War and the Courts

This is one of the best and most important articles I've read all year. Read it all the way through. Every word. Twice.

Our courts have long been activist, but only recently have they become imperialist. Activism can be reversed, but if we allow the judiciary to effectively eliminate the separation of powers with regard to the conduct of war - there will be no going back. We can stop this by electing presidents who will appoint Justices that understand and accept the constitutional limitations of their position.

Here's a sample:

...The Framers did not include federal judges as participants in our national defense. The judiciary was formed as a part of our government, to protect American citizens from violations of their liberties by their own elected representatives....They are not supposed to be a forum to empower non-Americans — particularly alien enemies of our people — to invalidate actions taken in our national defense.

Our defense against foreign enemies is a political matter, not a legal one. To put it bluntly, it is none of the judges’ business. It is for the people’s representatives to decide — with the president holding the preeminent role as commander-in-chief, subject to the capacity of Congress to remove the president by impeachment [or] to shut off funding for...missions of which it does not approve, and the capacity of the American people at election time to remove the president and/or members of Congress who go either too far or not far enough in safeguarding our nation.

The courts, by contrast, are not politically accountable to the American people. That is why judges were given no role in national security. Self-defense is the natural right of nations. Without it, there is no liberty. In our system — the system of a free, self-determining people — the political branches were given plenary power over our defense. The courts were given no power. That was intentional: It created an accountability nexus between the officials making national-defense decisions and the people whose lives hung in the balance.

If we do not return to that arrangement, we are not free and we cannot defend ourselves.
...
We must face down the courts’ despotic reinterpretation of “separation of powers.” Government action is not illegitimate simply because it lacks the judicial imprimatur; judicial action is illegitimate if it intrudes into areas committed by the Constitution to the political branches or the states.
...
Republicans should make clear that the president should not comply with judicial rulings issued under circumstances where Congress has divested the courts of jurisdiction. Regarding enemy combatants, Congress has so divested the courts in the Military Commissions Act. Congress’s control of federal court jurisdiction is the rule of law, and where the judges fail to live within that constitutional framework, their decisions should be ignored.

This is not a betrayal of what the Left calls “our values.” It is a reaffirmation of our principles. It will still be necessary to treat our captives humanely. But it will be for us through our accountable representatives, not for the courts, to draw the lines between national security and due process for the enemy. Unless we declare our national-security independence from unaccountable judges, we will no longer be governed by our Constitution, we will no longer control our own defense, and we will no longer be free.

Breaking News: The Sun Affects Global Temperatures!

Jonah Goldberg is just awesome. His article about the effect of sunspots on global temperatures is careful to avoid hasty scientific conclusions while pointing out the sheer zealotry on display from proponents of anthropogenic climate change.

Here's my favorite part:

...[H]umility and skepticism [among the scientific community] seem to manifest themselves only when the data point to something other than the mainstream narrative about global warming. For instance, when we have terribly hot weather, or bad hurricanes, the media see portentous proof of climate change. When we don’t, it’s a moment to teach the masses how weather and climate are very different things.

No, I’m not denying that man-made pollution and other activity have played a role in planetary warming since the Industrial Revolution.

But we live in a moment when we are told, nay lectured and harangued, that if we use the wrong toilet paper or eat the wrong cereal, we are frying the planet. But the sun? Well, that’s a distraction. Don’t you dare forget your reusable shopping bags, but pay no attention to that burning ball of gas in the sky — it’s just the only thing that prevents the planet from being a lifeless ball of ice engulfed in darkness. Never mind that sunspot activity doubled during the 20th century, when the bulk of global warming has taken place.
...
[M]aybe we should study a bit more before we spend billions to “solve” a problem we don’t understand so well.

Cal Thomas on Teddy Kennedy

Cal Thomas is one of the few columnists who seems to truly understand the way christian conviction informs conservative idealogy. Most use faith as a crutch to prop-up their political convictions, but Thomas's faith always seems to precede his political conclusions. His article on Teddy Kennedy's passing is, I think, the way Christians ought to respond - although most (myself included) would probably take a bit more pleasure in pointing out Kennedy's flaws/crimes.

For me, this article highlights the important distinction between discernment and judgment, or as Thomas puts it "Judgment and Judgmentalism." Kennedy did lots of terrible things. God has empowered us and expects us to watch the actions of others with a critical eye - to identify behaviors that are wrong, call attention to them, denounce them, and encourage others to do the same. But God also expects this to be done out of love, not pride or vindictiveness.

Thomas says:

Many on the Right invoke the name of Jesus on Sunday and tear down a politician whose policies they don't like the rest of the week. Tearing down policy is fine, but diminishing the value of a fellow human simply because you don't like his politics (or his personal behavior) is not a good strategy for persuading him to change either.
...
This is not to absolve Senator Kennedy of his sins, only to say that we are neither the judge, nor the one who can absolve. We can't forgive ourselves, or as I put it to a TV interviewer who asked me "bottom line: Senator Kennedy, a good man?"

"Only God is good," I responded. "The rest of us are sinners."

It is not hypocritical to care for someone who behaves badly. In fact, it is the height of love to do so because you want him to have a changed life and attitude that will help him behave better for his own sake and that of his family. Denouncing that person and condemning him to Hell is not likely to make him more open to things that will lead him in the other direction. Who among us has lived a perfect life that would be acceptable to God?
...
I strongly opposed much of what Senator Kennedy proposed, but I cared for him as a person. Those without sin...

Lockerbie

This article by Dennis Prager points out the absolute moral backwardness of the recent decision to release the Lockerbie bomber on humanitarian grounds.

If a serial killer murdered 270 people, would judges still think releasing him to die at home is the humane thing to do? Or does that principle only apply to politically-motivated terrorists?

Some highlights of the article are below. Also, if you've never read the details of the Lockerbie attack, I highly recommend reading this so you can fully grasp the inhumanity of this man's actions.

***

The Scottish government released Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the one person convicted in the mass murder of 270 people when Pan Am flight 103 was blown up over Lockerbie, Scotland, in December 1988.

As the Chicago Tribune noted in an editorial appropriately titled "Scotland's Shame," at al-Megrahi's 2001 trial, the Scottish prosecutor pointed out that "four hundred parents lost a child, 46 parents lost their only child, 65 women were widowed, 11 men lost their wives, 140 lost a parent, seven lost both parents."

But all these people and all their loved ones were not the recipients of Scotland's compassion; the murderer was.

What the Scottish government, its Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, and millions of others in the West do not understand is that, unlike justice, compassion cannot be given to everyone. If you show compassion to person X or group X, you cannot show it to person Y or group Y. Justice, by definition, is universal. Compassion, by definition, is selective.

That is why, generally speaking, governments should be in the business of dispensing justice, not compassion. Individuals can, and often ought to, dispense compassion, not societies.

When governments try to dispense compassion, they usually end up hurting people, as in the case of Scotland.

Moral Foundations of Economic Beliefs

John demanded that I post this article on my blog, which is a strange request given the fact that John is pretty much my only reader.

Actually, it is one of the best articles I've read in a very long time. It forces the reader to question the fundamental moral assumptions of their economic beliefs. I doubt seriously that it will convert the "true-believer" in socialistic or redistributionist economic policies, but it should reinvigorate those jaded free-marketeers who have begun to accept as inevitable their caricature as selfish, immoral, robber-barons.

