As a historian, my interest grows as I see commentary on the "New Atheism." The "Big Four" - Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens (sounds like British law firm) - have created a stir that stimulates skeptics to be more militant and religious apologists to fire up their debating skills.
There is absolutely NOTHING new about any of the ideas brought forward any of these or other atheists. They are part of a generational cycle of reaction against religion that characterizes the academic and chattering classes of the West. From the first "free thinkers" of the 17th century to today's militant atheists, hatred of religion will always have adherents and auditors, especially if there are a few juicy scandals among some religious groups.
There are four basic tactics of the anti-religious elites. Some are presented with honorable intent, while others cynically exploit ignorance or use the tools of propaganda to influence their hearers.
Tactic Number One: Vilify the awful things done in the name of religion in order to distort the beliefs of that religion. It is amazing how the same historical events come up, with no attempt to read multiple accounts of the same events.
For example: The Crusades of 1095 to 1291. The standard atheist screed is, "Look what religion does! It promulgates violence and intolerance and it merely the tool of the political elite."
Response: The Crusades were a complex series of geopolitical events that involved Christians, Muslims, Jews and above all, the economic and political concerns of competing civilizations. The losers were the pious of all faiths and the winners were the rich and powerful. None of these events "proves" or "disproves" the Divine.
The fact is that the new atheists are really out to destroy Christianity and hope Islam will go down in flames someday. The creator of the recent movie 2012 was happy to destroy the holy sites of Judaism and Christianity because he hates religion; however he did not want an Islamofascist fatwa on his head, so the Dome on the Rock and Mecca were spared!
Tactic Number Two: Create a huge divide between religion and science and assert that science represents intellectual and moral progress while religion is regressive and intellectually infantile. All the radical atheists consider their perspective the only tenable one for "fully informed and sane people." Obviously, only these "brights" should be in charge!
Response: The vast majority of scientists before 1900 were not atheists and even today most scientists argue that these are separate domains. Science does not aim to destroy religion and most religious adherents respect the hard work of the scientific community. The problem arises when a scientific theory (Darwinian Evolution) becomes more than an explanation of natural processes. In the hands of the impious and unscrupulous, it becomes an excuse to exclude God from Nature or to justify ethnic supremacy or other totalitarian ideas.
Most religious folks can live with a world older than Bishop Ussher's chronology. They will not, however, yield the ground of meaning and morality to chaotic, impersonal, random and violent forces.
Tactic Number Three: Question the validity of key Christian beliefs, especially the resurrection of Jesus. If met with intelligent responses, question the historicity and veracity of the Bible. To add a bit of spice, attempt to reduce Christianity and Judaism to an amalgamation of beliefs culled from other faiths and philosophies, with no need for any supernatural intervention. In fact, go back to science and roundly affirm the impossibility of verifying any miracles.
Response: Yes, there is a measure of faith for any theist. Yes, Christianity (along with Islam and Judaism) shares some ideas and moral precepts with other systems. But this is not the same as declaring the resurrection impossible, Jesus barely a historical figure or the growth of Christianity merely a natural phenomenon.
Jesus of Nazareth is a historical figure verified by multiple accounts, sacred and secular. His followers were transformed and became zealous missionaries because they believed in Jesus' literal resurrection. The growth of Christianity, accompanied by its ethical, social and spiritual good, is not possible if it is only an amalgamation of other belief systems.
Tactic Number Four: When all else fails, hold God hostage for not intervening to prevent evil in all circumstances and/or his (apparent) failure to talk to us like any other person.
Response: The problem of evil is vexing for anyone, skeptic or theist. The most passionate believer can not explain fully why a "sneer was found across the universe"(G.K. Chesterton). In an of itself, though, evil is not a proof or disproof of the Divine - it is a problem that God and humankind must face. Once again, the atheists miss the point. By holding God accountable to humans, we are missing the very definition of God that is part of Monotheism.
Theists must clarify their thinking, speak boldly and humbly, and above all, live lives of exemplary love and service. There is nothing to fear from the new brand of atheism - it is the old ideas repackaged for a gullible, narcissistic consumer culture. Atheism is the preserve of cultural elites.
