God, the Holocaust and a Pastor

Below is an interesting take on the John Hagee controversy. This is written by Dennis Prager, an orthodox Jew.

-------------------------

God, the Holocaust and a Pastor

Comments about God and the Holocaust made in a sermon 10 years ago by a leading evangelical pastor, John Hagee, have received a great deal of attention. They have led to Sen. John McCain severing ties with the pastor, whose support the presumptive Republican presidential nominee had originally solicited.

Pastor Hagee, a major supporter of the Jewish people and Israel, citing verses from Jeremiah, said: "How did it [the Holocaust] happen? Because God allowed it to happen. Why did it happen? Because God said 'my top priority for the Jewish people is to get them to come back to the land of Israel.'"

I am a God-believing, Torah-believing, religious (though not Orthodox) Jew, author of a book on Judaism and a book on anti-Semitism who does not agree with this theological explanation of the Holocaust.

But the notion that God willed the Holocaust is neither anti-Jewish nor even un-Jewish. There are, after all, only two possible explanations regarding God and the Holocaust:

1. God allowed it but did not will it.

2. God willed it.

This is simple logic.

Like most other people, I find neither explanation religiously or morally, let alone emotionally, satisfying. But both are Jewishly acceptable. There is a long tradition in Judaism that collective Jewish suffering is often God-willed. On the Jewish holy days, the central prayer (the Amidah) of the Jewish service contains a paragraph beginning: "Because of our sins we were exiled from our land."

The author of the biblical book Lamentations wrote, upon seeing the first destruction of Jerusalem and the accompanying mass slaughter of Jews: "The Lord is like an enemy; He has swallowed up Israel… He has multiplied mourning and lamentation" (Lam 2.5). And the Talmud, the holiest Jewish work after the Bible, says that that horrific event occurred because of "gratuitous hatred," i.e., Jews hated one another for no good reason.

As Rabbi Jakob Petuchowski, one of the greatest Jewish scholars of the 20th century, wrote: "Much of the national suffering of the people of Israel was explained by the biblical Prophets in terms of punishment meted out by God to a sinful people."

Regarding the Holocaust specifically, Ignaz Maybaum was a major 20th century Jewish theologian who identified "the Holocaust victims as vicarious sacrificial offerings for the redemption of humanity…"

We recoil at the thought of a just, good and loving God willing the mass murder of so many innocent people. But that belief is not necessarily anti-Semitic.

Moreover, the alternate view that God simply lets all this evil and cruelty go on isn't satisfying either. Whether God directed the Holocaust or just allowed it to happen, in either case, many Jews are angry with Him for that. Anger toward God (as well as love toward Him) has a long history even among devout Jews. Petuchowski cites a medieval prayer by 12th century Jewish poet Isaac bar Shalom, who, after a pogrom, changed one word in a Jewish prayer (from "elim" to "ilmim'). As a result, "Who is like you among the gods, oh Lord" became "Who is like you among the silent, oh Lord."

I have written my own beliefs about the reasons for the Holocaust and all of anti-Semitism in the book I co-authored with Rabbi Joseph Telushkin, "Why the Jews? The Reason for Antisemitism" (Simon & Schuster, paper, 2003). They are, in short, that the Holocaust, like all Jew-hatred, is an inevitable result of the hatred by the evil of the world of God's Chosen People, who introduced to humanity a morally demanding God who judges the behavior of every individual.

Whatever one's views, however, what Hagee once said in a sermon is completely unworthy of the condemnation that it has received from critics who are obviously motivated by politics rather than by truth. Forcing the man to deny he is an anti-Semite is like forcing a kind and decent man to deny he is a bank robber.

Hagee is one of the most pro-Jewish Christians alive. No living Christian has devoted more of his life to combating anti-Semitism. He has received death threats from anti-Semites, and they have attacked his home. To accuse such a man of anything anti-Jewish renders both truth and anti-Semitism meaningless. Calling people who help Jews anti-Semitic is a gift to real anti-Semites. With no exception I am aware of, those who imply some anti-Jewish animus in Hagee do so in order to undermine an evangelical conservative and to manufacture a right-wing equivalence to the America-cursing, race-based Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

But as Bill Donohue, the head of the Catholic League, who had been very critical of Hagee for his strong criticisms of the Catholic Church -- for its historical treatment of Jews, no less -- said of Hagee: "I found him to be the strongest Christian defender of Israel I have ever met, and that is why attempts to portray him as anything but a genuine friend to the Jews -- one for whom the Holocaust is the horror of horrors -- is despicable."