***

Lately, I've found myself more frequently at odds over economic and political issues with people I know from church. Granted, this is probably explained by the fact that I've recently relocated to Chicago from central Texas, but I don't think the change can be entirely attributed to geography.

It used to be the case that most "bible belt" protestant christians were reliably fiscal conservatives, but that seems not to be the case as often anymore. I can only conclude that Americans (who are generally people of faith) have begun to drift toward the idea that redistributionist economic policies are morally preferable to free-market ones.

How can this be? How can those who claim to serve the poor (as all Christians must) demonize an economic system that is historically unique in its ability to eradicate widespread poverty? How can they endorse political and economic systems that have, in the name of "equality" and "community," crippled individual liberties and plunged entire populations into material destitution?

Conservatives, and particularly Christian conservatives, cannot continue to cede the moral high-ground, especially if we really do care about the least fortunate among us. The article above is a good first step in learning to take it back.

Rules for Radicals

I thought this line from Andrew McCarthy's recent article summed up the nature of Obama's recent missteps perfectly:

Saul Alinsky’s bag of tricks doesn’t say what to do when the opponent to be smeared in the public mind is the public itself. So our organizer-in-chief is adrift at sea, and sinking.

Great Cartoon

Is the President Mistaken, or Dishonest?

As a follow-up to my earlier claim that the President is actually being dishonest about the cost of Obamacare in order to get americans on board, check out this article by Caroline Baum.

Especially this part:

Everyone makes a mistake or flubs a line when asked questions on the spot, including the president of the United States...[but] the proliferation of Obama’s gaffes and non sequiturs on health care has exceeded the allowable limit.

He has failed repeatedly to explain how the government will provide more (health care) for less (money). He has failed to explain why increased demand for medical services without a concomitant increase in supply won’t lead to rationing by government bureaucrats as opposed to the market. And he has failed to explain why a Medicare-like model is desirable when Medicare itself is going broke.

The public is left with one of two unsettling conclusions: Either the president doesn’t understand the health-insurance reform plans working their way through Congress, or he understands both the plans and the implications and is being untruthful about the impact.

Neither option is good; ignorance is clearly preferable to the alternative.

****
As I said earlier, I'm hesitant to accuse anyone - and especially the president - of lying. The accusation usually rings of desperation or vindictiveness (just think of all the "Bush lied!" nonsense from years past). But as the president's claims are so completely at odds with economic reality, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that dishonesty, rather than faulty intelligence, is at work in the current situation.

Goldberg

Jonah Goldberg puts Obama's claims about health-care costs and rationing in perspective:

Under the plan discussed at President Obama’s infomercial-esqe town halls, America would cut costs and expand coverage while avoiding rationing. Apparently, it’s paranoid to think that’s too good to be true.

Imagine you’re in charge of bringing pie to a company picnic. You’re planning to provide dessert for 100 people. Then, your boss says you need to hand out pie to 150. Fine, you say, I’ll make more pies. But — oh no! — you can’t, because you’ve also been told costs must go down. Okay, then you can cut slices of the existing pies smaller so everyone can have a piece. Wait! You can’t do that either, because you’re not allowed to ration (i.e., give less to more).

According to Obama, the health-care pie will be sliced into more pieces, of equal or greater size than available now, for less money — all because government is so much better than the private sector at managing large projects.

Pope Benedict and Moral Relativism

This is a good article by Robert Knight, pointing out the historical fact that societies embracing a relativistic approach to faith and morality always move away from the rule of law toward despotism.

As a protestant Christian, I think Pope Benedict's lifelong commitment to denouncing moral relativism in all its forms has clearly made him one of the most important theologians of the last 100 years. As the protestant churches increasingly shy away from making moral judgments of any kind for fear of losing relevance in an unblushingly libertine society, it is refreshing to see a high-profile person of faith (bit of an understatement there) taking a stand for Truth.

To identify and denounce certain behavior as morally wrong or sinful is not an act of bigotry or intolerance. The fact that so many now equate moral conviction with intolerance is the fault of Christians who have lost the courage to stand for truth and accept the ridicule of a shameless society. And when you stop standing for truth, eventually you stop believeing in it too.

Another Health-Care Myth

Before reading this, answer this question: Does preventative care have a net effect of increasing or decreasing medical expenses for an individual? For society generally?

Once you've reached your conclusion, read this article by Charles Krauthammer to discover whether or not you were right.

...
My two cents:

I make it a practice never to openly impugn the motives of those with whom I disagree. I generally assume that people (no matter how wrong-headed I think them) are sincere, that their intentions are good, and that most harms caused are unintentional. But sometimes - and I think this is true for all of us - the best intentions can be used to rationalize the worst behavior, and while a person can be forgiven the unforseen harmful consequences of their well-intending actions, they cannot be excused for any intentional wrongdoing in support of those sincerely-held beliefs.

To clarify - President Obama believes that socialized medicine will, generally speaking, benefit the American people. That's his sincerely-held belief. If he achieves his goal and the resulting reforms are damaging to American health-care, I can certainly blame him for the harm done but I cannot claim that he acted maliciously. He would have only been doing what he thought was right. But if he intentionally deceives or misleads the American people in an attempt to persuade them to support his plan, he has crossed a distinct moral line and can be judged accordingly.

Which brings me to my conclusion: When it comes to the health-care debate, President Obama is lying. He is lying with good intentions - to get the American people to vote for reform that he believes will inure to their benefit - but lying nonetheless. Think this is a bit harsh? Consider:

As Mr. Krauthammer points out, the high costs of universal preventative care are unquestionable. Now, you can argue that it's money well spent - that preventative care is worth the high cost - but you can't (honestly) argue the cost. Most americans are happy with their health-care, so they aren't buying the argument that the President's overhaul is worth the massive pricetag. So what do you do when people aren't buying what you're selling? You lower the price. What if you can't lower the price? If you're a businessman, you close your doors. If you're a politician, you lie about the price.

So when President Obama says "[Preventative care] saves lives. It also saves money," what are we to conclude? He and his economic advisors are nothing if not intelligent; they fully understand the enormous costs of these programs - they're just betting on the fact that the average American citizen does not. Based on the recent outcry at townhall meetings across the country, the gamble isn't paying off.

A Real Health-Care Alternative

Whole Foods CEO John Mackey offers an alternative to the President's plan - one that operates efficiently (and thus cheaply) and that his employees love.

The President keeps saying that opponents of his plan just want to keep the status quo, and implies that their motives are primarily selfish. Is that true? The plan Mackey presents above would be radical change, and most conservatives (and liberals - given its overwhelming popularity with his employees) would support it wholeheartedly.

Isn't it possible for people to want a system to change, and simply oppose President Obama's particular brand of change? And wouldn't the debate be more constructive if the President were quicker to consider alternatives on their merits rather than to smear and marginalize those with whom he disagrees?

Anyway, I won't take the time here to explore each of Mackey's proposals, but I highly recommend reading the full article. Do you think Mackey's suggestions would be beneficial? And, more importantly, are they practical?

In addition to his specific recommendations, Mackey also makes some very down-to-earth observations about the right to health-care generally. Here are some highlights:

Many promoters of health-care reform believe that people have an intrinsic ethical right to health care—to equal access to doctors, medicines and hospitals. While all of us empathize with those who are sick, how can we say that all people have more of an intrinsic right to health care than they have to food or shelter?