There is no room for smugness. Real faith and the communities it creates must be renewed continually. We must be alert to the forces that seek destruction of the Divine in humanity. All this said, we have nothing to fear is we "do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with our God."
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
Saturday, November 21, 2009
My Debate with Atheists at MSU
On November 20, 2009 I was part of a three-person panel debating the question, "Does God Exist?" against three atheists, two of which are part of the nationally-known circuit of militant naturalists campaigning against religion in general and Christianity in particular. My teammates were Dr. Zachary Manis, a brilliant young philosopher and Dr. Greg Ojakangas, an astrophysicist and neuroscientist. We were opposed by Dr. Richard Carrier, a historian and prolific writer and Dr. Victor Stenger, physicist and author of several books "proving" God does not exist. The third atheist was J.T. Eberhard, a leading young local atheist organizer.
All of made a presentation and then there was open discussion. The atheists could not resist attacking Christianity while we kept the debate focused on the topic. They also did not respond to our major points and kept to their script which can be summarized as 1) Science can or will explain all phenomena of human experience; 2) Why doesn't a good God intervene all the time and talk directly to us? and 3) Theists have no testable proofs of their hypothesis. Interestingly, after I gave my presentation (which is given below), the only remark Dr. Stenger gave was, "Nice words, but no proof." He missed the entire point of my work - but that is to be expected of folks who live in the small world of scientific naturalism.
The atheists have no good answers (except to attack religion) when theists contend that it takes as much - or more - faith to believe that something can come from nothing as it does to believe in a Creator. Dr. Stenger claims that he has "proven" mathematically that something can come from nothing. But "nothing" is not really nothing and there was quantum tunneling that produced a "spontaneous phase transition" that kicked off the evolutionary process.
In the end, the atheists resorted to attacking God for not preventing evil and even calling Jesus "immoral"! They love to shoot down the Bible and Jesus and ignore the gaps in their thinking.
Before I give my remarks, I must say clearly that theists do live with paradox and that we do not have tidy answers to all mysteries. I like the thought of Bishop N.T. Wright when he says that we cannot fathom why evil exists, why (in the words of G.K. Chesterton, a "sneer was found in the universe" at Satan and humankind's rebellions) evil exists, but we believe that God in Christ is overcoming evil and that God invites us to partner in the healing and reconciling process.
Here are my opening remarks at the debate:
Theism is a coherent and intelligent worldview that continues to animate human life with meaning and purpose. Many sane and informed people embrace theism.
I had the privilege of growing up in a home of free inquiry, moral integrity and respect for faith in God.
My neighborhood was filled with all types of friends. There were Hungarian refugees from the 1956 Revolution, a Jewish family behind us, and Catholics, Protestants and skeptics were coaching Little League and attending PTA meetings.
When I was 12 years old my father wrote in his 25th Anniversary Harvard University Alumni Journal that I was, "a fiery humanist and repressed basketball star (too short)."
My pilgrimage toward authentic, intelligent theism led me to embrace (the Christian) faith as a young adult and I continue to examine the evidence for all faiths or none to this day.
I am a regional signer of the Williamsburg Charter, a celebration of the genius of the First Amendment. The first sixteen words therein ("Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof") allow people of all faiths or none to live peaceable with there deepest differences, even while we debate them passionately. My name is alongside Eli Weisel and Norman Lear, Coretta Scott King and Billy Graham, atheists and believers.
In the audience today are thinkers asking the important questions and testing long-held assumptions. Let's read voraciously, listen deeply and ponder humbly. My Cowell College motto at U.C. Santa Cruz is, "The pursuit of truth in the company of friends." I hope that I make some new friends of all persuasions today.
As theists, we answer today's question, "Does God Exist?" with a resounding, "Yes!" contending that religious belief is reasonable and warranted by a fair examination of the phenomena of human experience.
Dr. Richard Carrier has asserted that given enough time, all we experience is or will be explainable by natural processes and that we do not need any supernatural intervention.