Why God allowed the Holocaust and other evils is a mystery. What is not a mystery is why some people on the left, including some Jews who care far more about the left than about Jews, smear a courageous and good Christian pastor.

Dennis Prager is a radio show host, contributing columnist for Townhall.com, and author of 4 books including Happiness Is a Serious Problem: A Human Nature Repair Manual.

Saying Good Bye

All good things must come to an end. College. A good book. An epic movie. A powerful song. Love. Life.

If this small rock in time and space was the beginning and end of our existence, why make it better? Eat and drink, for tomorrow we die! Why have any hope or purpose? Darwinistic philosophy would teach us the survival of the fitness and that we should abide by the law of the jungle. What point is there even to living? Life is a random act, morality is a devised concept and love is merely a chemical reaction. Somehow, I think we were meant for so much more.

Heaven is a fulfillment of everything that we have held dear. It is the culmination, the grand coronation of everything that we have longed for. As St. Augustine said, "You have made us for yourselves, and our hearts are restless until they rest in you." Our heart's longings and desires have been twisted and turned into this mess of modern nihilistic and egotistical philosophy. Only upon another land can we ever be completed. As we migrate across this open plain, we head towards the Jordan River. One day we shall cross.

Up from the riverbanks, the immense reflections of crystal walls and pristine land will the city of Jerusalem shine down upon us. The gates beckon us to run, taking shelter in the warmth of the city square. There was will find lost friends and embrace new ones. The chapters do not end, for it is only the beginning of our adventure.

When we’ve been there ten thousand years,
Bright shining like the sun,
We've no less days to sing God’s praise
Than when we first begun.

An adventure that never ends, continuing in eternal freshness. Like the Grey Havens of Lord of the Rings, youth and vigor is preserved. One day. One day.

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.

Anarchy Analyzed

In Orthodoxy, G.K. Chesterton sought to discuss a vast array of topics. One of those topics [briefly] discussed governments and the nature of system. Can there be a distinct Christian form of government? One that uplifts the downtrodden and places them on the sure footing of dignity. Aristocracy is among the worst of government, since the rich and powerful are natural leaders. There is little room for movement among the classes. Democracy is not the greatest forms forms of government, but nonetheless, it is surely better than other governments. As Winston Churchill famously observed, democracy is the worst form of government, except for every other form of government.

If democracy is the lesser of the evils and aristocracy is among the worst, than perhaps anarchy is the most destructive. Anarchy attempts to root out all forms of government, and with that, all societal structures. Anarchy is extremely problematic, because one can never get away from social constructs and government. Whenever there are two or more people, there needs to be some sort of order. If there is mayhem among the masses, then a new form of government arise. Whether it is a co-op or despotism, rules must be in place. Ironically, if one person attempts to live by themselves, they still cannot get away from law. The law of nature will always bind them and conscience will often hold someone captive. Anarchy is both idiotic and unrealistic. I'll take my bets with the worst form of government (besides every other) ever devised by men!

Happiness and Joy

"Christianity without the tears- that's what soma is."
Brave New World
Aldous Huxley

Sometimes people can portray Christianity as this magic formula for happiness. Complete and utter revelry will come about when someone will join the faith. This is not entirely true. There will be joy and abundance of it, but happiness won't exactly be there in force. Happiness comes about through circumstances. Making that red light, nailing a three point shot or gazing at a magnificent sunrise are all pretenses of happiness. Joy, on the other hand, is like a deep river or a sturdy Oak tree. It is the foundation and an complete realization that God is with you. Joy is a strong foundation, happiness is like seasonal rain, refreshing but fickle.

Soma is a drug created in "Brave New World" that altered humanity's senses and gave them a mental vacation. Whenever a person was stressed or agitated, take some soma and things will be better. Dull the senses and release all anxiety!