Health care is a service that we all need, but just like food and shelter it is best provided through voluntary and mutually beneficial market exchanges. A careful reading of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right to health care, food or shelter. That's because there isn't any. This "right" has never existed in America
...
At Whole Foods we allow our team members to vote on what benefits they most want the company to fund. Our Canadian and British employees express their benefit preferences very clearly — they want supplemental health-care dollars that they can control and spend themselves without permission from their governments. Why would they want such additional health-care benefit dollars if they already have an "intrinsic right to health care"? The answer is clear — no such right truly exists in either Canada or the U.K. — or in any other country.

Rather than increase government spending and control, we need to address the root causes of poor health. This begins with the realization that every American adult is responsible for his or her own health.

The fact that the last sentence above is no longer self-evident shows just how far adrift our nation has gone.

Thomas Sowell

Great quotes today from Dr. Sowell...

[B]laming economic crises on "greed" is like blaming plane crashes on gravity. Certainly planes wouldn't crash if it wasn't for gravity. But when thousands of planes fly millions of miles every day without crashing, explaining [that] a particular plane crashed because of gravity gets you nowhere. Neither does talking about "greed," which is constant like gravity.
...
[I]f it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, that doesn't matter if it coos like a dove at Senate confirmation hearings.
...
How long will it be before the public gets tired of the little know-it-all sermonettes by Barack Obama-- especially since nothing that he is doing is actually working?
...
The Pope is more likely to have read Karl Marx than an environmentalist is to have read even a single book that criticized environmentalism.

Environ-Mental

Finally someone had the courage to say it: The planet would be better off without all these darn...people!

This is creepily reminiscent of the notorious statement by biologist David Graber:

Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet....[The ecosystem has] intrinsic value, more value to me than another human body or a billion of them....Until such time as Homo Sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along. (Los Angeles Times, October 29, 1989, p. 9)

So I'm confused. Environmentalists are determined to reduce global temperatures, right? Why? If the global temperature were to rise 200 degrees tomorrow would the planet cease to exist? Would it burn to a crisp, crumble into pieces, and drift off into space? Nope. It would still be right here - granted, a much different place - but still making it's way around the sun every year, much like every other planet in our neighborhood. The only real difference would be that no one would know, because we'd all have gone the way of the Dodo. Life would survive - bacteria, invertabrates, etc. - just not human life.

I submit (and I know this is a controversial idea) that the Earth is in need of protection because humans live here. Environmentalism, at it's core, is about protecting life. If not, why aren't environmentalists on a crusade to reduce global temperatures on Mercury or Mars or Jupiter? Why does Earth deserve all this special attention? Because it's just so pretty?

So if it's acknowledged that protecting the environment is really about protecting life, then isn't the conclusion that humanity should be whittled down for the good of the environment idiotically backward? Well, only if you subscribe to the antiquated notion that humans are "special" in some way.

If, on the other hand, you have accepted the radically egalitarian view that humans are no better than the innocent cockroach that is made to suffer for our cruelty and excess, then it makes perfect sense. We should give up our lives (voluntarily, for now) to protect theirs. If we refuse (according to Dr. Graber) then it would be better if we were wiped out entirely. For people with this degraded view of humanity, reasoned debate is useless.

While we can take comfort in the fact that people holding this view will slowly whittle themselves away, I think it would also be helpful to limit any mischief they may cause in the mean time. So, I suggest a little exercise to calm the consciences of these radical environmentalists.

Consider this: In the infinite vastness of space there is certain to exist a place very much like Earth. Liquid oceans, abundant plant-life, a complex ecosystem. But on this planet, for whatever reason, rational beings have never evolved. The place exists, but we just haven't found it yet. We're not there to see it, or interact with it or - inevitably - destroy it. So even if the Earth is ruined by SUVs, plastic water bottles and those third world masses with the gall to demand (gasp!) food and shelter, other worlds will live on, unsoiled by our putrid humanity.

Doesn't that knowledge - that somewhere in the universe humans don't exist - give you a warm, fuzzy feeling inside? If so, every night as your (vile, human) head hits the pillow, take comfort in the certainty of a place devoid of the "people" you so despise. And when you wake up the next morning (to the ecosystem's chagrin), please spare the rest of us your craziness.

The Bizarre Economics of "Cash for Clunkers"

In this article, Jonah Goldberg describes how an economic program as nonsensical as "Cash for Clunkers" gets traction in the Obama administration.

Here's an abridged version:

[19th-century French economist Frédéric Bastiat's essay "That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen”] is most famous for the “parable of the broken window,” in which a young boy shatters a shopkeeper’s window and, after some initial outrage, the villagers conclude that the rascal helped the local economy. Why?

Because if no one broke windows, window makers would be out of business, and if window makers were out of business, they wouldn’t buy any more bread or shoes, hurting the bakers and cobblers. So the six francs the shopkeeper must spend for a new window is really a boon to the community.

The problem with this argument can be gleaned from the title of Bastiat’s essay. By counting the money the shopkeeper spends to replace a perfectly good window (that which is seen), we ignore the money he might have spent on something else (that which is unseen). The shopkeeper might have instead dropped six francs on new shoes, a book, or a bonus for his assistant. Those who celebrate the broken window as a generator of growth take “no account of that which is not seen."
...
As you’ve no doubt heard, the “cash for clunkers” program gives buyers up to $4,500 of taxpayer money toward the purchase of a new car if they trade in their old cars for vehicles with better gas mileage. The old cars, still roadworthy, are then destroyed just like the shopkeeper’s window.
...
The program’s $1 billion funding evaporated in days rather than months as consumers...lined up for free cash. Washington is now agog with its successful effort to give out free money.

That Washington is shocked by the news that Americans like getting free money shows how thick the Beltway bubble really is.

Like the drunk who only looks for his car keys where the light is good, Washington can only see the economic activity it has created, not the activity it has destroyed.

For starters, who says the smartest thing for people with working cars is to buy new ones? Personal debt is supposed to be a problem, so why not look at this as bribing consumers into taking out car loans they don’t need? Even with the $4,500 subsidy, not all of these customers are going to be paying cash for their new cars. So they’ll be swapping serviceable-but-paid-for cars for nicer cars that are owned by banks.

Besides, maybe some people would be smarter to buy a savings bond or max out their kid’s college fund or — here’s a crazy thought — buy health insurance.
...
Under the government’s program, tax dollars are being diverted to people with cheap cars so they can buy expensive ones. That’s just really inefficient wealth distribution, not wealth creation. But government can see it, and that’s all that counts.

Latest from Thomas Sowell

Utopia Versus Freedom. Dr. Sowell has a talent for getting to the heart of an issue.

Krauthammer on Obamacare

This article is by far the best analysis I've read on the health care debate.

[Obama] protest[s], with perfect disingenuousness, that "this isn't about me. This isn't about politics."
...
This is not about politics? Then why is it, to take but the most egregious example, that in this grand health care debate we hear not a word about one of the worst sources of waste in American medicine: the insane cost and arbitrary rewards of our malpractice system?

When a neurosurgeon pays $200,000 a year for malpractice insurance before he even turns on the light in his office or hires his first nurse, who do you think pays? Patients, in higher doctor fees to cover the insurance.

And with jackpot justice that awards one claimant zillions while others get nothing -- and one-third of everything goes to the lawyers -- where do you think that money comes from? The insurance companies, who then pass it on to you in higher premiums.

