Has every president this nation has ever had been recommended for impeachment? It seems like I keep hearing that word being bandied about lately. Whether or not impeachment is deserved and justified for our current president, one of the motivating factors behind the call for impeachment is treason. I admit I have been somewhat confused by this. Last I checked the charge of treason is typically leveled at someone who turns against their own nation with the intent of bringing it down and destroying it by delivering it into its enemies hands. I don’t see that happening. I guess I’m just confused by all this.
I realize that a lot of people are upset with the present administration. Seems like we go through this every four to eight-year cycle. As much as I support our president, even I have been dissatisfied with some of the decisions he’s made. Despite all the criticisms, however, treason is not one charge that I think can be honestly leveled at him. I do believe that his decision to go to war with Iraq and take down a vicious dictator, along with all the other military decisions he’s made, was done so with this country’s best interests and protection at heart. I believe our president loves this land dearly, else he wouldn’t have taken up the seat he has held for the last six years. However good or bad some of his decisions have been, I don’t believe that treason has played any part in it. Frankly, if people really believed it did, I doubt very highly that he’d still be sitting in the Oval Office today.
I’m still very disillusioned with politics and with the powermongers who claim to be doing their best to meet the needs of the people they represent. In no way, however, do I think that my attitude toward these men and women gives me the right to make unfair and untrue accusations against them, nor should it give anyone else the right to do so. If you are going to challenge the authority and integrity of our leaders, such challenges ought to be restricted to those issues that actually exist, not these fictional fantasies that are contrived just so that one can fuel the momentum behind their own power play. To this date, I’ve yet to see treason enter into any political argument with any kind of veracity and staying power.
Tags: george-w.-bush, impeachment, politics, treason
It’s strange – even though I’ve alluded to the fact that most of my views and beliefs tend to fall at (0,0) on the Cartesian coordinate system, I still tend to think of myself as a full-fledged conservative. Maybe this is because I know for a fact that I am not a liberal and from what I can determine, my philosophies don’t even fit cleanly into the traditional moderate worldview. I just know that whenever I hear someone refer to ‘conservatives’ or ‘religious fundamentalists’ or whatever, I immediately think, “Oh, so-and-so is talking about me,” which is, strictly speaking, not actually true. They are talking about the people with whom I tend to associate, but ideologically speaking, even I tend to fall outside of those same groups.
I think what it really boils down to is that when I hear the word ‘liberal,’ I think of someone who does not believe that absolute truth exists, that truth and reality are both what you make of them for yourself, who believe in evolution and the Big Bang, and who tend to espouse and follow religiously liberal political agendas. Conversely, when I hear the word ‘conservative,’ I think of someone who does believe in absolute truth (and that that truth can actually be known and practiced), that there is a fundamental and unchanging foundation for truth that is external to the human experience, who, at the very least, tend to doubt that evolution is a valid scientific theory and who, instead, see ample evidence for some sort of intelligent design in nature, and who tend to espouse and follow religiously conservative political agendas. When I see these two definitions, the one that seems to fit me best is ‘conservative’, and so it is the way in which I most instinctively think of myself.
Of course, conservative and liberal are two extremes in a somewhat linear system. I think Scott Garber stated it best when he said in one issue of his newsletter that we should not be liberal, conservative, or moderate, but rather we should be progressive, striving always to improve our thinking and improve the cultural, social, and religious systems in which we live. My biggest gripe with true liberals, conservatives, and moderates alike is that so often they fail to actually use the grey matter encapsulated within their skulls. Too often I see and hear people spout the standard party line that is typical of whatever ideology they follow, and I wonder if they have ever really thought that ideology through to its logical conclusion. Mind you, I don’t expect that everyone who thinks through an issue will automatically arrive at the same conclusions I have, since everyone starts from a slightly different set of presuppositions. But I would hope that by engaging in metasystemic thinking, one would be able to revise and alter those presuppositions and, by association, the accompanying conclusions based from those presuppositions.
I hesitate to start calling myself ‘progessive.’ I’m not one to quickly jump onto a bandwagon and rally to a label or banner. And without providing the appropriate context necessary for understanding, labeling oneself ‘progessive’ could be easily seen as pretentious. Yet, in every area of my life and my thinking, progression is exactly what I seek. I seek to progress toward truth and understanding, toward righteous living, and away from untruth and falsehood and selfish, vain lifestyles.
So I view myself as conservative when in reality I am more progressive in nature, and I wish that more people were like that, willing to actually question their beliefs and examine them. In the end, I think it’s ok if they find that they do still actually believe all those things; it is certainly their right and their freedom to, whether those beliefs are right or wrong. But I do think it’s important that everyone know and understand why they believe and live by the things they do, be able to defend them by arguing for them intelligently and with evidence. Call it a product of postmodern culture, but every year I see fewer and fewer people who are able to do this, who simply take on whatever belief systems feels good to them, never fully understanding or grasping what philosophy it is they live by.
