CS Lewis' The Great Divorce presents a very unique tale about the afterlife. It is one that is told in a refreshingly new way, dispelling the preconceptions that 21st Century humanity often bring to the table. Harps, clouds, flames, and pitchforks aside, Lewis brings something different to the theological subject. He highlights and personifies the things that so often hinder people from capturing the purpose of human existence. The plight of humanity can be addressed and remedied, and Lewis offers this hope within his writings. The personifications within this book can hopefully free you and I from the pitfalls of life (and I hope you read this short, hard-hitting story). Wherever you find yourself on the journey of life, know that there is hope for better days.
Lewis has an especially interesting character that speaks to me. As someone who enjoys philosophy and ideological debates, I can say with certainty that arguing can be fun. Debating ideas and jousting ideologies can be very stimulating, but ideas are also very dangerous. Ideas change the world and can inspire good or evil. The character in chapter five of The Great Divorce is a man who falls into this philosophical category. A solid person (read: a citizen of the bright, solid world) meets a friend from his former life who is nothing but a shadowy ghost (read: a citizen of the gray lands). The ghost came to this idyllic Eden on a trip and meets his friend and begins to converse. Towards the end of the conversation came an interesting exchange:
'Listen!' said the White Spirit (The solid person). 'Once you were a child. Once you knew what inquiry was for. There was a time when you asked questions because you wanted answers, and were glad when you had found them. Become that child again: even now.'
'Ah, but when I became a man I put away childish things.' (replied the ghost)
'You have gone far wrong. Thirst was made for water; inquiry for truth. What you now call the free play of inquiry has neither more nor less to do with the ends for which intelligence was given you than masturbation has to do with marriage.'
Inquiry was made for truth. What a stunning statement to be made in a postmodern world! There is truth in the world and there is a necessity to find that truth. Not truths or a devout, honest opinion that this ghost would propose in The Great Divorce. Philosophy and theology has an ultimate goal. Philosophizing for the sake of philosophizing should not occur. Philosophizing for the pursuit of truth and clarity, that is the proper vehicle. (The ghost, funny enough, was an Episcopal minister. He boldly denied the Resurrection and even organized a theological paper presentation!) Philosophy is a great subject and vehicle of pursuit. But that search must always be towards truth and clarity. And yes, that is my devout, honest opinion.
Democracy is an incredibly difficult form of government to have. Throughout the years I have come to certain conclusions about this "least worst" form of government. Two topics that I have been thinking about are transparency and growth. Below are my thoughts about these topics. As always, let me know what you think!
Transparency is a hallmark of a good government and often times it requires that the government release potentially embarrassing items. The Obama Administration recently released memos and photos about the acts of "enhanced interrogation methods" and they will probably have more documents released in the future. I am of the opinion that a transparent and accountable government requires that, even though it might produce a backlash among Middle Eastern countries. The stains and dirty laundry of our past ought to be revealed, debated and examined. In addition to the memos, the outcome of the interrogations should also be fully revealed (within reason, not all of the intelligence can be fully revealed only a few years after the fact). The American people should be informed to an extent. Sadly, the hyper partisan nature of political debates and the constant barrage of infotainment journalism on the cable news channels will not provide a true quiet place to think, deliberate and decide on the proper course of action for our country.
______________________
Another issue that democracy encounters is in regards to growth and the ability to compete with authoritarian regimes. Fareed Zakaria's book "The Post-American World" shows that democratic India has many more hurdles in the way of it and economically flourishing than the authoritarian China. China can build large projects to advance growth with limited opposition in a short period of time. India has such a diverse and democratic system that there is bound to be several roadblocks to complete modernization. Stability produces (and needs) a slow, conservative growth pattern. China can and does grow quickly, but it does not cause a true societal transformation. India is being made by its diverse, vibrant society with the private sector causing a good chunk of the growth (Does this sound familiar?). Ultimately, the societal makeup of a country needs to drive the state, not the state driving society.
Lately, I have been wrestling with the concept of the Kingdom of God. What does this mean term even mean? This subject has haunted me like no other!
Thy kingdom come, thy will be done.
What is so important about this Kingdom and what are the implications for people here on earth? I will explore this topic in several upcoming posts, but as I try to grapple with this subject, I wanted to initially ask your opinion. What do you think about the Kingdom of God? What are your reflections on this topic? What does a person look like if they truly followed the Kingdom of God?
