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things." The overwhelming rationale behind this story is that each person must live their lives to the fullest. We only have one chance on this planet and the talents that have been entrusted to us for a short time should be used wisely. God will reward all people the same for that faithfulness, as long as we give the fullest of our ability and potential. He wants us to live, not merely exist. I hope that we all take advantage of this challenge, starting with you and me.

Israel v. Gaza

2009-01-07T16:52:00.001-08:00

It seems like the Israel v. Middle East conflict occurs every few years. Rockets are fired, tanks inevitably roll in and civilian casualties are left in their wake. Lather, rinse, repeat. In this particular instance,Hamas picked a fight with Israel and Israel was more than able to unleash its superior forces in the Gaza strip. Quite honestly, Israel will probably never have their version of peace until they impose a post-WWII style occupation and completely dismantle the territory like in Japan or Germany. The Palestinians, on the other hand, will never have peace until Israel is either destroyed (check the translations of Arabic media at these websites for more http://www.memri.org/ or http://www.memritv.org/ ) or effectively handcuffed. Frankly, both of these realities are neither feasible nor just. I do not know if anybody can bring peace between the two sides., even President-Elect Obama. I do believe that there needs to be a significant moral and cultural change within the camps. As Salon.com's Glenn Greenwald pointed out, Israel must ask itself whether military incursions create more enemies than they destroy. Hamas and other groups must turn towards coexistence with the State of Israel and the reality that there must be a two state solution. I have witnessed Middle Eastern opinion firsthand and it is rather startling.

Hamas caused the invasion by firing rockets from civilian areas and Israel has killed many civilians by returning fire. While there is fault on both sides, in my opinion, one side is more guilty than the other. In order for peace to happen there must be a seismic cultural shift. Mark Steyn wittingly outlines this concept in his recent column below.

Gaza has its version of rocket scientists
Westerners seem to expect more civilized behavior from Israel than from its adversaries.

So how was your holiday season? Over in Gaza, whether or not they're putting the Christ back in Christmas, they're certainly putting the crucifixion back in Easter. According to the London-based Arabic newspaperal Hayat, on Dec. 23 Hamas legislators voted to introduce Sharia – Islamic law – to the Palestinian territories, including crucifixion. So next time you're visiting what my childhood books still quaintly called "the Holy Land" the re-enactments might be especially lifelike.

The following day, Christmas Eve, Samuel Huntington died at his home at Martha's Vineyard. A decade and a half ago, in his most famous book "The Clash Of Civilizations," professor Huntington argued that Western elites' view of man as homo economicus was reductive and misleading – that cultural identity is a more profound behavioral indicator than lazy assumptions about the universal appeal of Western-style economic liberty and the benefits it brings.

Very few of us want to believe this thesis.

"The great majority of Palestinian people," Condi Rice, the secretary of state, said to commentator Cal Thomas a couple of years back, "they just want a better life. This is an educated population. I mean, they have a kind of culture of education and a culture of civil society. I just don't believe mothers want their children to grow up to be suicide bombers. I think the mothers want their children to grow up to go to university. And if you can create the right conditions, that's what people are going to do."

Thomas asked a sharp follow-up: "Do you think this or do you know this?"

"Well, I think I know it," said Secretary Rice.

"You think you know it?"

"I think I know it."

I think she knows she doesn't know it. But in the modern world there is no diplomatic vocabulary for the kind of cultural fault line represented by the Israeli/Palestinian dispute, so even a smart thinker like Dr. Rice can only frame it as an issue of economic and educational opportunity. Of course, there are plenty of Palestinians like the ones the secretary of state described: You meet them living as doctors and lawyers in Los Angeles and Montreal and Geneva … but not, on the whole, in Gaza.

In Gaza, they don't vote for Hamas because they want access to university education. Or, if they do, it's to get Junior into the Saudi-funded, Hamas-run Islamic University of Gaza, where majoring in rocket science involves making one and firing it at the Zionist Entity. In 2007, as part of their attempt to recover Gaza fromHamas, Fatah seized 1,000 Qassam rockets at the university, as well as seven Iranian military trainers.

At a certain unspoken level, we understand that the Huntington thesis is right, and the Rice view is wishful thinking. After all, when French PresidentSarkozy and other European critics bemoan Israel's "disproportionate" response, what really are they saying? That they expect better from the despised Jews than fromHamas . That they regard Israel as a Western society bound by civilized norms, whereas any old barbarism issuing forth from Gaza is to be excused on grounds of "desperation."