Dr. Victor Stenger considers belief in God a failed hypothesis, and that religious people have been indoctrinated. A fully liberated and thoughtful person will choose atheism if given an opportunity free from the debilitating effects of family and religious communities. (A note here to Dr. Stenger: you will be much freer when you are liberated from the narrow confines of scientism)
I think cumulative arguments for justifying religious belief are valid and I want to touch on several pointers to God's existence...
I agree with A.N. Wilson that theism is a "deeper, wiser, more rounded" perspective.
The thoughtful person's cry for justice, in the words of N.T. Wright, is one echo of the divine voice that seems universal and is not reducible to biology. The companion to this cri de coeur is our capacity for altruistic action and sacrificial love. The moral argument remains compelling. From C.S. Lewis to Francis Collins, the road from atheism to theism is paved with the query, "Why do I know there is a moral law?"
Atheist Kai Nelson said, "Pure, practical reason, even with a good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality."
R.Z. Friedman declares, "respect for persons and survival of the fittest are mutually exclusive."
Atheist Richard Carrier's best grounding for morality: "You should be moral because you will be happier as a moral person overall than if you become another sort of person."
Our love of beauty and extravagant creativity is another pointer to God. Beyond anthropological attraction for a mate...beyond religious rituals...humans create! We paint on cave walls, we sculpt figurines and we devise new technologies. Our capacities for innovation point to God, a Divine Creator whose creative instincts we naturally image.
Our self-awareness or self-consciousness seems to distinguish us from our fellow-inhabitant of our planet. (By the way, the "hard problem of consciousness", raised by our own Dr. Ojakangas, was never answered by the atheists.)
Our spirituality and capacity for supra-rational experiences is another reflection of God. We cannot reduce the ineffable dimensions of life to mere neurons. Our opponents want to invalidate all transcendent experiences, reducing them to epiphenomena of our biology and environment. My opponents have argued that there is no proof for the supernatural and that there are millions of proofs of natural phenomena; therefore there is no need for God. In response I will only say that just one unexplainable miracle invalidates reductionist naturalism. Carrier argues that supernatural phenomena are so scarce and so improbable that they are not worthy of wasting time on. Come with me to Africa, meet some Bishops with Ph.D.'s who are dealing with the supernatural everyday and see if your world remains the same!
The infinite detail of the microcosmic and the vast expanse of the macrocosmic often awaken in inquiring minds the possibility of a Creator and Sustainer of the Universe. This is just as plausible as something coming from nothing or the eternal existence of quantum particles. Information does not self-assemble and the apparent absence of evidence (for God) is no the same things as the evidence of absence!
Our opponents see chaos, randomness, violence and waste in the evolutionary process and state categorically, There is no God." Theists look at the same evidence and say, "What a wonderful but fallen world we live in."
The limitation of our knowledge is a call to humility. My opponents point toward our advances in scientific knowledge as a sign of no longer needing a God-hypothesis. I think our advances in knowledge are wonderful, but the explosion of knowledge in our Internet Age has not transformed our character, ethics or relational abilities.
The greatest pointer to God's existence is Love. When we seek the good of others more that our own, we are choosing beyond pleasure, narcissism or survival. Such love is not the preserve of the religious, but it is an indication that we are more than biology and physics. Nurturing a baby, ameliorating suffering and remaining faithful in relationships all posit that we are more than accidental and destined for more than decay.
Atheist Matthew Parris, after watching religious relief workers in Malawi, commented on their sacrificial compassion, that it "confounds my ideological beliefs, stubbornly refuses to fit into my worldview and has embarrassed my growing belief that there is no God."
The best atheism can offer is faith in science and some notion of an accidental, random cosmos. I think it is wiser to humbly believe and then choose to be partners with God in making our wonderful world even better.
My next post: We have Nothing to Fear from Militant Atheism!