I have discovered that humanity needs some core focus, something to place their hope in. For billions of people, that hope is in some sort of deity. Whether it is Allah or in mystical self realization there is something that grounds our actions and informs our decisions. In short, there is a god that rules over us and commands our allegiance. Even people who are atheists and deeply scientific place their hope in science and the achievement of reason. The BBC had an article by atheist Andrew Marr who explores this concept and points out the reality that Darwinism can be a religion. Darwinism seeks to uproot religion and plant another form in its place, albeit a secularized version.
The French Revolution sought to uproot the ideology of God and replace it with reason. The regime removed the altar devoted to Christianity in theNotre Dame and replaced it with the goddess of reason. Whether it is the belief in a divine purpose for life or an accidental explosion, the assumptions on the origin of life informs one's worldview. Marr wrote about religion, "I believe Darwin was right and that as science advances, he is proved more prescient, not less. But religions are absolute. They bring their truth and then repel all boarders. They divide mankind into the saved and the ignorant damned." The same can be said of Darwinism. Man turns to science for the answers and will shun those who say differently. Religion is dressed in a different cloak of reason.
I do not believe that Christianity hampers logic, instead it helps build a foundation for it. While Christianity can stifle growth (Galileo's trials are perfect example of this), it also has fostered expansion in science, government and social issues. Darwinism does not merely uproot religion and replace it with science. It places reason upon a pedestal for all to behold. While Darwinism can solve scientific dilemmas, it cannot solve the thirst for worship. It could even open up problematic areas in terms of ethics and morality. While someone can believe in evolution and also in God, the belief in a purposeless world designed on accident has philosophical implications. As Vonnegut would say "so it goes," the belief in a cosmic accident frees up an individual from having a purpose and gives them the space to act on their own accord. There is no firm basis for morality because might will always make right. In the end, Darwinism morphs into the target that it intended to disprove, a dogmatism steeped in intolerance.
As my choir was practicing for Maundy Thursday services I could not help but think about the dark days that descended upon Christ. Darkness. Rejection. Loneliness.
He who knew no sin was made sin for the world.
He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He opened not His mouth; He was led as a lamb to the slaughter, And as a sheep before its shearers is silent, So He opened not His mouth.
As I reflected on this event the images of icons at a Greek Monastery flashed before my eyes. The centurion marveling at this man who must have been the 'Son of God.' The few followers who did not run into hiding stood at the cross, shocked at the outcome of this movement. The agony and terror that must have been upon the minds of the dejected disciples. Their fate, they must have thought, could also lie upon that tree. What terror and darkness!
He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed.
Fortunately, the darkness was soon eclipsed by brilliant beauty. Venom was replaced with honey and our wounds were healed.
President Obama relayed to the American people that the only way this country can become better is through Americans working together for a common good. While this statement is certainly true, it is important to qualify his statement. The way that Americans work together is through the pursuit of their own individual desires. Adam Smith once wrote, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." Like Smith's philosophy, the desires of bettering a community for gain is what makes a nation progress. This of course is self-centered but the pursuit of anything is by definition self-centered. Even the pursuit of humility and servanthood is an act of self-centeredness - the person is trying to become better through selflessness. Being self-centered is not necessarily wrong, it is how that self-centerdness is used that makes it either wrong or right.
America was built through the rugged individualism that was a hallmark of its western expansion. But at the same time, the American way of life was forged through the belief that America as a whole was an exceptional nation. A collectivist sense of responsibility was instilled on the people, particularly at the lower levels of community. Whether in small towns or in large cities, ethnic, social, and cultural ghettos brought people together. Whether under the banner of a "melting pot" or a "tossed salad," the diverse people that make up this land has come together under the banner of America. The collectivist mentality has always been a part of the American experience and that mentality has been brilliantly forged with the desires of the individual person.
The American spirit is at its brightest when a governing body acts as passive referee, allowing the people to live as they choose (within reason, of course). The people are bound in a Social Contract, promoting community and direction for the group. The government must enforce this contract as the embodiment of the people's will. By the individual seeking to promote their own interests they will also help others in the process. President Obama is correct when he said that Americans must work together for the common good, but the collectivist mentality must be paired with the individualistic spirit that helped build America.
In case you've been living under a rock or are Amish (which in the latter case, you probably won't be reading this post...), you might have noticed that the financial system is struggling. Insolvency, balance sheets, FDIC and TARP are only a few terms that have been launched into the consciousness of the American public. While it is certainly confusing, I have found myself personally struggling to keep up with the jargon and inside baseball stats that have been thrown around. Luckily, I have stumbled across a podcast that clears up some of the confusing language surrounding the financial debacle. It is a 59 minute broadcast from This American Life that explains the cause and effects of the crisis in common terms.