But the greatest waste is the hidden cost of defensive medicine: tests and procedures that doctors order for no good reason other than to protect themselves from lawsuit. Every doctor knows, as I did when I practiced years ago, how much unnecessary medical cost is incurred with an eye not on medicine but on the law.

Tort reform would yield tens of billions in savings. Yet you cannot find it in the Democratic bills. And Obama breathed not a word about it in the full hour of his health care news conference. Why? No mystery. The Democrats are parasitically dependent on huge donations from trial lawyers.

Didn't Obama promise a new politics that puts people over special interests? Sure. And now he promises expanded, portable, secure, higher-quality medical care -- at lower cost! The only thing he hasn't promised is to extirpate evil from the human heart. That legislation will be introduced next week.

Coulter

Ann's article this week is a lot like mine below...except people read it.

A Modest Proposal

Why doesn't the government nationalize every insurance industry? If justice demands that society bear the consequences of an individual's misfortune, why stop at their health? Why does the same rationale not apply to their car? Their home? Their life?

If a man is hit by a bus at the age of 32, his wife and children - through no fault of their own - are deprived of his income for life. The burden of supporting them will likely fall on society. Couldn't this tragic and costly result be averted by simply mandating a national life insurance system? Not only is it a moral imperative, it would also reduce costs in the long run by keeping the insured's survivors off welfare.

True, the man in the above hypothetical probably had the option of purchasing life insurance for himself and decided against it - possibly to pay for additional schooling to expand his future earning capacity. But this was clearly a bad choice, and should never have been left to his (obviously flawed) judgment in the first place.

More importantly, many people can't afford to pay for life insurance. They're forced to go through life simply hoping that nothing bad happens! Isn't it our duty to insulate them from chance? To make them immune to the challenges and uncertainties of life? Of course it is.

So, we're agreed - life insurance coverage for all!

What? You don't agree? Well, you're cleary selfish and unconcerned for the well-being of others.

Religious Intolerance

I had to share this article from Ken Connor of Townhall.com. While I'm concerned about our government's recent turn toward disastrous economic policies, I think the greatest danger facing our nation is the ongoing campaign to smear, discredit and snuff-out religious devotion. The survival of civilized society depends on our ability as Christians to defend basic theological and moral truths.

* * *
Science: Theists Need Not Apply
Ken Connor
Sunday, July 19, 2009

Religious bigotry is alive and well in the scientific community, as evidenced by its response to President Obama's decision to appoint Dr. Francis Collins as the head of the National Institutes of Health. Though renowned for leading the team of scientists that successfully mapped the human genome, Dr. Collins is making headlines for something else: his faith. In spite of his professional qualifications and accomplishments, many in the scientific community are less than enthusiastic about the President's decision to appoint a self-described evangelical Christian to lead the world's leading organization for scientific research.

This skepticism results from a prejudice against a theistic worldview that has become entrenched in the scientific community—an irrational attitude born of historical ignorance and intellectual myopathy that is increasingly dismissive of moral questions and ethical concerns.

The idea that a tension exists between science and theism is relatively new. The most brilliant philosophical minds of the western intellectual tradition—dating all the way back to the time of Plato and Aristotle—operated on the assumption that our existence came into being through the actions of a divine creator, described as the First Cause or Unmoved Mover. For centuries after, theology reigned as queen of the sciences, and scientific inquiry was animated by the belief that human reason was a gift imparted by God so that man might gain knowledge about Him, His attributes, and the laws which govern His creation.

Without this belief that the physical world is the result of an intentional design governed by fixed laws—laws which we discover through reason and experience—there would have been little cause to engage in scientific pursuits. Faith in the goodness of God's creation and the intelligibility of its design inspired history's great minds to forge ahead into new worlds of knowledge and discovery.

Indeed, many of the great heroes of science pioneered their discoveries under the auspices of this inspiration. Groundbreaking advances in astronomy, chemistry, physics, mathematics, genetics, and other fields of knowledge were made by men dedicated to systematically investigating God's creation—men like Copernicus, Kepler, Pascal, Boyle, Kelvin, Mendel, and Faraday.

Over time, however, the scientific community came to question whether the advancement of human knowledge might be better served by separating itself from ethical constraints arising out of religious beliefs. The idea that man should be guided by transcendent moral principles in his quest for answers to life's mysteries, the idea that some boundaries should not be crossed, was an intolerable thought. Scientists wanted to answer the question "can I?" without having to ask "should I?"

Hence today, when a man who professes faith in the Risen Christ is given the reigns of America's preeminent scientific organization, eyebrows raise in skepticism. Prominent atheists like Richard Dawkins go on late-night TV talk shows to denounce the ridiculous notion that any intelligent person, let alone a scientist, could actually embrace the fantastic teachings of the Bible. Believing that the world is the result of an intentional act of creation on the part of a benevolent and loving God is likened to believing in unicorns or the tooth fairy—Peter Pan fantasies embraced by those too young or too dumb to cope with the cold hard facts of reality.

Regardless of the specifics of Dr. Collins's Christian identity, the idea that his faith impedes his fitness to serve as the head of the NIH operates on the absurd premise that only atheists and agnostics are capable of being good scientists. One might argue the precise opposite of this. If, as previously stated, the origin of scientific inquiry was based upon the belief that the physical world operates according to fixed and intelligible laws, one might ask what kind of foundation underlies a scientific worldview which denies an intelligent design or an ultimate purpose? If there's no designer, no fixed laws, no first principles, then there is no real meaning—no context in which to evaluate the value and significance of newly acquired knowledge. When there is no acknowledged moral source to draw a clear line between the permissible and the forbidden, then human curiosity and ambition are left as the only arbiters of science's use.

Those who profess a commitment to science while rejecting a belief in God want to expand the breadth of scientific inquiry without being subject to ethical constraints. Inevitably, this kind of thinking leads to manipulating or destroying the weaker among us in order to empower the stronger. This is the philosophy that has animated some of our history's most gruesome acts of scientific "experimentation," and it is espoused today by none other than President Obama's "science czar," John Holdren, who has advocated forced abortion and mass sterilization in the name of environmental responsibility.

If this is the kind of ideology that results when the age-old relationship between faith and science is destroyed, then Dr. Collins's "embrace" of religion is the least of America's troubles.

Dr. Sowell on 'Disparate Impact'

In this article on the Ricci case, Dr. Sowell knocks it out of the park yet again.

As you read the article, notice how the concept of 'disparate impact' only makes sense to one who views the world in terms of groups rather than individuals, and completely discounts the possibility of individual or group exceptionalism. It also assumes that the world is essentially 'zero-sum': if one person wins, another must lose. This view creates the sense that those who attain a certain level of success have, in fact, taken that success from others. And that is how people like Judge Sotomayor and Justice Ginsburg have come to rationalize the redistribution of success in the name of civil rights, without regard for individual rights.

Here's a sample of the article:

[T]he growing complexity and murkiness of civil rights law over the years recalls the painful saying: "Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive."
...
A key notion that has created unending mischief, from its introduction by the Supreme Court in 1971 to the current firefighters' case, is that of "disparate impact." Any employment requirement that one racial or ethnic group meets far more often than another is said to have a "disparate impact" and is considered to be evidence of racial discrimination.

In other words, if group X doesn't pass a test nearly as often as group Y, then there is something wrong with the test, according to this reasoning or lack of reasoning. This implicitly assumes that there cannot be any great difference between the two groups in the skills, talents or efforts required.