Hence, this slightly surreal headline from The New York Times: "Israel Rejects Cease-Fire, But Offers Gaza Aid." For whatever that's worth.Wafa Samir Ibrahim al-Biss, a young Palestinian woman who received considerate and exemplary treatment at an Israeli hospital in Beersheba , returned to that same hospital packed with explosives in order to blow herself up and kill the doctors and nurses who restored her to health. Well, what do you expect? It's "desperation" born of "poverty" and "occupation."

If it was, it would be easy to fix. But what if it's not? What if it's about something more primal than land borders and economic aid?

A couple of days after Hamas voted to restore crucifixion to the Holy Land, their patron in Tehran (and their primary source of "aid") put in an appearance on British TV. As multicultural "balance" to Her Majesty The Queen's traditional Christmas message, the TV network Channel 4 invited PresidentAhmadinejad to give an alternative Yuletide address on the grounds that it was a valuable public service to let viewers hear him "speak for himself, which people in the West don't often get the chance to see."

In fact, as Caroline Glick pointed out in The Jerusalem Post, the great man "speaks for himself" all the time – when he's at the United Nations, calling on all countries to submit to Islam; when he's presiding over his international conference of Holocaust deniers; when he's calling for Israel to be "wiped off the map" – or (in his more "moderate" moments) relocated to a couple of provinces of Germany and Austria. CarolineGlick forbore to mention that, according to President Ahmadinejad's chief adviser, Hassan Abbassi , his geopolitical strategy is based on the premise that "Britain is the mother of all evils" – the evils being America, Australia, Israel, the Gulf states, Canada and New Zealand, all the malign progeny of the British Empire. "We have established a department that will take care of England," Mr.Abbassi said in 2005. "England's demise is on our agenda."

So when Britain's Channel 4 says that we don't get the chance to see these fellows speak for themselves, it would be more accurate to say that they speak for themselves incessantly but the louder they speak the more we put our hands over our ears and go "Nya nya, can't hear you." We do this in part because, if you're as invested as most Western elites are in the idea that all anyone wants is to go to university, get a steady job and settle down in a nice house in the suburbs, a statement such as "England's demise is on our agenda" becomes almost literally untranslatable. When PresidentAhmadinejad threatens to wipe Israel off the face of the map, we deplore him as a genocidal fantasist. But maybe he's a genocidal realist, and we're the fantasists.

The civilizational clashes of professor Huntington's book are not inevitable. Culture is not immutable. But changing culture is tough and thankless and something the West no longer has the stomach for. Unfortunately, the Saudis do, and so do the Iranians. And not just in Gaza but elsewhere the trend is away from "moderation" and toward something fiercer and ever more implacable.

To be fair to President Ahmadinejad's hosts at Channel 4, the "department that will take care of England" probably doesn't get the lion's share of the funding in Tehran. On the other hand, whenHashemi Rafsanjani describes the Zionist Entity as "the most hideous occurrence in history," which the Muslim world "will vomit out from its midst" with "a single atomic bomb," that sounds rather more specific, if not teetering alarmingly on the "disproportionate." Unlike its international critics in North America and Europe, Israel has no margin for error.
©MARK STEYN

Reflections on Christmas

2008-12-23T20:44:00.000-08:00

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

2008-12-22T20:35:00.000-08:00

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

2008-12-17T08:38:00.000-08:00

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

2008-12-09T16:00:00.000-08:00

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

2008-12-02T13:16:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-26T15:40:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-10T16:42:00.000-08:00

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

2008-10-25T14:01:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-10T15:07:00.000-07:00

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.

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.
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

2008-10-07T07:39:00.000-07:00

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)

2008-10-03T09:54:00.000-07:00

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)

2008-09-30T14:06:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-24T18:17:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-14T16:38:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-05T21:20:00.000-07:00

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. "

2008-09-03T15:22:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-28T16:34:00.001-07:00

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

2008-08-28T10:29:00.000-07:00

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)

2008-08-21T16:53:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-20T16:57:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-13T16:50:00.001-07:00

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

2008-08-01T15:14:00.000-07:00

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

2008-07-31T11:44:00.000-07:00

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

2008-07-30T16:50:00.000-07:00

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

2008-07-30T10:55:00.000-07:00

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

2008-07-29T15:42:00.000-07:00

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.