As of right now, various banks have received TARP funds that were meant to be given out in the forms of loans, unfreezing the credit market. However, this purpose was not met since the balance sheets (see podcast or transcript to learn about this) were worse than originally anticipated. The banks gave out too many loans prior to TARP, becoming immensely overstretched. Once people began to default on their repayment of the loans, the banking system began to falter and crumble. As the show explained, to merely lend more is to go back to the root origin of the problem, over-lending. While members of congress are grandstanding on many issues and dumbing down the problem into populist nonsense, they do not confront the problems of the banking industry openly. The remedy to this could come in the form of letting banks fail, making the Bank of America truly become the Bank of America by nationalizing banks or anything in between (click here for one view that lies somewhere in between). We must talk openly and frankly about the crisis. Hopefully this podcast will allow more people in on that important conversation!
I confess I did not believe Barack Obama entirely during the campaign when he bragged on working across the aisle and championing bipartisanship.
You see, as in the case of any other politician, one must look to what he does--and has done--not what he says for election advantage.
And in the case of Sen. Obama, in his nascent career in the Senate, he had already compiled the most partisan record of any Democratic Senator. He had attended religiously one of the most racially divisive and extremist churches in the country. His Chicago friends were not moderates. His campaigns for state legislature, the House and the Senate were hard-ball, no-prisoner affairs of personal destruction, even by Chicago standards. Campaign references to reparations, gun- and bible-clingers, and Rev. Wright's wisdom were not words of healing.
In short, while the rhetoric was often inspirational, I found no real reason then--or now--to believe that Barack Obama wishes to be a uniter. And nothing in his first five weeks of governance has disabused me of that first tough impression.
Nevertheless, here are five modest recommendations that he might adopt if he were really interested in bringing the country together.
1) Forget talk radio. During the campaign, President Obama, you went after Sean Hannity on numerous occasions--which are recycled ad nauseam almost daily as sound-bites on his radio program. Once in office, both you and your staff have zeroed in on Rush Limbaugh by name. But Presidential candidates and elected Presidents must seem above the fray, and not descend into tit-for-tat with media celebrities. There is a reason why even your closest associates have ceased calling you Barack and now quite properly address you as "Mr. President"--and it is not due to your persistence in demonizing talk radio.
Did George Bush go after Bill Maher or Air America or Keith Olbermann when almost daily they slandered his character? Did he serially evoke Michael Moore? To have done so by name, would have demeaned his office. Worry about refuting conservative ideas, and governing the country, rather than dueling over the airways with those who get paid for only that. The country wanted a Lincoln, not another Nixon going after Dan Rather at a press conference. So far your administration resembles the latter, not the former.
2) Forget about George Bush. We got the message already that he is near satanic, you angelic. Yet even in your inauguration speech, you could not leave well enough alone, and so once again went after a predecessor who won two elections, and so far has been circumspect in his criticism of your own brief tenure. Even ex-Presidents--cf. Jimmy Carter's self-serving ankle-biting and Bill Clinton contorted snipes--reduce the office when they engage in schoolyard "they did it, not me" finger-pointing.
Again, in your first address to the nation, you went out swinging: "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." But President Bush never set up such a Manichean either/or situation, as you yourself must accept, when you embraced his protocols on FISA, the Patriotic Act, the Bush-Petraeus Iraq withdrawal plan, and kept rendition, and so far have not quite closed Guantanamo.
And there was more still in that address: "A surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy instead of an opportunity to invest in our future. . .Regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market."
But Mr. President, deficits arose from out-of-control spending, inasmuch as the Bush tax cuts resulted in increased revenue. It is fair to fault the past eight years of profligate spending, but when you engage in such demagoguery, the American people can detect your subtext: "I won't criticize Bush's spending because I found it not enough and will trump it; I will criticize his tax cuts, since I want to make the wealthier pay for my even greater borrowing."
Cutting taxes on everyone who pays them is not transferring wealth, unless you believe that one's own income belongs to the government in the first place. Under Bush, nearly 50% of the tax filers for the first time paid no income tax at all--hardly a transfer of wealth.
As far as "gutting" regulations go, I don't think you wish to go there--given the careers of Franklin Rains, a disgraced Jim Johnson (of your recent hire), Barney Frank, and Chris Dodd, who not only really did gut regulations that were at the center of the financial meltdown, but profited from such complicit laxity.
3) Drop the messianic style. The campaign is over. The Victory Column and Parthenon facades belong to last summer. Remember, it's hard finding elites to serve in government that are not tainted. You yourself discovered that depressing fact when you nominated tax-dodgers and lobbyists to your own cabinet. Not only did you have far more trouble on such ethical fronts than did Bush in his first month of nominations, but you suffered the additional wage of hypocrisy after adopting the prophetic rhetoric about your own virtue. 2012 will come soon enough without vero possumus at every turn.