That notion is the grand dogma of our time-- an idea for which no evidence is asked or given, and an idea that no amount of contradictory evidence can change in the minds of the true believers, or in the rhetoric of ideologues and opportunists.

Trying to reconcile that dogma with the principle of equal treatment for all has led courts into feats of higher metaphysics that the Medieval Scholastics could be proud of.
...
It is not stupidity, but ideology and politics, which allow the "disparate impact" dogma to create a tangled web of deception in even the highest levels of our legal system. The recent Supreme Court's decision in the New Haven firefighters' case was a rare example of sanity prevailing, even if only by a vote of 5 to 4.

Coulter on the Ricci Case

I'm generally hesitant to pass along Ann Coulter articles because, although always hilarious, she can be counterproductively inflammatory. However, her article this week on Judge Sotomayor and the Ricci decision is definitely worth reading.

Here's a sample:

This week, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 for the white and Hispanic firefighters, overturning Sotomayor's endorsement of racial quotas.

But all nine justices rejected Sotomayor's holding that different test results alone give the government a green light to engage in race discrimination. Even Justice Ginsburg's opinion for the dissent clearly stated that "an employer could not cast aside a selection method based on a statistical disparity alone."

Indeed, the dissenters argued that the case should be returned to the lower courts to look for some hidden racial bias in the test. For Sotomayor, the results alone proved racial bias.
...
Based on her lifetime of experience working as a firefighter, Ginsburg said: "Relying heavily on written tests to select fire officers is a questionable practice, to say the least." Liberals prefer a more objective test, such as race.
...
In the middle of a fire, it can either be a great idea or the worst possible idea to open a door. An excellent method for finding out if your next fire chief knows the correct answer is a written test.

Unleashing the canard of all race-obsessed liberals, Ginsburg observed that courts have found that a fire officer's job "involves complex behaviors, good interpersonal skills, the ability to make decisions under tremendous pressure, and a host of other abilities -- none of which is easily measured by a written, multiple choice test."

So does a lawyer's job. And yet attorneys with absolutely no "interpersonal skills" get cushy jobs and extravagant salaries on the basis of their commendable performance on all manner of written tests, from multiple choice LSATs and bar exams to written law school exams.

I note that Ginsburg has not shown any particular interest in rectifying the "disparate impact" of legal exams: She never hired a single black law clerk out of the dozens she employed in more than a decade as an appeals court judge. (Her hiring practices on the Supreme Court are a state secret, but I can state with supreme certainty that her clerks do not reflect the racial mix of Washington, D.C.)
...
Liberals desperately want race quotas -- as long as quotas never come to their offices.

Mark It Zero

A "quote of the day" in honor of my one follower:









"This is not Vietnam, it's bowling - there are rules."

The Ricci Decision

Here is the Supreme Court's decision on the firefighter discrimination case. While the Court clearly came down on the correct side, I'm disappointed (though not terribly surprised) that this was a 5-4 vote. It shows just how politically twisted the idea of "equal justice under the law" has become.

Justice Scalia's concurrence is, as always, spot-on. Laws designed to engineer certain racial outcomes, irrespective of any discriminatory intent, are fundamentally at odds with the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection. This is what Bastiat calls "legal plunder" - taking by force from one to give to another - and it is plainly unjust.

History shows that any legal system commandeered by political powers to actively promote injustice will, in a free society, ultimately collapse under the weight of its own contradictions. I hope our nation can reverse the course of our jurisprudence before that happens, but the nomination of Judge Sotomayor is not a promising sign.

Iranian Options

Differing perspectives on Iran from two intellectual juggernauts of conservatism:

Charles Krauthammer provides the more hawkish, "neoconservative" position.

Pat Buchanan endorses a hands-off, isolationist approach. He offered another defense of this position today.

Which seems best to you?

Foreign Policy Basics

This is a fantastic article from John Bolton. He compares traditional conservative and modern liberal views relating to foreign policy, exposes the weak philosophical foundations of the modern liberal approach, and predicts a dramatic turn away from it in the future.

Here are some excerpts (emphasis added):

Conservative foreign policy is unabashedly pro-American, unashamed of American exceptionalism, unwilling to bend its knee to international organizations, and unapologetic about the need for the fullest range of dominant military capabilities. Its diplomacy is neither unilateralist nor multilateralist, but chooses its strategies, tactics, means and methods based on a hard-headed assessment of U.S. national interests, not on theologies about process. Most especially, conservatives understand that allies are different from adversaries, and that each should be treated accordingly.
...
Defending U.S. interests is neither arrogant nor disrespectful of others, but is instead the basic task of our presidents. Despite the 2008 election, neither the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, nor international terrorism, nor the challenges of geostrategic adversaries have in any way diminished.
...
Conservatives understand that these and numerous other threats are not anomalies in an otherwise peaceful and friendly world, but manifestations of the inevitable international clash of interests and philosophies. Conflict with our interests and values is not some unfortunate exception to normality, it is normality. While harmony is desirable, it is far from inevitable, and the causes of disharmony are just as natural and human as their opposites.
...
In particular, conservatives reject the idea that America's actions are the foundation for most international discord, and that it is our deviation from international "norms" that must be "corrected" for the natural state of harmony to return.
...
The American people actually expect to be defended against international threats and adversaries, and they will undoubtedly punish any American president who does not understand and implement their strong and entirely justifiable views. That is why we may well see the future of conservative foreign policy bloom as early as 2012.

Violence in the World's Major Religions

This is an interesting article by Raymond Ibrahim examining the popular relativist argument that Christianity and Judaism are as violent, if not more violent, than Islam.

Ibrahim readily conceeds that the three major monotheistic religions have all experienced their share of violence and intolerance. So, in light of these realities, can it be said that Islam is unique in its tendency to foster violence among its adherents?

He makes the point that an evaluation of a particular faith's violent proclivities must be undertaken with an eye toward the presence or absence of scriptural exhortations to violence, rather than the presence or absence of violent periods or incidents in a faith's historical tradition. As he puts it, the key question is "whether this violence is ordained by God or whether warlike men merely wished it."

If I claim to be a Christian but occasionally tell a lie, no serious person would see my individual failings as evidence that Christianity promotes dishonesty. The correct conclusion would be that I'm simply an imperfect person - which is, by the way, the fundamental assumption of the Christian faith. In the same way, a religion cannot be honestly described as violent unless it's authoritative texts command violence as a matter of practice.

The article makes a compelling argument that, seen through this lens, any attempt to equate the violent tendencies of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is either misguided or dishonest.

Book Recommendation

In light of the recent discussion of Judge Sotomayor's judicial philosophy, everyone (and especially those with some background in law) should read Judge Robert Bork's The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law. I am reading this now, and there could not be a more relevant book.

Judge Sotomayor

Read Charles Krauthammer's brilliant analysis of the Sotomayor situation. Here's the argument in a nutshell, as he presented it on the Fox Report:

This ought to be a seminar that [focuses] on two issues — number one, identity politics.... She and the president believe that her background is extremely important in her ruling as a judge. She says that she has the physiological, cultural, experiential tools as a Latina woman to be a superior judge to a white male, which is reflective perfectly of the Democratic Party's identity politics, in which free citizens are herded into groups, arranged into a hierarchy of wisdom, authority, and entitlement. That's a Democratic idea, and I think it's her idea and ought to be emphasized.

Secondly is the idea...of justice as empathy, as understanding a person's positions, their needs, their wants, their history, and how a ruling will affect their lives. That is entirely contrary to the western tradition of justice, which is blind as to the person's station in life.