Christ outlined the fact that the road unto heaven is decidedly perilous and narrow. Jagged rocks will be there to greet the most ambitious adventurer. "Take up your cross and follow me." If Christianity is the guaranteed happiness maker, than people need to look into further. People are beaten, mocked, scorned and harassed by evil constantly. The enemy seeks to crush the Christian, that is why the "armor of God" is needed. It is a brutal war, an epic that has been playing out for millenniums. The tale will end one day, where sheer joy and happiness will not be temporal. Evil will be bound and a new saga will begin- a saga of goodness.

Christianity is exceedingly tough. In a world full of bitter pain and hatred, we pilgrims must travel on, leading others unto the light. Like all great epics, there are rewards for the faithful. Peace will prevail. All of our hearts yearnings and desires will be met and exceeded. But until that day, that day when the destroyer will be crushed, we will have to journey and be mindful of the burdens of faith. That burden (by God's good graces) is light and will be bearable through Christ's death.

If you're looking for a quick fix, try soma. If you are looking for fulfillment, try the bread of life.

Moral Clarity (part 2)

Dennis Prager discussed on his show about moral clarity. America Leftists have the great potential to lack moral clarity.

When Ahmadinejad came to Columbia University to speak for a packed auditorium, the president scoured him. Ahmadinejad was given the respect to discuss his hateful language in a free context with little disruption. When Jim Gilchrist of the Minutemen came to speak at Columbia, he was violently harassed. Gilchrist is worse than Ahmadinejad in many eyes. Hatred for someone who wants to enforce our borders, respect for someone who wants to wipe a country off of the map.

The term "Axis of Evil" was condemned. "Evil Empire" was scoffed. In Britain, there is talks that the term Islamic Terrorism will be change to "Anti-Islamic Activity." Orwellian Doublespeak has truly begun to creep into everyday conversation. Can Western Society have the moral courage and understanding to call evil what it is- evil.

Many Leftists are willing and more than able to condemn evil that is done by Israel and the United States, yet when it comes to Islamic Jihadists, evil will be the last thing in a description. Islamic Fascism is evil and must be eradicated, evil on the par of Nazism and Japanese Imperialism. Yes, America has done evil things in the past, present and future. Moral Clarity is extremely important in this clash between civilizations. Sawing off heads is more evil though than not giving universal healthcare.

Where true freedom begins and ends

Can anyone ever be truly free? The analogy of the cave helped frame this thought in Plato's Republic. The man was chained amongst the other captives deep within the crater. He saw shadows against the walls, sensing there was some sort of light he broke free. He saw the light, saw the figures making shadows and beheld his captive brethren. This scene should show how a person could profit from freedom. They are able to leave the cave into light, or descend into darkness upon a change in their mood.

We are chained to freedom, whether politically or socially. A person can never truly escape their noble notions of liberty. Enlightenment ideas are the very foundation for Western freedom. This ideal is heavily based upon the notion of scientific measures, which give someone the sole logical choice of accepting it, because they are testable. The thinkers gave people social law based upon reason; they were enslaved to their own logical deductions.

Is slavery necessarily a bad thing? Yes and no. Whether from the times of Ancient Rome to the modern day slave trade, people were never free in those shackles. The slave owners were always reliant upon those people who were enslaved. Some people are enslaved with the very notion of approval from people. Now can slavery ever be termed a good thing? We are enslaved to food consumption and love. Some people are enslaved to fighting for social justice and for noble ideals. Freedom is a loaded term that is both highly subjective and very idealistic.
Ultimately, I think that people's religions also confirm slavery over true liberty. Christianity says that the Truth will set you free; yet, paradoxically Paul also says that we are bondservants. Generally speaking, Far Eastern religions believe that people grow in knowledge and realize freedom through a variety of avenues. Islam proclaims that Muslims must submit to Allah. Judaism declares that people follow the Torah and God's Law. People's faith (whether you embrace or reject them) verifies the fact that ultimate freedom rests in humanity's willingness to submit.