2008-07-25T09:51:00.000-07:00

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!

2008-07-10T16:54:00.001-07:00

It is absolutely amazing about our heritage. I know that I am not only one who wants brilliant statesmen. Below is a clips from the brilliant HBO series John Adams

Faith and Reason

2008-07-07T08:01:00.000-07:00

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.)

Cicero's Enduring Legacy

2008-06-29T16:08:00.000-07:00

I am in the process of reading through Twelve Greeks and Romans Who Changed the World and the chapter on the brilliant Roman statesman Cicero really captured my attention. It has reminded me about the incredible necessity of making choices and being guided by the light of principles. Anyone who aims for a public life or meaningful relationships must weigh between expediency or principles. An individual in practically every aspect of their life must learn the difference between short-term gain or long-term vision.

Cicero also used every word carefully. Words mean something and they should never be empty rhetoric. Like Mark Twain or Winston Churchill, Cicero used wit to disarm his opponents. Satire and loaded terms were used by him to discredit the opposition. When an aristocrat attempted to mock Cicero's heritage by asking "Who is your father?" Cicero replied, "I can scarcely ask you the same question since your mother has made it rather difficult to answer."

The Roman statesman's legacy heavily influenced the torchbearers of the Enlightenment. The Founding Fathers used his philosophy to create a unique form of government. Natural law, popular sovereignty and mixed government was his proscriptions for a better nation. Needless to say, the Founding Fathers took the best of Cicero and created something radical.

Most importantly, Cicero has influenced the ages through his principles and standing for truth. John Adams drew from Cicero's life by choosing the tougher things instead of taking the easier road. He defended he British soldiers after the Boston Massacre of 1775, he made peace with France and alienated friends. Whenever he made tough decisions he always took consolation in the great statesman's many sacrifices and courageous stands. Integrity and principle must always rule over political expediency and easy decisions.

I am afraid that in contemporary politics empty solutions and easy choices often win out over important stands and real change.

Swearing

2008-06-27T13:39:00.000-07:00

I have long been a proponent of refraining from using curse words in common speech. The English language is incredibly descriptive, given the influence of the Norman conquest and French culture. English has wonderful words to describe human existence. Why then do swear words come up in common everyday occurrences? Swear words are no longer reserved to intense moments of passion, anger or surprise, they are free to roam throughout conversations about American Idol or chewing gum. Men no longer reserve foul language for sailing, instead it is peppered emails. This phenomenon is not reserved only for the male population but also has leaked over into the 'fairer sex.' Dennis Prager had a column on the piece and it really helped convey the spreading of this cultural denigration.

Feminism was more often the celebration of masculine virtues (for women only, alas) than the celebration of feminine virtues. The latter were usually dismissed as weak, passive, underachieving or even oppressive. There are scores of examples. One is the rejection of feminine dress -- a girl who attends class at almost any high school or college wearing a skirt or dress is an anomaly. Another is coarse speech. A generation ago, men refrained from using curse words in front of women. Today many young women curse as readily as men (I have probably seen more women than men drivers make an obscene gesture at other drivers). Such behaviors were inconceivable when women were expected to act feminine. And, of course, the "liberated" female's celebration of casual sex, throughout history associated with male nature, is the antithesis of femininity.

I believe that cursing should only be used with rarity, used to emphasis extreme emotion. Everything that we do in life has a tremendous impact on who we are, leaving a heavy footprint on our souls. All that we do has profound impacts on our being. The books we read, the movies we watch, the pictures we see and the language we use all can help sustain or deteriorate ourselves. Language is incredibly important.

Marriage as Cultural Identity

2008-06-18T16:37:00.000-07:00

I am fundamentally opposed to same-sex marriage for the following reasons:

My personal evangelical faith

Western Civilization has been build upon the foundations of family and procreation. Marriage has historically and philosophically defined society.

I will not address the first aspect in this posting. Although theology is immensely important to me and underlies my worldview but, it is not the sole thing that informs my opinion. If we move backwards in the makeup of society we go from nation-states, to regions/counties, cities, neighborhoods and then families. Families are at the heart of societies. The ability to reproduce and further a culture is the fundamental base for all of the West.