Republicans ought to ask her, "How do you believe in that, and swear your oath?" If she is on the court, she has to swear an oath which says I will solemnly swear I will administer justice without respect to persons and to equal right to poor and rich. That's what Republicans ought to do, and not attack her in a personal way.

My two cents:
I am absolutely amazed by the hypocrisy of the Democratic Party in selling Judge Sotomayor to the public based on her ethnicity and inspiring personal story rather than her judicial competency. She has impeccable professional credentials for the position (despite her backward judicial philosophy) so why make her ethnicity the central issue of her confirmation? To do so completely undermines the concept of a goverment of laws, rather than of men.

No one in the history of the Supreme Court has a more inspiring personal story than Clarence Thomas - a black man born into abject poverty in the south, abandoned by his father and raised by grandparents. And yet, despite his inspiring story and astounding academic and professional success, he is almost universally reviled by the left. Why? The answer is obvious.

Interesting Articles

Pat Buchanan article on Cheney's resurgence as a force in the national security debate.

"The Republican Party needs to get off the psychiatrist's couch, and stand up and fight for what it believes. You don't need a moderate with a pretty face to deliver a moderate message. The former vice president with the crocodile grin has just shown the way."

Political Trivia

Who is older?

Nancy Pelosi or Dick Cheney?
















Answer:
Pelosi

Pelosi - Age 69; Born March 26, 1940
Cheney - Age 68; Born January 30, 1941

Dick Cheney in Hindsight

If you missed it, here's Dick Cheney's speech on the "torture" debate and the current administration's approach to national security issues. It's long, but I highly encourage you to read the entire thing. It is the antidote to the uninformed commentator's simplistic and self-righteous criticism of Bush administration policies. If you can read this without feeling even a twinge of gratefulness for this man's service, you are drinking the kool-aid.

The caricature of Dick Cheney invented by popular culture and the compliant MSM will go down in history as one of the most propagandistic distortions of a public servant in history. A truly great man.

And here's Bill Kristol's comparison of Obama's and Cheney's speeches on this subject. Ditto.

Sowell on Obama's Supreme Court Pick

This is a great series of articles on the upcoming Supreme Court vacancy. Thomas Sowell addresses Obama's promise to appoint judges with "empathy" and explains how this approach is entirely antagonistic to the rule of law.

"Empathy" Versus Law: Part I
"Empathy" Versus Law: Part II
"Empathy" Versus Law: Part III
"Empathy" Versus Law: Part IV

Politics as Popularity Contest

This is a great article from Jonah Goldberg on the future of the Republican party. I completely agree with him. Here's a little excerpt:

"I would love it if the GOP dedicated itself to cutting government by two-thirds, leaving only a minimal social safety net, a big honking military and a few other bells and whistles for promoting the general welfare. My ideal ticket in 2008 would have been Cheney-Gramm. That's right, Dick Cheney and Phil Gramm: two old white guys who would crush our enemies and liberate our economy while shouting, "You kids get off my lawn!" at the filthy hippies who would inevitably accumulate outside the White House like so much bathroom fungus.

"But you know what? It's not about what I want. Gone are the days when a great but uncharismatic president like Calvin Coolidge could get elected because he promised to do as little as possible. My ideal platform may be right. (If I didn't think it was, it wouldn't be my ideal platform, now would it?) But it is surely not popular.

"And that, I fear, may be the key word: "popular." In my darker moods, I suspect that American politics, at least at the presidential level, is ultimately just a popularity contest. In the television age, the more personally charming guy wins -- or at minimum has a monumental advantage."

Since the election of President Obama I've had a creeping sense of unease with the direction of american politics, but I couldn't put my finger on exactly why. The article above has helped me realize why I'm so annoyed: Because now, more than ever in my memory, a leader's persona seems more important to voters than his personal and political philosophies. Don't get me wrong - I'm not uncomfortable with the fact that personal popularity plays a major role in choosing our leaders. A representative government couldn't function any other way. I just wish it wasn't the only consideration for so many.

Texas Reaffirms State Sovereignty

I think this is great. Not because secession is a good idea - it certainly is not - but because it's important for people to realize that the founders intended for state and local governments, rather than the federal government, to weild the bulk of the power to make decisions affecting citizens' lives.

It has nothing to do with the alleged virtuousness or wisdom of a particular leader. Centralized power is always, always, always oppressive.

Interesting Articles

Michelle Malkin takes the Congressional Black Caucus to task for their willingness to be used as tools of propaganda for Castro's oppressive Cuban government. It's always amazing how one's idealogy can blind them to reality.

Charles Krauthammer perfectly summarizes the effect of President Obama's European Apology Tour, particularly in light of the recent developments in North Korea.

Jonah Goldberg explains why it is impossible to keep our values out of foreign policy. This is a really interesting article, and seriously undemines any argument that American foreign policy oppresses others by attempting to impose western values.

Pope Benedict XVI - Look Upon the World with Eyes of Love

I took a moment today to read the Pope's homily at the Mass of the Lord's Supper. No, I'm not Catholic, but I love this guy. If you haven't read anything he's written, I highly recommend it (try this, this or this).

Protestants tend to be wary of the Catholic Church, although perhaps less so in the United States since the Catholic Church has not been as politically dominant here. And while I definitely have serious doctrinal differences with Catholicism, I'm thoroughly convinced that Pope Benedict is as genuine a man of God as has ever lived.

Consider Mark 9:38-41: "Teacher," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us." "Do not stop him," Jesus said. "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us. I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward."

The Meaning of Meaning

This is an interesting Jonah Goldberg blog entry on the concept of meaning in life, specifically addressing the way we attempt to impose our own vision of a meaningful life on others using the power of government.

Here's a taste, followed by a brief conclusion of my own...

"In [President Obama's] acceptance speech at the Democratic convention he tried to redefine the invidualistic pursuit of the 'American dream' into a more collective...endeavor to achieve 'America's promise.' But for many of us, America's promise is not what we all do together via the government, but what we're all capable of achieving on our own when government gets out of the way.

[T]he best the government can do is provide the means to pursue happiness. That's why the constitution doesn't promise to give people anything beyond basic security and common defense while guaranteeing that it won't get in the way of people trying to pursue their own understanding of happiness (The old Soviet constitution, by contrast, promised to provide everything people needed to be happy, and failed across the board).

Again, the problem is when governments, or political movements seeking to take control of the government, seek to provide meaning to people.... Such an effort, by definition, becomes oppressive because one person's or one government's definition of happiness will inevitably be someone else's idea of Hell."

My two cents: This is why private action is always better than state action. A person offering their vision of a meaningful life to others through active involvement with their church or other social organization (serving or evangelizing in the community) has all the same power to positively influence and enrich the lives of others, but none of the power to oppress in any real way.

Once a person has become convinced that their own rightness (or righteousness) justifies the use the coercive power of the state to impose that view on less "enlightened" others - the line has been crossed. This isn't to say that it's wrong to be certain of your convictions and to try and convince others of the same. On the contrary, it is necessary. But to attempt to force or coerce others to believe something is an exercise in futility, and to force or coerce others to do something is just plain oppressive. Both paths, however well-intentioned, are tacit rejections of God's wisdom and authority to imbue each of us with the liberty to, wisely or foolishly, direct our own lives.

Chipping Away...

