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.

Newsweek and Religion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Proposition 8 Matters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

by Dennis Prager

California's Decision will radically change society
by Dennis Prager

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

Natural Law, the Two Kingdoms, and Homosexual Marriage

by R. Scott Clark

The Decline and Fall of an Empire

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

Competent Turks

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

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

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

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

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.)

Blindness of Faith

There was a letter to the editor in today's OC Register that really caught my eye. To put it in more direct and descriptive terms, it blinded me with sheer locical idiosy. "Human free will and an all-powerful God are mutually exclusive... Religion is blindness because the harsh realities of life and death are just too much for many human beings to face." These two statements wounded my thought process and challenged my recent discoveries of faith. Quite frankly, the letter writer did not shake the foundation of my faith.

Mr. Miller believes that there is a contradiction in the belief that God has sovereign power and will yet allows his creation to be fully independent in their decision making. I would say that that is not the full story. God is both soveriegn and allows for freedom. Mr. Miller thinks that a being must be comprehendable in order to worship and trust. If we completely comprehended the all-powerful, why would we feel compelled to trust that same being? How could someone who created this wonderfully intricate universe be so plain that mortal men should fully understand Him?

We in the Western Modern World tend to view ourselves as the pinnacle of thought; whatever we do not discover does not exist. Typical scientific circles believed that there were no large ape creatures in the central Africa. They were proven wrong in the beginning of the Twentieth Century. Many people do not believe in Big Foot because of a lack of photographs, despite widespread testimony. Despite the precise of nature of the human heart, insect eyes and perfect planetary position, people believe that we arrived upon this planet through mere chance. Nevermind the connundrum with the origin of the matter that started the Big Bang.

He brings up the harsh realities of life as a defense against the plausibility of a just God. If freewill exists, then evil must be allowed for a time, until evil is rooted up (after people have decided on the existence of a higher being). Mr. Miller's argument is still incredibly weak. I would rebut and ask him about the problem of joy. If this world is [purely] Darwinistic in its form, then why is there beauty for the sake of beauty? Cultures are all relative, from pluralistic democracies to oppressive military juntas. Both forms of governments are the same! We are all beasts in the end, why even attempt to change society? Society can never be changed, because there are no absolutes. You shouldn't reform society or help the weak, because there is no reward. In fact, you could be hurting them, because who are you to decide what is best for other people?

Relativism is a cancer that can rot a society. Rejecting the necessity of an Architect has a potential to plague the moral courage and aptitude for taking on injustices. Evil philisophies based in Nietzche and hopeless Modern thought have showed what "realism" can do. One only has to look at a text book to see how fascism, Communism and despotism affected vast regions. That is why Mr. Miller is wrong.

Reclaiming What Is Rightfully His

I was listening to an interview on the radio a few weeks ago. There was a man on there who studied C.S. Lewis and discovered something very interesting about him and the Chronicles of Narnia. Dr. Michael Ward then wrote a book and also publishes a website about the discovery. His interesting thesis is: "The book argues that Lewis secretly based the Chronicles of Narnia on the seven heavens of the medieval cosmos." Lewis, Dr. Ward argues, wanted to reclaim the cosmos for the King. Lewis understood the importance of the heavens to the Medieval scholars and wanted to bring that back from the seculars who stole it. Lewis believed that the planets were 'spiritual symbols of permanent value.' He sought to place emphasis on what is rightfully God's.

What C.S. Lewis attempted to do in Narnia helps bolster my ideas about my passion. I believe that what things that have been taken by this world's spirit must be reclaimed. My passion of government and working to reform it truly is what I want to do. Frustration sets in periodically when I think how one person or a small group of individuals cannot effectively change what is wrong in this country. The Founders separated power so evenly that it slows the potential for corruption and that one bad person can step in and alter the course of our nation for worse. Of course, a George Washington figure could correct the ills of society, but more than often than not, a corrupt person would take the mantle of "reformer." Nevertheless, hope abounds in my heart.

When the pope was in the U.S. he gave a homily in Yankees Stadium. He stated there:

Praying fervently for the coming of the Kingdom also means being constantly
alert for the signs of its presence, and working for its growth in every sector
of society. It means facing the challenges of present and future with confidence
in Christ's victory and a commitment to extending his reign. It means not losing
heart in the face of resistance, adversity and scandal. It means overcoming
every separation between faith and life, and countering false gospels of freedom
and happiness. It also means rejecting a false dichotomy between faith and
political life, since, as the Second Vatican Council put it, "there is no human
activity - even in secular affairs - which can be withdrawn from God's dominion"
(Lumen Gentium, 36). It means working to enrich American society and culture
with the beauty and truth of the Gospel, and never losing sight of that great
hope which gives meaning and value to all the other hopes which inspire our
lives. (Complete message)

A Christian worldview does not cease to exist whenever we step into the rotunda of the US Capitol. A theologian at my Alma Mater used to say that Christ is not some measuring rod or some pie in the sky ideal. Christ is like a pair of spectacles that we put on. It integrates all that we have read, learned and experienced into a perspective. When we look through our faith, everything is tinted with the cross. We ought to see things according to his Word and according to revelation. Our life's goal is to help usher in the Kingdom of God, and that can be made possible even through the government.

In all aspects of life, we can bring the power of the King. Reclaiming what is rightfully His ought to be our life's ambition and the goal.

Religious Litmus Tests

There has been a lot of talk in regards to faith and politics. Republican candidate Mitt Romney is a Mormon, and there are those who will not vote for him because of his religion. Personally, I would not mind voting for the man, since his views align with mine in many instances. However, if someone did not want to vote for him solely based upon their faith is alright in my opinion.

The U.S. Constitution has barred a religious litmus test for candidates, seeking to promote a diverse political realm. But doesn't that test apply to the Federal Govt? Since when does the Constitution apply to the people and not to the government. That document was created to restrain the government, not to restrain the people!

I propose a question to people like Hugh Hewitt and other conservative Romneyites: would you support a candidate who believes in sharia law and instituting it upon America? Why would you treat them differently? It's ridiculous to hear people call other bigots because of this reason. Anyone has the freedom to vote against someone because of the way they part their hair! We the People have the right to say no to a candidate and impose litmus tests. It is ridiculous to be scolded by commentators because a person thinks differently.

I like Romney, and I appreciate his views and charisma (despite disagreeing with him theologically). Other people cannot jump over the hurdle of his religion; however, I do not think that it is intelligently honest to say people need to remove their faith from politics. To have conservative commentators say that is both hypocritical and unconstitutional.