4) Enough of the evil "rich." We've heard now about the proverbial jets, parties, and 'they want us to eat cake' rhetoric that is approaching the sloganeering of the French Revolution. No one likes a Bernie Madoff, or supports AIG and Citicorp execs wanting federal subsidies to cover their lavish lifestyles.
But a little humility is in order: the problem is not just Richard Fuld at a bankrupt Lehman Brothers, but also Clintonites like Robert Rubin at Citicorp, and liberals at Freddie and Fannie who took millions while destroying the financial integrity of hallowed institutions.
A William Jefferson, Charles Rangel, or John Murtha is an advertisement for ethical impropriety. Nancy Pelosi's private jet is as worrisome as those of the Big Three auto execs now on public assistance; both Ms. Pelosi and the car CEOs get federal monies and preside over bankrupt entities--and fly in class.
You are our President; so, please, begin seeing greed as an equal opportunity vice that infects liberal and conservatives alike--and anyone else with all too human frailties. If anything, the liberal egalitarian suffers the additional wage of hypocrisy for engaging in Rangelesque schemes or Robert Rubin 'me-first' bonuses--in the same manner conservatives do when caught with women or drugs after boasting of the need for old-time morality.
5) Stop the dissimulation. Your plan might work for a while given the incineration of trillions in stock and home equity and the need for replacement cash, but its revenue-raising component is not just aimed at the miniscule number of "rich", which you imply to the American people are flying the skies of America in private jets while being unpatriotic in avoiding taxes and violating regulations.
In fact, for your plan to succeed, you must go after the upper, upper middle-class, those making between $250,000 and $600,000 who are restaurant owners, home builders, labor contactors, architects, surgeons, engineers, hospital executives, college administrators, Ivy-League law professors, and many dentists.
These households are wealthy, yes; but they don't own or even fly on $50 million private jets or host private Super Bowl parties. Their income is all reported, and with such good salaries come high insurance and, in the case of business, constant reinvestment and expensive inventories. They are not greedy, but the bulwark of the United States' productive classes who in aggregate pay over 40% of the collective income taxes, and provide most of the jobs in the country. Under your plan many in these high-tax states will pay nearly 70% of their incomes in FICA, Medicare, federal income, and state income taxes. Why gratuitously mislead the American people that those for whom you will lift FICA ceilings or up their IRS bites to 40% are in any way synonymous with the super-rich? Remember the very, very wealthy voted overwhelmingly in your favor precisely because their riches gave them immunity from high taxes, and in many cases they were far removed from the everyday risk and worry of owning a hardware store or trying to keep together a family-owned construction firm. George Clooney is a world away from a paving contractor, just as making $400,000 a year on call 24/7 is not quite making $40 million investing or $2 million for a cameo.
So please no more intellectual dishonesty, Mr. President. Those in great numbers who will pay your higher taxes are not really the rarer Warren Buffets, Bill Gateses, Diane Feinsteins, Teresa Heinz Kerrys, Sean Penns, George Soroses, Oprah Winfreys, or Tiger Woodses, whose mega-wealth really does result in private jet rides, and yet exempts them from worries that increased taxes might wreck their small businesses.
A final note. You are engaged on a vast revolutionary agenda, one that if successful will create a high-tax, big government, large entitlement, UN-centered, and European-emulating country, far different from America of the past. Given your political skills and the current economic crisis, you, as FDR once did, may well pull it off.
Such radical transformation ipso facto creates winners and losers and means radical readjustments that stir passions. But the challenge of a President is to show empathy for those you must target, and some sensitivity to counter-arguments made from good intentions and sound logic.
Instead, you are beginning to create an 'us/them' climate of increasing passionate intensity, and unleashing zeal that cannot be healthy for the country. So far your soaring rhetoric, untraditional background, and the good will of the American people have mitigated such extremism as your Attorney General calling the nation collective "cowards" or your own serial invective against "the rich," "bankers" and Rush Limbaugh.
But there will come a time, when you will rue the politics of class warfare and the rhetoric of the demagogue--and may find the very intensities that you are unleashing for political advantage now, later on will be precisely those that you most regret that even you cannot control.
So a little less 'Bush did it' or Rush this and Sean that, and a little more of the need of all Americans to debate in calm and respect dissension in these times of uncertainty in which no one has all the answers.
"Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor political parties either- but right through every human heart- and through all humans hearts."
- Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Humanity has long told itself that its nature is good and the philosophies that periodically proliferate are a testament to this. Locke based his philosophy upon this notion, and by extension, Jefferson's Declaration of Independence drew from this idea. The Enlightenment thinkers based their views on human nature through the lenses of progress and the societal evolution of humanity. Humans can work their way into a better society, through logic and reason. While some of their principles do apply in certain instances, it does not pertain to the character of human beings. Although the Constitution provides a phenomenal structure for our nation, it grants extreme limitation of power. The Founders might have had positive views pertaining to man's character but the dynamic nature of the Constitution was created in such a fashion that it limited the chances for corruption and abuses.
Wickedness within societal structure will always remain within the body. Since man is a political animal, as Aristotle noted, every person comes to the table with ambition, for better or for worse. It is by the restrictive nature of "separation of powers" that the nature of man is limited. Power, of which politics is primarily concerned, is a dangerous item. Lord Acton speaks to this powerfully when he said, "power corrupts but absolute power corrupts absolutely." Military dictators and persuasive orators might be beneficial in certain aspects of societal growth, but power concentrated in a few hands tends to pervert the reformer, no matter how principled. People of great character like George Washington comes around rarely. Washington's ambition and dreams of being an American Cincinnatus were rooted within his character. The rare exception to the rule does not and should not counter the general rule and axiom of Lord Acton.
Is mankind's situation as dire as Hobbes' philosophy of life being "nasty, broodish and short"? In short, no. Men also have a disposition to perform incredible good. Admittedly, it is a paradox. Humanity is neither good nor are we 100% rotten to the core. Rays of hope glisten throughout the mired soul of man. Out of the Holocaust arises tales of heroism. Out of the the Rwandan genocide stories of courage dot the landscape of despair. Human beings can be wicked beyond compare or just and kind to their fellow man. It is a paradox that is shown throughout history. The propensity of evil is great within men and women, but goodness can occur. Glimpses of what could have been can appear. Solzhenitsyn was correct when he stated that the dividing wall of good and evil runs its course through the hearts of men and women. Hopefully that dividing line allows more room for the good side to flourish.
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.
It's never too late, or in my case too early, to be whoever you want to be. There's no time limit. Start whenever you want. You can change or stay the same. There are no rules to this thing. We can make the best or the worst of it. I hope you make the best of it. I hope you see things that startle you. I hope you feel things you never felt before. I hope you meet people who have a different point of view. I hope you live a life you're proud of, and if you're not, I hope you have the courage to start it all over again.
- Eric Roth screenplay The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Like most Americans, I love a good movie. Stories that are driven by dialogue, characters and timeless themes are usually my favorite, films that offer something much more than shallow messages. To say the least, when I saw The Curious Case of Benjamin Button I was not moved. I found that tale to be merely a tale like Forest Gump, a good story with nothing to take away. While others in my party gleaned much more and found a deeper, more profound meaning, I was left in the dust of popcorn and sticky floors. It took me several days until the message finally settled into my mind. Talking it over with loved ones, I finally discovered the power of the film. As Roth wrote in the above quote, Benjamin Button is about so much more than a novel story. It is about life, death and living well, things people have sought since the beginning of time. Living life.
Oftentimes when I encounter older people, they ask me what I want to do with my life. When I tell them my dreams and goals they look at my quizzically. I receive questions like, "Why don't you become a lawyer, engineer or businessman?" While money and a steady job is alluring, I would rather live my life in pursuit of a passion. "Better is a dish of vegetables where love is Than a fattened ox served with hatred." This Proverb could equally apply to vocational desires, for I believe it is better to live meagerly yet complete than to live in wealth with bitterness. Although it can be very nice, money is not the thing that should be a goal in life. Living a lifestyle of mass consumption of infotainment and purposeful purposelessness should be far from us. The central message the movie conveys is that at the end our life, we should be able to look back on our lives and know that it was lived well.
While we live in a culture that is obsessed with youth and adamantly shuns old age, I must take a different position. Benjamin Button shows how growing younger is not an ideal process. It is OK to grow old and to age gracefully, to obtain wisdom and embrace the natural cycle of life. Ponce deLeón's fountain of youth is not obtainable. While everlasting youth is not feasible, living life well is always within reach. As Roth reminds us, it is never too late to change your life's trajectory and become a different person. Of course it is harder as one ages, it is certainly not impossible. As we are told in Revelation, "whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life." Now is the day to change. Now is the time to live well and to live life to the fullest capacity.