In this article, George Will examines the ways in which our elected officials have begun systematically deconstructing the governmental restraints set forth in the constitution. They've been able to do this by seizing on public fear and outrage, as most recently expressed during the AIG bonus fiasco. It is amazing how subtle these changes have been, and how drastically they are altering the structure of American government and the nature of the American economy.

The Great Communicator

I found this on another blog and thought it was worth sharing. The snippets from Obama in this clip are clearly cherry-picked and not terribly illuminating - but I'm more interested in Reagan's control of conservative principles. How long has it been since we've heard a prominent conservative so effortlessly describe the fundamental truths of limited government, free enterprise, individual liberty? And how naive does modern liberalism sound by comparison?

Milton Friedman

This classic interview is well worth another look...

Obama's Lofty Words Mask an Astonishingly Unserious Approach to the Stem Cell Debate

Charles Krauthammer unmasks President Obama's empty rhetoric on the stem cell debate, and reminds us how intellectually and morally sophisticated President Bush's examination of the issue had been by comparison.
(Here's the RealClearPolitics version if you don't have a Washington Post login.)

Here is the full text of Obama's speech.
And here is Bush's for comparison.

Considering Income Inequality Rationally

The excerpt below is from Thomas Sowell's most recent work on economics. If you haven't read Dr. Sowell's economic texts, there has never been a more critical time to do so. I think the passage below completely exposes the false and subversive notion that inequitable income distribution is an evil that any enlightened society cannot tolerate. That assertion, so often parroted by a generation of Americans completely unequipped to think rationally about basic economic principles, has the potential to destroy the prosperity that has enriched the lives of so many and allowed this nation to extend its blessings to less fortunate people around the world. The fact that adherents to this view proceed with the purest of intentions makes it no less destructive.

The version of Dr. Sowell's work presented here is heavily abridged due to obvious space constraints, but the full text of this section can be found on pages 148-152 of Economic Facts and Fallacies.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

"[A]n economy is not a moral seminar authorized to hand out badges of merit to deserving people. An economy is a mechanism for generating the material wealth on which the standard of living of millions of people depends. Pay is not a retrospective reward for merit, but a prospective incentive for contributing to production...

"George Bernard Shaw...said: 'A division in which one woman gets a shilling and another three thousand shillings for an hour of work has no moral sense in it: it is just something that happens, and that ought not to happen. A child with an interesting face and pretty ways, and some talent for acting, may, by working for the films, earn a hundred times as much as its mother can earn by drudging at an ordinary trade.'

"Here are encapsulated the crucial elements in most critiques of 'income distribution' till this day. First, there is the implicit assumption that wealth is collective and hence must be divided up in order to be dispensed, followed by the assumption that this division currently has no principle involved but 'just happens,' and finally the implicit assumption that the effort put forth by the recipient of income is a valid yardstick for gauging the value of what was produced and the appropriateness of the reward. In reality, most income is not distributed, so the fashionable metaphor of 'income distribution' is misleading. Most income is earned by the production of goods and services, and how much that production is 'really' worth is a question that need not be left for third parties to determine, since those who directly receive the benefits of that production know better than anyone else how much that production is worth to them - and have the most incentives to seek alternative ways of getting that production as inexpensively as possible.

"In short, a collective decision for society as a whole is as unnecessary as it is impossible, not to mention presumptuous. It is not a question of rewarding input efforts or merits, but of securing output at values determined by those who use that output, rather than by third party onlookers. If the pleasure gained by watching a child movie star is valued more highly by millions of moviegoers than the benefits received by a much smaller number of people who benefit from buying the product of the drudgery of that child's mother, by what right is George Bernard Shaw or anyone else authorized to veto all these people's choices of what to do with their own money?
...
"Despite the popularity of the phrase 'income distribution,' most income is earned - not distributed.... But much of the rhetoric surrounding variations in income proceeds as if 'society' is collectively deciding how much to hand out to different individuals. From there it is a small step to arguing that, since 'society' distributes income with given results today that many do not understand or like, there should be a simple change to distributing income in a different pattern that would be more desirable.

"In reality, this would by no means be either a simple or innocuous change. On the contrary, it would mean going from an economic system in which most people are paid by those particular individuals that benefit from their goods and services - at rates of compensation determined by supply and demand involving those consumers, employers, and others who assess the benefits received by themselves - to an economy in which incomes are in fact distributed by 'society,' represented by surrogate, third-party decision-makers who determine what everyone 'deserves.'
...
"No third parties can possibly know the values, preferences, priorities, potentialities, circumstances, and constraints of millions of individuals better than those individuals know themselves."

Every Failed Social Experiment Begins With These Words...

Today I was looking over President Obama's sales pitch for his budget, which is rather comically titled "A New Era of Responsibility: Renewing America's Promise." You can find it here, although I can't imagine anyone wanting to read it in great detail. I only mention it here because one phase in particular caught my attention. Near the end of the "President's Message" on the first few pages, Obama writes:

"Our problems are rooted in past mistakes, not our capacity for future greatness."

On its face, this phrase seems harmless enough. It's the kind of lofty rhetoric one expects from a man who has built his entire public persona around the idea of "hope." And who can argue with him? We've obviously made mistakes, but we're capable of changing things for the better, right? Well, yes and no.

I think with regard to an individual, this is certainly true. But I believe these simple words, when applied to society generally, are the soil in which every disastrous social experiment in history has taken root. This one phrase is at the heart of the dangerously naive progressive vision of humanity. It is what Thomas Sowell calls "The Vision of the Anointed," (I highly suggest that you read his book on the subject. He explains it much better than I can)

Apparently the President's plan for "renewing America's promise" can be summarized as follows: stop making mistakes. Sounds wonderful...I wish him luck with that. But here's where it gets a little ominous. How, in a free society, can private citizens be prevented from making "wrong" choices for themselves and fouling the whole thing up again? Well, that's obvious. By taking their choices away, of course.

Sean Penn's Foolishness

Sean Penn, accepting his Best Actor Oscar for Milk, snidely remarked that anyone opposing gay marriage should consider the shame with which their grandchildren will one day regard their stance on the issue. I have a few thoughts about this statement...

I have no doubt that future generations (at least for a time) will accept the idea of gay marriage more readily than our generation has. But I believe, based on my own religious convictions and observations relating to the historical composition of civilized societies, that they will be wrong to do so. Unlike Sean Penn, I see no reason to assume that our children's moral compasses will be more finely tuned than our grandparents' were simply because they are developed in the 21st century.

His view is based on the progressive assumption that society is gradually perfecting itself, moving ever closer to humanity's social and moral apex. It assumes that my grandchildren will necessarily be more enlightened than I am, and dismisses out-of-hand the prospect that future generations will regress in any way. This view can only be held by one who is idealogically blinded to historical realities.

It seems obvious to me that human history, rather than being a steady march toward perfection, has been and continues to be a moral revolving door - taking us sometimes in one direction and the next moment in another, but ever fixed around a central, unmovable point. I think most of what we would call social or moral "progress" today is nothing more than going around in the same old circles.

Perhaps another metaphor would be useful. Rather than being on a road, as most "progressives" tend to imagine, I think we are in a maze. We may be moving forward, but it is as likely as not that each step only brings us closer to a dead end - at which point we will have no choice but to turn around and walk back the way we came. C.S. Lewis explained this idea most clearly when he wrote: "We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man." (You might have noticed that I really like this quotation.)

