Friday, September 05, 2008

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.

Wednesday, September 03, 2008

"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.

Thursday, August 28, 2008

Nostalgia and Ideals

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

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

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

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

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

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

T-Shirts, tattoos and culture

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

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

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

Thursday, August 21, 2008

Russia and the West (Part 2)

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

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

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


----Update----

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

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

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Russia and the West

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

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

Old rivalries and emotions are stirred up when new events occur. Conflict and passions flare up occasionally and the flames can begin to grow. As Gwynne Dyer (a London-based journalist) said in a recent column:
In those Eastern European countries that were so recently ruled from Moscow, the presence of Russian troops in Georgia has reawakened all the old fears. Poland hastily agreed last week to let the United States place anti-ballistic missile sites on its soil, on condition that there must also be a full-fledged U.S. military base in the country. Why? Because then, if Russia attacked Poland, the United States would automatically become involved.
Is NATO ready for a sustained conflict (hot or cold) with the resurgent Russian Bear? Hardly. Western Europe is uneasily content in the status quo while the Eastern European nations urge more confrontational approaches toward Russia. What can bridge the gap between the two opinions in Europe? Like most things, somewhere in between lies the solution. For this situation, historical context must be analyzed. The US is willing to confront the Russians in rhetoric but does not have the strategic "hard power" of military deterrents (thanks to two conflicts in Asia). President Reagan at least could talk firmly while carrying a large stick. President Bush, on the other hand, can only talk firmly since the military is stretched thin. With NATO split in terms of priorities and principles, the West can hardly act with a hammer. We ought to speak softly but firmly. Offer a compromise about the missile shield for Russia's promise to leave Georgia and to cool the rhetoric. It would call either expose their ambitions of resurgence or bring them into amiable ties with the West. It is certainly worth attempting.

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

Wednesday, August 13, 2008

The Power of the Olympic Games

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

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

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

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

Friday, August 01, 2008

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!

Thursday, July 31, 2008

Excellent Satire

He ventured forth to bring light to the world

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Competent Turks

Many speculations have begun in regards to the selection of the vice president. Mitt Romney has been rumored as an occupant of the coveted VP short-list. However, evangelicals balked at the inclusion of the former governor of Massachusetts. Foxnews reported:
“McCain and Romney would be like oil and water,” evangelical novelist and Huckabee supporter Tim LaHaye was quoted telling the Times. “We aren’t against Mormonism, but Romney is not a thoroughgoing evangelical and his flip-flopping on issues is understandable in a liberal state like Massachusetts, but our people won’t understand that.”
It is extremely sad and disheartening when I read and hear the words of many evangelicals who disagree with a person's religion. It is not a thoughtful critique of their belief but is a knee jerk reaction that hampers their own faith. One can disagree vehemently with Mitt Romney's religion but can vote for him based upon his stances on issues. What does the phrase from LaHaye even mean? "Our people won't understand that." It is very disturbing when that can be a valid excuse.

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

Idealistic America

NRO's The Corner had an interesting post in regards to Sen. Obama's appeals towards American ideals. Michael Novak said,
The Berlin speech also explains why Obama is more likely to praise an “ideal” America than the real America. He is bewitched by abstractions and lofty ideals. That is how he touches the secret chords of the heart of so many millions, the teenage romanticism of a world without different real interests, without the clashes of culture, the force of political arguments about who gets what, when, and how.
Now this commentary has some merit to it; after all, the senator often times does point to idealistic America. In my assessment, there is nothing wrong with pointing back to the revolutionary ideals of the Founders. These ideals can help ground us in reality and push us forward, striving for those goals. Martin Luther King stood upon the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and called for the people of the United States to look back to the founding. In that sense, both Sen. Obama and Dr. King are inherently conservative.

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

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

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.

Friday, July 25, 2008

Equality and equations.

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

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

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

Thursday, July 10, 2008

Independence!

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

Monday, July 07, 2008

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.)

Sunday, June 29, 2008

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.

Friday, June 27, 2008

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.

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

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.

Monday, June 09, 2008

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."

Friday, June 06, 2008

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.