What is bipartisanship? This questions came to the forefront of my mind during the recent House debate of the stimulus package. Is it really being partisan if the proposed legislation is the antithesis of one's beliefs? Is the spirit of bipartisanship the equivalent of rolling over for the majority party or is it being cordial and agreeing to disagree? I would say that it is the latter. Working together is important, but if the intended goals of party A is not in the interest of the intended goals of party B, why should party B acquiesce? Opposition members are not being obstructionists by not voting for legislation that can be overwhelmingly passed. Pres. Obama reaching out to the GOP conference is wonderful, but the outreach can be embraced while the party simultaneously votes against Obama's plan.
The spirit of bipartisanship that Pres. Obama is trying to usher in is admirable, but if the definition of bipartisanship is to merely roll over than call me partisan. Why can't we agree to disagree? That is the spirit that we need in the country, not hotheaded anger against opposite ideology. Working together to accomplish a better future while simultaneously realizing that there are some issues that will never bear witness to both sides coming together.
As I sit here on the dawn of the Obama administration, I must clarify one important issue for my conservative friends. The inauguration of Barack Obama is not the end of conservatism, far from it! Conservatism as a political movement will regroup and march forward into the annals of time and ideas. Conservatism, as a traditional philosophy, has been underlined and emphasized by the election of Pres. Obama. Now please let me explain.
Traditional conservatism meant that the adherent ought to hold onto something, a conserving of the past if you will. It is a philosophically rooted within the writings of Edmund Burke and furthered through people like William Buckley and other contemporaries. Although many view it with a vague notion as "anti-progress" (which is certainly the case with many nostalgia laden individuals), conservatism seeks to stop people in their tracks and think about this "progress" that people proclaim. Drawing from the past, they institute a core system of beliefs into current policies, this system is called First Principles. These principles are ideals and should be lived up to and we should strive for them every generation. For Americans, the unique declaration that boldly proclaimed that "all men are created equal" speaks resoundingly in the face of injustice and hatred. Although the nation did not live up to its ideals, the unjust nature of the government needed to be aligned with the first principles.
America has had a mixed history, mired by the blatant ignorance of the truth laid down through natural law. The truth that were self evident needed to be rediscovered and obeyed through the trials of bloodstained lands of Antietam and Atlanta. The truths needed to be proclaimed through the teaching of preachers and the example of civilly disobedient citizens. As St. Augustine reminded us that an unjust law is no law at all, many parts of our history had perversions of the truth that all men are created equal. We are fashioned in the image of God and that similar nature warrants equality. To be opposed to this is to be in flagrant violation of natural and fundamental law. Without this sure foundation, the notion of equality is left in a precarious state, left to the whims of the majority.
President Obama, in a way, captures this ideal. He is a strong symbol that clearly shows the ideals of the founding are true. All men can become presidents and leaders. All women can make a difference in this great nation, even amidst bigotry, whether soft or institutionalized. Pres. Obama's story is uniquely American. Throughhardwork , persistence and personal application, anyone can make it, that is the fruit of traditional conservatism. Perfect equality will never be realized in a fallen world, but that should not stop us from trying. Together, we can rise up and make this a better place. Come, we have much work to do.
In Matthew 25, Jesus gave a parable in regards to talents. The story is told that there was a master who had three servants. The master gave five, two and one talent to three different servants expecting a wise investment. While the first two individuals took their money and doubled the amount, the last one simply buried it. He did not capitalize on the blessing that he received, instead he played it safe.
The master returned from his trip and inquired about the outcome of the three potential investments. The first servant doubled his investment to ten and was rewarded with a handsome prize. The second servant accumulated six talents and was rewarded the same amount as the first, with "many things." The third person merely dug a hole and stuck the talent in the ground, not investing it and earning a return. The master took away the talent from the third servant and cast him away, upset that the servant did not invest his amount wisely. While the master expected proportional gain for the investments, his servant chose the easy way of merely existing. He did not take advantage of what was given to him, instead he sought to a role of merely 'being.'
The master understood that each person is only given so much and is capable of a finite possibility. He gave disproportionate ability to each servant but would reward them equally if they used their investment wisely. He expects more from the person who is given much than the person who is given the least. Nevertheless, the master would reward them equally, "You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things." The overwhelming rationale behind this story is that each person must live their lives to the fullest. We only have one chance on this planet and the talents that have been entrusted to us for a short time should be used wisely. God will reward all people the same for that faithfulness, as long as we give the fullest of our ability and potential. He wants us to live, not merely exist. I hope that we all take advantage of this challenge, starting with you and me.