Coming back to the analogy of the cave in "The Republic," I believe that it is incredibly fair to say that that man was given a choice- stumbling in the sunshine, or getting back into the chains of his captivity. Either way, he would have been guided by a deep desire for either life. 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.

Ultimate freedom comes through bondage.

--------------------

View this article at Helium

Utter Evil in Africa

I flipped through the opinion section of the Orange County Register as I normally do and scanned the pages for any interesting opinion pieces. One title struck me, "No more subsidies for African Tyrants" by Walter Williams. Williams' article was advocating for the removal of aid package that the US government sends to the African continent. There are good intentions behind the packages, seeking to stimulate the economies of the continent and stop the constant wars that have dominated the land for the past century.

Africa is the poorest continent on the Earth. There are few examples of peaceful, prosperous nations. Civil war has racked the nations, constant wars, ethnic cleansing and disease has plagued the continent for years. What causes this adverse situation? Colonial powers randomly designated the countryside with borders, not taking into account the history between the rival ethnic tribes (Rwanda is an excellent example of this). Years of colonial oppression helped stymie any sort of national identity and societal underpinnings. Does all of Africa's problems correlate to the colonial domination of the continent? Are the Europeans solely to blame for African ills? Nay. I would advocate that several other factors contribute to the obstacles for prosperity.

We cannot blame everything on Imperialism. Walters argues that Ethiopia and Liberia were never ruled, yet they certainly have immense issues to work through. Africa is a basketcase full of a variety of issues that affects the way that it has developed. Culture, religion and imperialism all affect the continent. However, ultimately, the fault lies upon evil in this world. Warlords take aid and fatten their diversified portfolios. Food is siphoned off for their lifestyles. Genocide plagues different nations because of hatred. Evil is the cause of Africa's failures.

Evil has plagued the world, and the depravity of man truly has reigned in many situations. Authentic hope only arrives when people rise up in self-interests and declare that evil will not be the law of the land. Justice arrives at the doorsteps of villages and towns through the collective force of people working for good. Perfect will never come, but people can push for good. Authentic change only comes when people stand as one. Africa's only hope comes from facing the issue.

St. Augustine on the Reliability of God

St. Augustine believed that mountains were symbols for the saints and God's reliability. The Sea, on the other hand, was a symbol of uncertainty and death (as was understood during the age of the triremes and galleys).

St. Augustine believed that baptism also falls under the domain of this thinking. A Christian would die, going into the water and confirming their sinful life. They would then rise again under the auspices of new life, unto the glory and majesty of God. The Christian would rise with God and be related to the sure salvation of their faith.

Death is a frightful subject and brings question of uncertainty to mind. The Sea is tranquil during peaceful sunny days, yet it is extremely fickle. Out upon the open sea, tranquility could be replaced with utter despair and terror. Gales and winds can ruin any naval journey. While a storm raged, peace would become a forgotten word. The ocean is incredibly deep and captivating, yet for Augustine's era, it proved dangerous. On the other hand, the mountains prove to be much more reliable. The rocky edifices prove to be a stable source of inspiration and will stand against the wiles of nature. They are imposing, yet they also demonstrate a respectable grandeur.

The mountain of God is solid, and does not move. Whenever the world quakes, it remains. St. Augustine reminds us of that sure promise, even when the neighboring Sea is in turmoil.

Why I endorse Gov. Mitt Romney for the Republican Nomination

There has been a lot of talk in regards to change this campaign season. Hillary wants you to vote for her because she is a female (and she’ll take us back to the Clinton Years). Obama wants you to vote for him because he will give us a glimpse of the Kennedy Camelot and he will fully realize all our deepest longings of hope, change and puppies. McCain would bring to the White House his Washington experience and his uncorrupted persona, personally battling lobbyists and tainted legislators. But I believe that only one can effectively implement change within the Beltway. That agent is Mitt Romney.

People are seeking to vote for Barack Obama because he has promised fundamental [abstract] change, yet he has never instituted change in Washington. He has been a US Senator for almost four years and has sponsored 113 pieces of legislation (according to the Library of Congress). The vast majority of the legislation he has introduced has been non-binding resolutions (read: opinion pieces). If he wants health care reformed, why not introduce the legislation? Why won’t he propose tax cuts for middle income families that he proposed in his television commercials? While the US Senate (the legislative body that he is a part of) is debating a possible stimulus package, he is out proposing a stimulus package on a campaign trail. The moment he set foot in Capitol he began running for the presidency. Sounds like a responsible legislator to me!