All of made a presentation and then there was open discussion. The atheists could not resist attacking Christianity while we kept the debate focused on the topic. They also did not respond to our major points and kept to their script which can be summarized as 1) Science can or will explain all phenomena of human experience; 2) Why doesn't a good God intervene all the time and talk directly to us? and 3) Theists have no testable proofs of their hypothesis. Interestingly, after I gave my presentation (which is given below), the only remark Dr. Stenger gave was, "Nice words, but no proof." He missed the entire point of my work - but that is to be expected of folks who live in the small world of scientific naturalism.
The atheists have no good answers (except to attack religion) when theists contend that it takes as much - or more - faith to believe that something can come from nothing as it does to believe in a Creator. Dr. Stenger claims that he has "proven" mathematically that something can come from nothing. But "nothing" is not really nothing and there was quantum tunneling that produced a "spontaneous phase transition" that kicked off the evolutionary process.
In the end, the atheists resorted to attacking God for not preventing evil and even calling Jesus "immoral"! They love to shoot down the Bible and Jesus and ignore the gaps in their thinking.
Before I give my remarks, I must say clearly that theists do live with paradox and that we do not have tidy answers to all mysteries. I like the thought of Bishop N.T. Wright when he says that we cannot fathom why evil exists, why (in the words of G.K. Chesterton, a "sneer was found in the universe" at Satan and humankind's rebellions) evil exists, but we believe that God in Christ is overcoming evil and that God invites us to partner in the healing and reconciling process.
Here are my opening remarks at the debate:
Theism is a coherent and intelligent worldview that continues to animate human life with meaning and purpose. Many sane and informed people embrace theism.
I had the privilege of growing up in a home of free inquiry, moral integrity and respect for faith in God.
My neighborhood was filled with all types of friends. There were Hungarian refugees from the 1956 Revolution, a Jewish family behind us, and Catholics, Protestants and skeptics were coaching Little League and attending PTA meetings.
When I was 12 years old my father wrote in his 25th Anniversary Harvard University Alumni Journal that I was, "a fiery humanist and repressed basketball star (too short)."
My pilgrimage toward authentic, intelligent theism led me to embrace (the Christian) faith as a young adult and I continue to examine the evidence for all faiths or none to this day.
I am a regional signer of the Williamsburg Charter, a celebration of the genius of the First Amendment. The first sixteen words therein ("Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof") allow people of all faiths or none to live peaceable with there deepest differences, even while we debate them passionately. My name is alongside Eli Weisel and Norman Lear, Coretta Scott King and Billy Graham, atheists and believers.
In the audience today are thinkers asking the important questions and testing long-held assumptions. Let's read voraciously, listen deeply and ponder humbly. My Cowell College motto at U.C. Santa Cruz is, "The pursuit of truth in the company of friends." I hope that I make some new friends of all persuasions today.
As theists, we answer today's question, "Does God Exist?" with a resounding, "Yes!" contending that religious belief is reasonable and warranted by a fair examination of the phenomena of human experience.
Dr. Richard Carrier has asserted that given enough time, all we experience is or will be explainable by natural processes and that we do not need any supernatural intervention.
Dr. Victor Stenger considers belief in God a failed hypothesis, and that religious people have been indoctrinated. A fully liberated and thoughtful person will choose atheism if given an opportunity free from the debilitating effects of family and religious communities. (A note here to Dr. Stenger: you will be much freer when you are liberated from the narrow confines of scientism)
I think cumulative arguments for justifying religious belief are valid and I want to touch on several pointers to God's existence...
I agree with A.N. Wilson that theism is a "deeper, wiser, more rounded" perspective.
The thoughtful person's cry for justice, in the words of N.T. Wright, is one echo of the divine voice that seems universal and is not reducible to biology. The companion to this cri de coeur is our capacity for altruistic action and sacrificial love. The moral argument remains compelling. From C.S. Lewis to Francis Collins, the road from atheism to theism is paved with the query, "Why do I know there is a moral law?"
Atheist Kai Nelson said, "Pure, practical reason, even with a good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality."
R.Z. Friedman declares, "respect for persons and survival of the fittest are mutually exclusive."