It seems like the Israel v. Middle East conflict occurs every few years. Rockets are fired, tanks inevitably roll in and civilian casualties are left in their wake. Lather, rinse, repeat. In this particular instance,Hamas picked a fight with Israel and Israel was more than able to unleash its superior forces in the Gaza strip. Quite honestly, Israel will probably never have their version of peace until they impose a post-WWII style occupation and completely dismantle the territory like in Japan or Germany. The Palestinians, on the other hand, will never have peace until Israel is either destroyed (check the translations of Arabic media at these websites for more http://www.memri.org/ or http://www.memritv.org/ ) or effectively handcuffed. Frankly, both of these realities are neither feasible nor just. I do not know if anybody can bring peace between the two sides., even President-Elect Obama. I do believe that there needs to be a significant moral and cultural change within the camps. As Salon.com's Glenn Greenwald pointed out, Israel must ask itself whether military incursions create more enemies than they destroy. Hamas and other groups must turn towards coexistence with the State of Israel and the reality that there must be a two state solution. I have witnessed Middle Eastern opinion firsthand and it is rather startling.
Hamas caused the invasion by firing rockets from civilian areas and Israel has killed many civilians by returning fire. While there is fault on both sides, in my opinion, one side is more guilty than the other. In order for peace to happen there must be a seismic cultural shift. Mark Steyn wittingly outlines this concept in his recent column below.
Gaza has its version of rocket scientists Westerners seem to expect more civilized behavior from Israel than from its adversaries.
So how was your holiday season? Over in Gaza, whether or not they're putting the Christ back in Christmas, they're certainly putting the crucifixion back in Easter. According to the London-based Arabic newspaperal Hayat, on Dec. 23 Hamas legislators voted to introduce Sharia – Islamic law – to the Palestinian territories, including crucifixion. So next time you're visiting what my childhood books still quaintly called "the Holy Land" the re-enactments might be especially lifelike.
The following day, Christmas Eve, Samuel Huntington died at his home at Martha's Vineyard. A decade and a half ago, in his most famous book "The Clash Of Civilizations," professor Huntington argued that Western elites' view of man as homo economicus was reductive and misleading – that cultural identity is a more profound behavioral indicator than lazy assumptions about the universal appeal of Western-style economic liberty and the benefits it brings.
Very few of us want to believe this thesis.
"The great majority of Palestinian people," Condi Rice, the secretary of state, said to commentator Cal Thomas a couple of years back, "they just want a better life. This is an educated population. I mean, they have a kind of culture of education and a culture of civil society. I just don't believe mothers want their children to grow up to be suicide bombers. I think the mothers want their children to grow up to go to university. And if you can create the right conditions, that's what people are going to do."
Thomas asked a sharp follow-up: "Do you think this or do you know this?"
"Well, I think I know it," said Secretary Rice.
"You think you know it?"
"I think I know it."
I think she knows she doesn't know it. But in the modern world there is no diplomatic vocabulary for the kind of cultural fault line represented by the Israeli/Palestinian dispute, so even a smart thinker like Dr. Rice can only frame it as an issue of economic and educational opportunity. Of course, there are plenty of Palestinians like the ones the secretary of state described: You meet them living as doctors and lawyers in Los Angeles and Montreal and Geneva … but not, on the whole, in Gaza.
In Gaza, they don't vote for Hamas because they want access to university education. Or, if they do, it's to get Junior into the Saudi-funded, Hamas-run Islamic University of Gaza, where majoring in rocket science involves making one and firing it at the Zionist Entity. In 2007, as part of their attempt to recover Gaza fromHamas, Fatah seized 1,000 Qassam rockets at the university, as well as seven Iranian military trainers.
At a certain unspoken level, we understand that the Huntington thesis is right, and the Rice view is wishful thinking. After all, when French PresidentSarkozy and other European critics bemoan Israel's "disproportionate" response, what really are they saying? That they expect better from the despised Jews than fromHamas . That they regard Israel as a Western society bound by civilized norms, whereas any old barbarism issuing forth from Gaza is to be excused on grounds of "desperation."
Hence, this slightly surreal headline from The New York Times: "Israel Rejects Cease-Fire, But Offers Gaza Aid." For whatever that's worth.Wafa Samir Ibrahim al-Biss, a young Palestinian woman who received considerate and exemplary treatment at an Israeli hospital in Beersheba , returned to that same hospital packed with explosives in order to blow herself up and kill the doctors and nurses who restored her to health. Well, what do you expect? It's "desperation" born of "poverty" and "occupation."
If it was, it would be easy to fix. But what if it's not? What if it's about something more primal than land borders and economic aid?