Mitt Romney, on the other hand, has brought about change in three spheres. The Salt Lake City Winter Olympics were floundering into a slough of despair and were destined to become a failure. Romney was able to turn the Olympics around as a proud success for our Post-9/11 nation. He had tremendous success in the private sector as a venture capitalist. He turned Massachusetts around and helped create healthcare solutions that were realistic for the economy. He has brought about real change within the public and private sectors.

Washington is broken. It is important that we elect a president who has the qualifications to be president and who has actually changed institutions. He does not merely talk about abstract ideas like hope and change; he has implemented hope and change. In this crucial election cycle we must elect someone who confronts issues with real change. Let's not elect someone based upon a cult of personality, instead casting our ballot for someone who will be the best president. Let’s send a message in this primary season. Let’s send Mitt Romney to the White House.

The Dark Night of the Soul

When all is black and despair sets in, I will not weep nor will I fear.

If all the world shall crumble and all that I hold dear shall brashly fall away,

I will rest in the fullness of your shadow.

All that we love and all that we ever care for shall dissipate one day.

Everything that we long for shall come to ruin.

You alone remain constant, you alone bring us life.

Who else shall we look to if the world should falter?

Who else would ever care for us in our time of need?

Insanity Defined

Albert Einstein once said that the definition of insanity was when one person performed the same act and looked for different results. For example, Joe would add one to two and concluded that the answer was three. If he kept adding those same numbers for five hours and expected to get two, he could be defined as insane.

Let us now turn to the issue of politics (which I am certain that many rational people can point to those on the other side and call them insane). If a school is failing and the constant outcry from the local school bureaucracy is more money, than perhaps there needs to be a reconsideration of the situation. What if the government kept performing the same tactics expecting that test scores could rise and abysmal graduation rates would rise? This same school system would cease at nothing to ensure that their power is maintained, regardless of the outcome towards the children. This scenario applies to the Detroit public school systems.

Charter schools and school vouchers are hated by the bureaucracy, because that could endanger the jobs of a bloated administration that has no talent or ingenuity. It is incredibly sad that politicians desire power above all else. People need to start to realize that this failed idealogy must end. Why are schools allowed to fail society? Why are they allowed to perpetruate the constant failure? Something must happen.

Real change comes from people who will change bad policies. We cannot idly wish for "hope" like Senator Obama would propose. Throwing money at the problem cannot solve matters, for that issue has been enacted for years now (in the case of healthcare and education). There needs to be common sense solutions. Stand up against inefficiency and demand real change!

Barack Obama. A candidate of [non]"change."

In my opinion, Senator Barack Obama is the most overrated candidate of the 2008 Presidential Race.

I say this not because I disagree with his policies, but because he is for “hope” and does not take a stand on issues. Representative Dennis Kucinich has a far left outlook on policy but I respect him. He has an unwavering position and has core [liberal] values. Senator Obama on the other hand talks about unifying the country and is for change. Change. To paraphrase another presidential hopeful, change can be good or bad. (He went on to say that for Democrats, it means change out of your pocket) It is not enough to be for an abstract ideal. If I ran for president, I would be for puppies. Please, grant us some concretes.

“Change we can believe in.” Obama wants to change healthcare. Alright, you are in the US Senate. Why don’t you propose legislation on this? Oh, I’m sorry. Vote for Sen. Obama and then President Obama will push for legislation in Congress via the Bully Pulpit of the White House. Why don’t you band together with the other Democratic presidential hopefuls and push for healthcare reform? Vote for me, and then I will change things! Is this really a fairytale, like President Clinton suggested? Are there general inconsistencies?

Of course Sen. Obama cannot change foreign policy and war strategy. In the case of domestic policy, Obama has the capacity to change things through proposing legislation. Former governors and mayors do not have this opportunity.