Penn regards traditional values with childish disdain because, quite simply, he considers himself the pinnacle of morality and enlightenment. The rest of us can acknowledge that not all movement is necessarily progress. I hope that my grandchildren will not regard me as a fool or a bigot, but their opinion will say nothing about the rightness or wrongness of my views. My interaction with this world has taught me that things fall apart as often as they come together. Future generations will likely be as wrong about certain things as I have been about others. All that matters is whether they and I will choose to acknowledge Truth, insofar as God has revealed it to us.

And thankfully, Truth has no regard for consensus - whatever the actors may say.

"Henry Poole is Here" and Religious Devotion

Julie and I watched "Henry Poole is Here" last night. It wasn't particularly good, despite one or two moving scenes and a few funny lines from Luke Wilson. But one scene in particular interested me, and I'd like to discuss it here.

Henry Poole, having only a few weeks to live, moves back into his childhood neighborhood - intending to spend his last days in the one place he remembers being truly happy. The plot takes an odd twist when Esperanza, a devoutly Catholic neighbor, claims to see the face of Jesus in a water stain on Henry's wall. Although irritated by her intrusion into his final weeks, he feels some sympathy for the past pain she has experienced and indulges her delusion. When the stain on the wall begins bleeding and, unbelievably (for Henry), healing neighbors' afflictions, Henry is forced into a decision. He can either continue to dismiss the stain as a delusion or decide to believe in something that contradicts all his rationality. Given his terminal condition, this choice may have very real consequences for Henry.

I'll not spoil the ending, because what really interests me is an exchange between Henry and his Catholic neighbor. It goes something like this (very loosely paraphrased from memory):

Esperanza: "Mr. Poole, why won't you just believe?"

Henry: "Why is it so important to you that I believe? What do you care? You need me to believe so you'll feel a little less crazy. Because if you can convince others to join in your crazy little delusion then it won't seems so crazy anymore, and you could quiet that voice in your head that tells you you're wrong. You could keep silencing your own doubt."

My first response to this exchange was self-examination. Do I seek validation of my beliefs from others in order to ease my own misgivings? Has the goal of my evangelism been to insulate myself from doubt, rather than to help others find Truth? Honestly, I think not. After much reflection, I can say with certainty that my efforts to evangelize have been motivated by a desire to improve the lives of others. But rather than relying on anecdotal evidence to refute Henry's accusation, I'd like to address the charge more systematically.

I'm sure to an atheist or a moral relativist Henry's explanation for the christian compulsion to evangelize seems credible. But for a person of genuine faith it is nonsense. I choose that word carefully, because Henry's assumption, never mind its truth or falsity, doesn't even make sense when applied to religious faith - at least to anyone examining it honestly. Let me explain.

To have faith in God is to acknowledge that there exists in reality a fundamental Truth that is entirely independent of our perception. While it can be perceived, its existence is not derived from observation. It is there, even if we cannot detect it or refuse to acknowledge it. While this might sound far too mystical for the modern, scientific mind, it is nonetheless perfectly rational. In fact, the "scientific mind" that rejects the reality of unobservable truth cannot be regarded as truly scientific in any meaningful way, for scientific endeavor requires extrapolation beyond present observation and all such extrapolation is necessarily faith-based.

[Aside: If the concept of knowable truth detached from observation sounds far-fetched to you, it may be useful to consider the idea in a non-religious context. Consider: Do the lives of others continue when you are not around? When you hang up the phone with your friend, does he or she cease to be simply because you do not perceive him at that moment? Does he fall into a temporary oblivion? You may say no, because you will see him again in the future, or because someone else is perceiving him now, or even that he is perceiving himself. But all of this is purely anecdotal - it can provide no objective assurance to you. You cannot get inside his head or see through his eyes. The fact is, no matter how obvious your friend's continued existence outside of your interaction with him may be, you cannot assert the truth of it without crossing from science into metaphysics. Into faith. And yet, we do act as though the lives of others have inherent value apart from their immediate utility to us. This is because each of us, at the most basic level of our humanity, believes that what is true for one of us is true for all. Since you exist apart from others' perception of you, you feel certain that your friends, family, and neighbors are the same. That conclusion is perfectly rational but completely unscientific. You can be certain of it, but you can never prove it.]

So what does this have to do with Henry Poole's claim that religious evangelism is nothing more than an attempt to ease our own doubts and insecurities? When confronted with the reality of transcendent, objective Truth, it falls apart. Henry's argument is built to persuade relativists. It makes sense only if you have already accepted its fundamental premise - that there is no truth apart from what people can be persuaded to believe - the more people that can be convinced of something, the truer it becomes. But this idea is anathema to genuine religious devotion. Since the existence or nonexistence of God is a matter of transcendent Truth - a question of reality, rather than perception - consensus cannot possibly be relevant to the question.

So while popular culture enjoys portraying the religious as sheep - irrational and delusional followers lacking the courage to stand apart from the herd - it is actually the non-believer who is more likely to take comfort in consensus. To a relativist mind consensus is everything - it defines truth itself. But to the religious mind, consensus may be useful or informative but it is ultimately irrelevant. To believe in God is to believe that even if you yourself were to stop believing in God, He would still exist. If I believe that something is true whether I believe it or not, is that conviction likely to be influenced by the beliefs of others?

The point is...evangelism is an attempt to bring others out of the isolation and self-destruction that plagues humanity and into the contentment that accompanies genuine communion with God and man. If you've conviced yourself, like Henry, that evangelism is essentially a selfish act, aimed at silencing the evangelist's own nagging doubts and fears, you are not seeing it with honest eyes. I encourage you to take another look.

Thomas Sowell's Website

http://www.tsowell.com/

Amazingly, I had never visited Dr. Sowell's website before last night. Truly one of the greatest thinkers of the last 100 years.

Whatever side of the political spectrum you're on, your education is almost necessarily incomplete if you've never spent some time reading through his works.

Interesting Articles

George Will explains why challenging the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8 is ridiculous.

http://townhall.com/Columnists/GeorgeWill/2009/01/15/the_unconstitutional_constitution?page=full

Cal Thomas perfectly summarizes how conservatives should approach the Obama presidency.
http://townhall.com/columnists/CalThomas/2009/01/15/welcome_to_town,_president_obama?page=full

Frank Turek, in this poorly titled but well written piece, explores the boundaries between Theology and Science.

http://townhall.com/Columnists/FrankTurek/2009/01/14/big_bang_evidence_for_god?page=full

Interesting Articles

This installment is a bit Israel/Palestine heavy...for obvious reasons.

Charles Krauthammer says pretty much everything you need to know about the conflict in Gaza.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/01/AR2009010101780_pf.html

Dick Morris gives insight into the political motivations behind much of the posturing over the Gaza situation.
http://townhall.com/columnists/DickMorrisandEileenMcGann/2009/01/07/gaza_the_doves_war?page=full

Jonah Goldberg takes a hard look at the disturbing anti-Israel rhetoric that has begun to dominate the "discussion" around the world.
http://townhall.com/columnists/JonahGoldberg/2009/01/07/who_are_the_real_nazis?page=full

Benjamin Netanyahu, the former Prime Minister of Israel (and likely its next Prime Minister as well) offers his perspective in the Wall Street Journal.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123128827234659279.html

John Stossel compares the Madoff Ponzi scheme to government programs that operate in much the same way...and draw no similar condemnation.
http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2009/01/07/madoff_is_a_piker?page=full