Cicero's Enduring Legacy

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

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

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

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

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.