I thoroughly enjoy the rosy picture that the senator paints. He is a natural when it comes to communicating, but why can’t he also perform? Why can’t he push for change right now? He has had a few years in the US Senate. Please, can we judge men and women by the content of their character and record, opposed to someone’s oratory skill and style?

Soft Power

When I visited the library the other day I rented several books. One of those books was entitled Soft Power by Joseph Nye, Jr. Soft Power is a book concerning foreign policy. Nye argues that all nations have two types of power- soft and hard. The former deals with military and economic policies (along the lines of coercion and inducements. The latter examples deals with values and cultures, seeking to stoke attraction and cooperation.

I have leaned towards the emphasis on cultural ties and the push for diplomacy. Military action is obviously an important tool of the state, but it must never become the sole tool of the state. The current president has used hard power in many circumstances and it has shown fruitful in a few instances. The destruction of the Iraqi state in 2003 brought about the disarmament of Libyan WMD production and their cooperation with the Western nations. The Iraq War also, according to the National Intelligence Estimate, helped remove the Iranian nuclear programs in 2003. These two instances were very encouraging to the USA; however, it also has led to larger resentment of the USA in many circles, both Arab and Western. While we are already deeply intimate with the conflict within the Middle East, I must say that the United States need to push for more cultural exchanges and proactive public relations.

Soft power is slower to develop relationships than hard power, but soft power is incredibly more positive and longer lasting (not to mention generally less riskier). It is incredibly important to push for increased emphasis on Voice of America and student exchanges. We must integrate our profound strength with our strong founding, emphasizing equality and man's inherent rights. Within the Muslim nations it would be an incredible statement to proliferate the airwaves with messages of all men and women are created equal and are endowed with inalienable rights. I think that it would make a huge difference by competing with the Jihadists for the minds of the youth. As Nye points out, the Muslim world has some basics for growth in a democratic sense. The Turks and Moroccans are slowly realizing the bountiful fruits of a secular government. If only we could take the quest even further and start bringing up friendships with the youth.

The government must be able to help promulgate the American ideals to the wider world. Is this nation building? Not really. Nation building would be through coercion and forced persuasion through economic and military means. Although hard power is an important tool. the strength of soft power would help enlighten other nations and provide them with answers to the American quest. America is much more than pop music and Coca-Cola. American companies and our popular culture are byproducts of our foundation. Our foundation is liberty and openness within society. Although we have our faults (and Lord knows there are many), we have much strength. By training our youth and also exposing others to our society out of hostile environments (like we did within the Cold War) we will help make our future less certain. Soft power is the strength of our foreign policy and I advocate to fully harness that tool.

Finer Days

I was free for a couple of hours last night and needed to stay near the place that I work. I couldn't bear going to Starbucks or browse through some store, instead I decided to visit the library. I thought about going to the computer terminals to surf the web, but instead I was drawn to the aisles of books. Scanning down each aisle, I came to the political section. It was there that I realized something, that I missed the academic field.

Foreign policy, that is a field that I can get excited about. How I loved those days of checking out several books, and then setting them on the tables and pulling out necessary information. I rented three books, hoping to regain some of that lost passion. How I miss it.

Realist v. Idealist Tensions

I have come to the realization that I have a mixed political ideology. I currently stand between the camps of realism and idealism. My realist point of view and Protestant roots are tugging with my personal sense of optimism and charity. Sometimes these views can work together to inform my opinion. For example, I believe that welfare should help people up, but should also make them work for that aid. There should be accountability for one's actions, that is true compassion. Personal responsibility will give charity and also acknowledges the true nature of man.

When it comes to other issues, there is a bit more complication in my personal philosophy.

I believe that there should be a strong shield along the border with great interior enforcement. I also think that there should be waterholes in the middle of the desert for those who are crossing illegally. Is this encouraging illegal immigration? No, not necessarily. We value the dignity of the human being, while simultaneously enforcing the law. My solution is intense border enforcement with punishment within our own nation's borders. Deportation should be the solution for criminal aliens, but those who did not perpetrate a crime (if someone takes a Social Security number falsely should be prosecuted) will be given residency. They will then forfeit citizenship, with an American passport and voting rights forfeit as well.