Atheist Richard Carrier's best grounding for morality: "You should be moral because you will be happier as a moral person overall than if you become another sort of person."
Our love of beauty and extravagant creativity is another pointer to God. Beyond anthropological attraction for a mate...beyond religious rituals...humans create! We paint on cave walls, we sculpt figurines and we devise new technologies. Our capacities for innovation point to God, a Divine Creator whose creative instincts we naturally image.
Our self-awareness or self-consciousness seems to distinguish us from our fellow-inhabitant of our planet. (By the way, the "hard problem of consciousness", raised by our own Dr. Ojakangas, was never answered by the atheists.)
Our spirituality and capacity for supra-rational experiences is another reflection of God. We cannot reduce the ineffable dimensions of life to mere neurons. Our opponents want to invalidate all transcendent experiences, reducing them to epiphenomena of our biology and environment. My opponents have argued that there is no proof for the supernatural and that there are millions of proofs of natural phenomena; therefore there is no need for God. In response I will only say that just one unexplainable miracle invalidates reductionist naturalism. Carrier argues that supernatural phenomena are so scarce and so improbable that they are not worthy of wasting time on. Come with me to Africa, meet some Bishops with Ph.D.'s who are dealing with the supernatural everyday and see if your world remains the same!
The infinite detail of the microcosmic and the vast expanse of the macrocosmic often awaken in inquiring minds the possibility of a Creator and Sustainer of the Universe. This is just as plausible as something coming from nothing or the eternal existence of quantum particles. Information does not self-assemble and the apparent absence of evidence (for God) is no the same things as the evidence of absence!
Our opponents see chaos, randomness, violence and waste in the evolutionary process and state categorically, There is no God." Theists look at the same evidence and say, "What a wonderful but fallen world we live in."
The limitation of our knowledge is a call to humility. My opponents point toward our advances in scientific knowledge as a sign of no longer needing a God-hypothesis. I think our advances in knowledge are wonderful, but the explosion of knowledge in our Internet Age has not transformed our character, ethics or relational abilities.
The greatest pointer to God's existence is Love. When we seek the good of others more that our own, we are choosing beyond pleasure, narcissism or survival. Such love is not the preserve of the religious, but it is an indication that we are more than biology and physics. Nurturing a baby, ameliorating suffering and remaining faithful in relationships all posit that we are more than accidental and destined for more than decay.
Atheist Matthew Parris, after watching religious relief workers in Malawi, commented on their sacrificial compassion, that it "confounds my ideological beliefs, stubbornly refuses to fit into my worldview and has embarrassed my growing belief that there is no God."
The best atheism can offer is faith in science and some notion of an accidental, random cosmos. I think it is wiser to humbly believe and then choose to be partners with God in making our wonderful world even better.
My next post: We have Nothing to Fear from Militant Atheism!
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Living with Paradox
As I prepare for a civil and lively debate with atheist scholars this week, I am struck by the number of paradoxes thoughtful folks live with all the time. As a celebration of being human, let's ponder the following:
We are capable of amazing altruism and stunning depravity. In the same village one family rescues a Jewish refugee while another sells her neighbor for a price.
We encounter breathtaking beauty and life-taking tsunamis.
The same event moves some into church and tears others away from faith.
Wonderful neighbors lose their jobs while overindulged athletes "renegotiate" a contract that represents more money than many will see in a lifetime.
We awaken with a sense of destiny and then discover a friend has cancer.
"The starry heavens above and the moral law within" bolster our faith and then we receive a "No" to certain prayers as someone else is chosen for that position.
The reason for such tensions is not the absence of God or meaninglessness in the universe.
We live in a world that is simultaneously glorious and fallen, full of the fingerprints of God and the signs of cosmic rebellion. When I consider the cumulative evidence of the Divine, I am filled with wonder. Why is there something and not absolute nothing? Why do we dance, sing, paint and rejoice for no reason except sheer delight? Why do we cry out for justice for the poor and feel the pricks of conscience about our own selfishness? Why do we shake our fists in anger at God one day and praise him the next?
