Thoughts on ‘Avatar’

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 Glory of Me

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.

Origins of Moral Value

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

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

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

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.

Problems of Democracy

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.

Lilies that Fester

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

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.

A Conservative Perspective on Pres. Obama

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

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.

Reflections on Christmas

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

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

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

O magnum mysterium,

et admirabile sacramentum,

ut animalia viderent Dominum natum,

jacentem in praesepio!

Beata Virgo, cujus viscera

meruerunt portare

Dominum Christum.

Alleluia.

O great mystery,

and wonderful sacrament,

that animals should see the new-born Lord,

lying in a manger!

Blessed is the Virgin whose womb

was worthy to bear

Christ the Lord.

Alleluia!

Why Proposition 8 Matters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

by Dennis Prager

California's Decision will radically change society
by Dennis Prager

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

Natural Law, the Two Kingdoms, and Homosexual Marriage

by R. Scott Clark

Freedom and Responsibility

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

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

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

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

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

Civil Discourse

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

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

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

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

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

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

T-Shirts, tattoos and culture

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

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

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

Politics, Polarization and the Digital Age

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

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

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

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

Idealistic America

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

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

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

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

Ignorance Is NOT Bliss

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

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

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

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

Faith and Reason

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

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

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

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

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

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

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