I believe in punishing evil, through even warfare and attacks (retaliatory attacks, not preemptive ones). At the same time, I believe that those attacks should not lead to devices of torture. Even the most heinous of enemies have dignity and human rights. Nazis were tried and then executed. I do not believe that torture should be given to terrorists, how horrible the criminals that they are. We lower ourselves to their position when that occurs.

I think that we should continue to aid people on the high seas. There was talks amongst conservatives that we should not have helped the North Korean ship that was attacked by pirates. Helping those that we are estranged with when it comes to that issue is incredibly important.

I believe in the fact that all men and women are inherently sick. We have positive streaks throughout history, with some goodness still reigning within that fallen state. I believe in the optimism of Lockean Liberalism while holding fast to the tenets of Hobbes that man's life is "nasty, broodish and short." Perhaps this tension is ideal, although buying into one reality would be a lot easier. I think I will live within the confines of tension, with the philosophy of personal responsibility holding together these two worlds. Tension is something that makes us humans and members of a republic.

The Mormon Factor

Upon watching the film September Dawn I have come to the realization that arguments against opposition to Mitt Romney because of his Mormon faith is false. Their violent founding history has not deterred my consideration of Romney, but it has spurred my thoughts about judging a presidential candidate based upon their faith. Of course, Mormonism has had a turbulent foundation and their teachings are blatantly false. According the orthodox Christian beliefs, I must say that it is heresy.

With that theological background, Mormons have similar moral values. They are close to the Judeo-Christian value system, and their moral strengths are evident in everyday encounters with families. They truly live out their faith to the fullest, and their love and kindness is beyond a lot of orthodox Christian’s. Take away religious beliefs, and then you will be able to see that Mormons and Evangelicals are nearly identical.

The constitution gives the command that there should be no such religious litmus tests on those who seek office. This was given within the context of Protestants, Catholics and the occasional Jew. They were all under the same traditional guise of faith; although each faction would purport that the others were false. Although they shared general morality, they viewed each other with suspicion and would label them as people who lived contrary to true revelation. Fast forward to today. Christian leaders who hold an evangelical point of view would label Mormonism as false. The faith simply is not the true account of the Christian story. The LDS believe in many gods and do not agree with the Nicean Creed.

After thinking about the litmus test question, I could not help but ponder about the implications of that. The people who call anti-Romneyites bigots would probably hold a religious litmus test towards a couple of other groups. Many Muslims hold similar moral views as Christians. What if there was a Muslim who believed in small government and family values? The only catch would be the fact that he advocated for the subservience of women in the public realm and the suppression on others in Sharia law. What if there was an avowed atheist who ran for office? Would people turn away from him/her since they have not foundation to believe that all people are created equal (since pure Darwinian logic is not compatible with that Deist view)?

Morality is an important component of people’s views on political candidates. It is one component of the larger scheme of political decision making. I have said it before, that people have a right to deny votes to any candidate, based upon any means. I purposefully wrote votes to denote that people cannot be denied entry into the political process. Any person has the ability to run for office, yet they can be denied votes based upon a variety of issues.

Political Fallacy of Marx

Political philosopher Karl Marx advocated for a radical world change. This world change would help bring about the dissolution of all forms of governments, with the eventual goal of universal world peace and happiness. This revolution would start by a violent overthrow of the oppressive overseers; the revolt would grow to a global event. The deluge of outrage would bring justice and peace to the land, with all forms of government becoming extinct.

This concept is grossly mistaken. Violent revolutions will always occur this side of the Armageddon; however, they will not dissolve when everyone is content. If the elites should somehow be vanquished, then there will be a power vacuum that will be filled by the leader. This is similar to the story of the Soviet Revolution as characterized in Animal Farm. There will always be some sort of elite group that will replace the original oppressive group.

There will never be a date that the oppressed will live in peace. As portrayed in Animal Farm, the leaders (i.e. the pigs) will lead the masses into domination. There will never be a utopia that Marx envisions. There will never be a withering away of the state! We were made for society. Man is a social creature and we need each other tremendously. That is why society formed thousands of years ago, joining people together because of commonalities. We were meant to be together within the confines of the community.

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.