Committed atheistic materialists will define all such experiences and paradoxes as the random consequences of evolution and invalidate any transcendent meaning or purpose. That is their prerogative and there is a cold logic to some of their assertions.
As we approach Thanksgiving, it seems to me that the pathway of humility and wonder leads to clearer thinking, deeper passion and courageous service for others. God is able to handle our questions and tears, our spontaneous praise and our reflective doubts.
I thoughtfully choose belief and I defend the right of my neighbor to choose unbelief. Let's be thankful we live in a nation where civil debate is possible and neighbors live peacefully next to others who see the universe very differently!
We are capable of amazing altruism and stunning depravity. In the same village one family rescues a Jewish refugee while another sells her neighbor for a price.
We encounter breathtaking beauty and life-taking tsunamis.
The same event moves some into church and tears others away from faith.
Wonderful neighbors lose their jobs while overindulged athletes "renegotiate" a contract that represents more money than many will see in a lifetime.
We awaken with a sense of destiny and then discover a friend has cancer.
"The starry heavens above and the moral law within" bolster our faith and then we receive a "No" to certain prayers as someone else is chosen for that position.
The reason for such tensions is not the absence of God or meaninglessness in the universe.
We live in a world that is simultaneously glorious and fallen, full of the fingerprints of God and the signs of cosmic rebellion. When I consider the cumulative evidence of the Divine, I am filled with wonder. Why is there something and not absolute nothing? Why do we dance, sing, paint and rejoice for no reason except sheer delight? Why do we cry out for justice for the poor and feel the pricks of conscience about our own selfishness? Why do we shake our fists in anger at God one day and praise him the next?
Committed atheistic materialists will define all such experiences and paradoxes as the random consequences of evolution and invalidate any transcendent meaning or purpose. That is their prerogative and there is a cold logic to some of their assertions.
As we approach Thanksgiving, it seems to me that the pathway of humility and wonder leads to clearer thinking, deeper passion and courageous service for others. God is able to handle our questions and tears, our spontaneous praise and our reflective doubts.
I thoughtfully choose belief and I defend the right of my neighbor to choose unbelief. Let's be thankful we live in a nation where civil debate is possible and neighbors live peacefully next to others who see the universe very differently!
Thursday, October 29, 2009
A Culture of Deception and Hiddenness
We almost have a Health Care Reform Bill - a massive missive of almost 2000 indecipherable pages that few of our elected officials will even read.
Regardless of opinions of the role of the federal government, aren't the following facts disturbing?
The bill will not be posted in sufficient time for public review before a vote.
The "opt out" option for states is unclear and expensive.
Private citizens will face coercive economic pressure to join in.
The details are vague enough so that proponents can call opponents "paranoid."
The cure seems worse than the disease - another federal program with more jobs for bureaucrats.
The Obama Administration promised an open, non-partisan (even "post-partisan") culture of honesty and transparency. What they are delivering is Chicago street-politics that disregard and discard all opposition and entrench their cronies in positions of power.
Consider the concerns of conservatives - labeled "crackpots" by the smirking commentators on shows with low ratings - real people with real values who want to help people:
Why are their so many radicals in positions of power with social ideas way to the left of the campaign slogans?
Why has Obama spent nearly $2M to keep all his formative records sealed - from birth all the way through graduate school?
Why did Obama vote, "present" more than any leader in history when he was a Senator, both in Illinois and Washington, D.C.?
Why are the deficits out of control, despite promises to "watch every line" of the budgets?
Why can't we have the government help with health care subsidies so that uninsured and under insured can afford care provided by current private and public entities?
Why is the government providing billions to agencies and companies that will never create a single job?
Our current crises are NOT the fault of the Democrats alone. They are the result of more than 40 years of bad leadership and mismanagement from both parties.
Eisenhower was prophetic when he warned about the power of "the military-industrial complex."
Kennedy was handsome, but his foreign policies were often disastrous and he is to blame for the Vietnam debacle.
Johnson was foolish to think that we could have all the butter and guns we want with no consequences.
Nixon played the "China card" - and we are experiencing the effects today.