Marriage is meant to be the bringing together of two people with the purpose of procreation. Bringing up children and molding them in their culture was very important for the people who philosophically shaped the Western identity. Even the ancient Greeks (who had significant homosexual relationships) realized that marriage between a man and a woman was the foundation of society. One would only need to look to Aristotle to realize this.

I am not opposed to civil unions, where same-sex couples receive legal rights that married couples receive. However, there should not be a recognition or equality of institutions. The two definitions must remain separate. Is this discriminatory? No, it is not. The same rights are given to the couples while Westerners remain true to the moral and cultural underpinnings of society.

I will close with an argument from an ethicist and academic, Margaret Somerville .

The reason for excluding same-sex couples from marriage matters: If the
reason for denying same-sex marriage is that we have no respect for homosexuals
and their relationships, or want to give the message that homosexuality is
wrong, then, the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage is not ethically
acceptable from the perspective of respect for homosexuals and their
relationships. It is also discrimination.

On the other hand, if the reason is to keep the very nature, essence
and substance of marriage intact, and that essence is to protect the inherently
procreative relationship, then excluding same-sex couples from marriage is
ethically acceptable from the perspective of respect for them and their
relationships. And such a refusal is not discrimination.

It is not discrimination. It is cultural identity.

American Exceptionalism

2008-06-09T15:52:00.000-07:00

People all over the world are excited that Obama has been nominated for the presidency. People are genuinely excited that there is a black man on the ticket, someone who will transcend all of our hopes, fears and ambitions. He will lead the world into an era of peace, prosperity and happiness. Generally, it is viewed that Americans are finally sophisticated enough to nominate someone who is not white.

People who are not tolerant of others who are different (French, British, Indian, Chinese, etc.) all with giddiness and glee are more than obliged to point their finger at the lone Superpower. Americans are xenophobic and bigoted! Just read a clip from a Washington Post article:

"This is close to a miracle. I was certain that some things will not happen in my lifetime," said Sunila Patel, 62, a widow encountered on the streets of New Delhi. "A black president of the U.S. will mean that there will be more American tolerance for people around the world who are different."

America is a place that has a blood stained and horrific past. Slavery, indentured servitude and discrimination all have occurred in our past. European immigrants all faced significant ladders to climb. The Irish were absolutely discriminated against. European countries, on the other hand, have not had a good record on assimilation. Trips to any major city on the continent will bring the realities of segregation to light. India, hardly the bastion of equality, is a long way away from any sort of resemblance of tolerance.

America's rich immigrant history has aided the tolerance of society. For all of our faults (and there are many), America is a bastion of freedom and it is prolific in its plurality of people groups. The ascendancy of Barack Obama, a son of mixed heritage, has shown that perhaps this place is a bastion of freedom and plurality. As Freedom House stated, "today’s American is quite free."

Faith and Science

2008-06-06T11:16:00.000-07:00

Many people of faith tend to have an issue with evolution. Evangelicals add up the dates within the pages of the Old Testament and recorded history to calculate a sum of 10,000-6,000 years. The universe was constructed with a time handicap. The mountains are aged and stars were created as Red Giants, White Dwarves or decaying nebulae. For many, science and the story of evolution are incompatible ideas with the Judeo-Christian story.

For me, the issue is not with whether or not mankind has ascended from the apes. The issue does not reside in whether evolution nullifies the validity of the Bible. The crux lies in whether or not their was an intelligent being who designed the universe. If it was made in six literal days, great! If it was made in six billion years, wonderful! Science and faith can run in parallel directions. Atheistic evolution is a greater leap of faith than belief in Intelligent Design. The sheer complexity of the human eye is enough to show that something or someone created this all.

Maybe the opening chapters of Genesis is an allegory for millions of years of evolution. I have no problem whatsoever with a billion year old galaxy. Of course, there are a couple of problems with this theory, such as the origin of sin and evil. Nonetheless, the common denominator of evolutionary behavior is God, whether mankind came from monkeys or planetary systems arose from pygmy matter.

Faith and science only veered from each other's reach during the Enlightenment and subsequent philosophical eras. I believe that is an awful crime. Whenever I gaze at the heavens, I am utterly amazed at the depth of detail. Immense photos of distant galaxies help affirm my belief in an Almighty. Whether the universe was designed with the appearance of age or if it spread through a "Big Bang," it does not shake the foundation of my faith.