A couple of days after Hamas voted to restore crucifixion to the Holy Land, their patron in Tehran (and their primary source of "aid") put in an appearance on British TV. As multicultural "balance" to Her Majesty The Queen's traditional Christmas message, the TV network Channel 4 invited PresidentAhmadinejad to give an alternative Yuletide address on the grounds that it was a valuable public service to let viewers hear him "speak for himself, which people in the West don't often get the chance to see."
In fact, as Caroline Glick pointed out in The Jerusalem Post, the great man "speaks for himself" all the time – when he's at the United Nations, calling on all countries to submit to Islam; when he's presiding over his international conference of Holocaust deniers; when he's calling for Israel to be "wiped off the map" – or (in his more "moderate" moments) relocated to a couple of provinces of Germany and Austria. CarolineGlick forbore to mention that, according to President Ahmadinejad's chief adviser, Hassan Abbassi , his geopolitical strategy is based on the premise that "Britain is the mother of all evils" – the evils being America, Australia, Israel, the Gulf states, Canada and New Zealand, all the malign progeny of the British Empire. "We have established a department that will take care of England," Mr.Abbassi said in 2005. "England's demise is on our agenda."
So when Britain's Channel 4 says that we don't get the chance to see these fellows speak for themselves, it would be more accurate to say that they speak for themselves incessantly but the louder they speak the more we put our hands over our ears and go "Nya nya, can't hear you." We do this in part because, if you're as invested as most Western elites are in the idea that all anyone wants is to go to university, get a steady job and settle down in a nice house in the suburbs, a statement such as "England's demise is on our agenda" becomes almost literally untranslatable. When PresidentAhmadinejad threatens to wipe Israel off the face of the map, we deplore him as a genocidal fantasist. But maybe he's a genocidal realist, and we're the fantasists.
The civilizational clashes of professor Huntington's book are not inevitable. Culture is not immutable. But changing culture is tough and thankless and something the West no longer has the stomach for. Unfortunately, the Saudis do, and so do the Iranians. And not just in Gaza but elsewhere the trend is away from "moderation" and toward something fiercer and ever more implacable.
To be fair to President Ahmadinejad's hosts at Channel 4, the "department that will take care of England" probably doesn't get the lion's share of the funding in Tehran. On the other hand, whenHashemi Rafsanjani describes the Zionist Entity as "the most hideous occurrence in history," which the Muslim world "will vomit out from its midst" with "a single atomic bomb," that sounds rather more specific, if not teetering alarmingly on the "disproportionate." Unlike its international critics in North America and Europe, Israel has no margin for error.
Christmas is a wondrous and joyful time. It provides hope and happiness for all people, even in the darkest time of the calendar year, lights shine triumphantly throughout all of the streets. While it is an amazing time of the year, this holiday can leave people with a tremendous sense of sadness. The end of the season means the silencing of carols, the extinguishing of lights and the diminishing of holiday greetings. Soon, Christmas will end and the New Year will begin. While the joyous time of the year ends, nothing but a cold winter takes its place.
This emotional ending is interesting, considering that the ending of the seasonal Christmas holiday also ushers in the theological celebration of the birth of Christ. The coming of Christ also signifies the end of the material holiday season and all that it entails. I am not making an entry that heaps scorn upon the Dickensian traditions. It is not like that at all, instead it is merely an observation of the realities of the season. While Christians celebrate the Advent (arrival) of the Christ, we are called to quiet our hearts in eager expectation. This is incredibly tough, for the coming of Christ is simultaneously triumphed boldly throughout American stores and homes with song, both secular and sacred. How can one ponder the mysteries of the Incarnation when festivities abound?
While the question certainly leads to tension, the belief in the implications of the First Noel continue to exist. As Scrooge realized, we must strive to keep Christmas all the year. Basking in the knowledge of the incarnate deity, contributing love and charity to the world. Emmanuel, God with us.
O come, O come, Emmanuel And ransom captive Israel That mourns in lonely exile here Until the Son of God appear Rejoice! Rejoice! Emmanuel Shall come to thee, O Israel.
O come, Thou Rod of Jesse, free Thine own from Satan's tyranny From depths of Hell Thy people save And give them victory o'er the grave Rejoice! Rejoice! Emmanuel Shall come to thee, O Israel.
O come, Thou Day-Spring, come and cheer Our spirits by Thine advent here Disperse the gloomy clouds of night And death's dark shadows put to flight. Rejoice! Rejoice! Emmanuel Shall come to thee, O Israel.
I'm a 24 year old graduate student with a degree in History/Political Science. I have a strong interest in history, international politics and theology. I am currently working on my political philosophy and personal theology, looking unto the heavens.
Posts