Carter was a poor leader and naive to think that lowering standards on mortgages would be helpful long-term.
Reagan won the Cold War but lost the domestic battle for a balanced budget.
Bush I and II failed to complete legitimate but limited military goals and, like all predecessors, failed to stem the red ink.
Bill Clinton succeeded more than most in achieving domestic compromises and progress, but set the bar even lower for character.
We need honest and open debate, not polemic name-calling. I do not want to be one more conservative bashing the current Administration, but I am not being shown any reasons to support current policies.
My progressive colleagues have told me to "shut up - you lost, so deal with it." Wow - this sure sounds post-partisan, eh?
On the other side, conservatives are not helped by pundits who just spout platitudes about values but offer no realistic solutions for the crises we face.
We have a short time to reign in spending, find solutions that bring our troops home, and create an atmosphere of cooperative engagement. I hope we will find the courage to forge new directions in discourse and policy before it is too late for our civilization.
Regardless of opinions of the role of the federal government, aren't the following facts disturbing?
The bill will not be posted in sufficient time for public review before a vote.
The "opt out" option for states is unclear and expensive.
Private citizens will face coercive economic pressure to join in.
The details are vague enough so that proponents can call opponents "paranoid."
The cure seems worse than the disease - another federal program with more jobs for bureaucrats.
The Obama Administration promised an open, non-partisan (even "post-partisan") culture of honesty and transparency. What they are delivering is Chicago street-politics that disregard and discard all opposition and entrench their cronies in positions of power.
Consider the concerns of conservatives - labeled "crackpots" by the smirking commentators on shows with low ratings - real people with real values who want to help people:
Why are their so many radicals in positions of power with social ideas way to the left of the campaign slogans?
Why has Obama spent nearly $2M to keep all his formative records sealed - from birth all the way through graduate school?
Why did Obama vote, "present" more than any leader in history when he was a Senator, both in Illinois and Washington, D.C.?
Why are the deficits out of control, despite promises to "watch every line" of the budgets?
Why can't we have the government help with health care subsidies so that uninsured and under insured can afford care provided by current private and public entities?
Why is the government providing billions to agencies and companies that will never create a single job?
Our current crises are NOT the fault of the Democrats alone. They are the result of more than 40 years of bad leadership and mismanagement from both parties.
Eisenhower was prophetic when he warned about the power of "the military-industrial complex."
Kennedy was handsome, but his foreign policies were often disastrous and he is to blame for the Vietnam debacle.
Johnson was foolish to think that we could have all the butter and guns we want with no consequences.
Nixon played the "China card" - and we are experiencing the effects today.
Carter was a poor leader and naive to think that lowering standards on mortgages would be helpful long-term.
Reagan won the Cold War but lost the domestic battle for a balanced budget.
Bush I and II failed to complete legitimate but limited military goals and, like all predecessors, failed to stem the red ink.
Bill Clinton succeeded more than most in achieving domestic compromises and progress, but set the bar even lower for character.
We need honest and open debate, not polemic name-calling. I do not want to be one more conservative bashing the current Administration, but I am not being shown any reasons to support current policies.
My progressive colleagues have told me to "shut up - you lost, so deal with it." Wow - this sure sounds post-partisan, eh?
On the other side, conservatives are not helped by pundits who just spout platitudes about values but offer no realistic solutions for the crises we face.
We have a short time to reign in spending, find solutions that bring our troops home, and create an atmosphere of cooperative engagement. I hope we will find the courage to forge new directions in discourse and policy before it is too late for our civilization.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Words Matter
Today I noticed an item online that signaled another subversion of the moral framework necessary for a free and well-ordered society. Apparently, some new marriage certificates are being issued with the category, "Opposite-Sex Marriage."
In our PC world, various elites will simply say that this is a way of equalizing all adult unions, so what is the problem?
The problem is that there is a best way to define marriage: one man and one woman. Anthropology, biology, history, psychology and sociology all support the superiority of this model. Though I affirm the sanctity of marriage as a Biblical Christian, I do not need to appeal to religious texts to make my case.
The vast majority of Americans - of all faiths or none - intuitively know what marriage is. An almost equal number are willing to support other types of domestic partnerships. Private and public organizations and legal systems all confirm the mutual responsibilities of adults living together.
This is not as essay on marriage. This is an essay on the power of words and the implications for society when words change their meaning and are redefined by particular interests.
History demonstrates that words are redefined over time. An 18th or 19th century "liberal" believed in capitalism, free-trade, and small government. Once these became part of the cultural fabric early in the 20th century, they became "conservative" values pitted against the rising tide of Marxism.
In the West, "tolerance" has evolved from, "I won't kill you" in the 16th century, to "You are welcome to your private convictions" in the 17th-18th century, to the breakthrough in liberty enshrined in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This is great progress, and our nation has been an inspiring experiment in how we can live peacefully with our deepest differences.
But is the late 20th and early 21st century, "tolerance" has devolved into, "You must affirm alternative moral positions even if they violate deeply-held convictions." When I state my objections to redefining marriage, I am libeled as "homophobic." I am accused of intolerance and "forcing my beliefs" on others.
The intolerance of my opponents far exceeds any narrowness on my side. By compelling me to agree with a position that violates both empirical data and deeply-held moral beliefs, I am the one being coerced, not the other way around!
"Opposite-Sex Marriage" is a categorical shift that paves the way for normalizing all adult unions as marriage. Again, let me be clear: I affirm the right of adults to arrange their domestic affairs within the bounds of civil order. That is not the same thing as affirming the morality of every action or allowing marriage to be redefined.
In our government documents, we need three categories: single, married and domestic partner. Though I believe it is best when singles are celibate and that men and women live in lifelong monogamous union, I will not impose that "demand" on others, provided my opponents will not impose their redefinitions on an unsuspecting society that intuitively knows what marriage should be.
In our PC world, various elites will simply say that this is a way of equalizing all adult unions, so what is the problem?
The problem is that there is a best way to define marriage: one man and one woman. Anthropology, biology, history, psychology and sociology all support the superiority of this model. Though I affirm the sanctity of marriage as a Biblical Christian, I do not need to appeal to religious texts to make my case.
The vast majority of Americans - of all faiths or none - intuitively know what marriage is. An almost equal number are willing to support other types of domestic partnerships. Private and public organizations and legal systems all confirm the mutual responsibilities of adults living together.
This is not as essay on marriage. This is an essay on the power of words and the implications for society when words change their meaning and are redefined by particular interests.
History demonstrates that words are redefined over time. An 18th or 19th century "liberal" believed in capitalism, free-trade, and small government. Once these became part of the cultural fabric early in the 20th century, they became "conservative" values pitted against the rising tide of Marxism.
In the West, "tolerance" has evolved from, "I won't kill you" in the 16th century, to "You are welcome to your private convictions" in the 17th-18th century, to the breakthrough in liberty enshrined in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This is great progress, and our nation has been an inspiring experiment in how we can live peacefully with our deepest differences.
But is the late 20th and early 21st century, "tolerance" has devolved into, "You must affirm alternative moral positions even if they violate deeply-held convictions." When I state my objections to redefining marriage, I am libeled as "homophobic." I am accused of intolerance and "forcing my beliefs" on others.
The intolerance of my opponents far exceeds any narrowness on my side. By compelling me to agree with a position that violates both empirical data and deeply-held moral beliefs, I am the one being coerced, not the other way around!
"Opposite-Sex Marriage" is a categorical shift that paves the way for normalizing all adult unions as marriage. Again, let me be clear: I affirm the right of adults to arrange their domestic affairs within the bounds of civil order. That is not the same thing as affirming the morality of every action or allowing marriage to be redefined.
In our government documents, we need three categories: single, married and domestic partner. Though I believe it is best when singles are celibate and that men and women live in lifelong monogamous union, I will not impose that "demand" on others, provided my opponents will not impose their redefinitions on an unsuspecting society that intuitively knows what marriage should be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