I’ve said it before, certainly, but I think this is why I devote so much of my time and energy to writing in a public place – to examine my own thinking and philosophies in a critical manner, and to cause others to examine their own in a similar fashion. We’re not mindless robots, people, and it is our personal responsibility to know what we believe and why because someday, we will have to answer for our choices.
Tags: absolute-truth, cartesian-coordinate-system, conservatives, liberals, metasystemic-thinking, politics, presuppositions, progressive, relative-truth, scott-garber
AFA – Should Congress pass a law making BC/AD the official method of dating time?
I’ve mentioned before how I believe that Christians have a bad habit of picking their political battles unwisely. I actually removed myself from the AFA mailing list because of this. Most of the email I was receiving from this list pertained to issues that I felt were gross over-reactions to pretty trivial issues.
Periodically, some of their mailings still make it to my inbox via forwards from other people I know. I was actually a little bit irked about the one that arrived this morning. Allegedly, the Kentucky Board of Education has voted to replace the traditional BC/AD date system with the newer secular system of BCE/CE. This sort of move would not surprise me much, since I’ve heard talk before of removing the current system.
What troubles me the most about this AFA survey is that it provides absolutely no external sources or information, other than what information they provide on their website. There are no links to news articles or official documents relating to this alleged decision. The vote may have been made, but even a Google search on the topic has picked up no information whatsoever. All I have to go on here is the AFA’s word that this decision has been made. So, my first big problem here is that there is no way to validate this bit of news.
The second big problem I have with this survey is the suggestion that Congress pass legislation to keep the BC/AD dating system as the national standard, which would effectively countermand any state decisions that would opt for the secular BCE/CE system. And here we see why I believe we as Christians typically pick our political battles unwisely. The rationale for this suggestion?
It also opens the door for the ACLU to find a liberal activist judge who will forcefully remove the use of BC and AD. The ACLU types will claim that the use of BC and AD are a violation of the First Amendment because it dates history based on the birth of Christ.
I’m sorry, but this smacks of irrational panic to me. The question I would pose is this – what possible impact could even this possible future outcome have on the practice of my own faith? Switching from a BC/AD system to a BCE/CE system does not change the fact that Christ was born about 2000 years ago, and it does not remove my right to openly practice my faith (nor do I see any way in which this decision could potentially be used to strip me of that right). And even the AFA survey states that this system will be added to the current one. It won’t simply replace it.
Personally, I don’t see how this issue will affect anything in our daily lives. The current system used as a dividing line in historical dates is all but meaningless now as it is. Very, very few people think about a date containing either BC or AD and instantly think, “Oh! This happened this-many years before/after the birth of Christ!” It’s merely a reference to a particular point in history that gives us some way to mark the passage of time. I highly doubt that replacing it with a new one will have that huge of an effect on the way we do business.
Tags: american-family-association, christianity, common-era, panic, politics, rationality
As some of you may or may not know, Indiana switched back to Daylight Savings Time for the first time in about 30 years. Now, I grew up doing the DST clock switcheroo, so for me this was not a huge adjustment. For some Indiana natives, however, it was apparently Armageddon come to the mid-west. Some folks were horribly afraid that pushing their clocks forward an hour would completely wreck their sleep cycles. Some were afraid that they would simply forget to reset their clocks, thus plunging them into a quantum vortex and causing them to be out of phase with the rest of the universe. Still others were afraid that they would wake up the next morning with green hair and lucky leprechauns sitting on their chests.
Despite all these fears and worries, Indiana seems to have made the switch rather peacefully (if you don’t count the nasty storms that swept through here). Personally, I don’t see what the big deal was. You actually lose several more hours when you fly overseas than you do when you roll forward or backward one hour. I think it more or less boiled down to a change in tradition – this was the way things had been done for 30 years, so the sudden change proved fearful for some people.
Personally, I would have been content to leave things as they were. I’d grown rather fond of not having to reset my clocks twice a year, but that was a practical issue. I do like the extra hour of daylight, though, since there are plenty of things to be done about the property and with the horses that might not necessarily get done in an evening otherwise. And since most of my friends and family are Eastern Time Zone, it does put me on the same time zone with them year-round rather than for just six months of the year. There are advantages and disadvantages to both observing DST and not. I’m flexible; I can go with it either way. I just hope that the change does what Governor Daniels hopes it will – help improve the state’s economic situation.
Tags: politics, whinging
Group Thinks Classical Music Will Deter Hartford Crime
I knew that a lot of people today dislike classical music, but I had no idea just how much until now. It seems that a community in Hartfort, CT, are starting to play Classical music in a park after dark to deter unsavory types from loitering there. The hope is that the music will be annoying enough to chase these individuals away. And from what I understand, a community in West Palm Beach, FL, is already an example of success with this approach.
Point 1 – kudos to these people for finding a solution that works. Point 2 – it actually kind of stinks, though, some of my favorite music can also be used as a negative stimulus. Both Pavlov and Beethoven must be rolling over in their graves right now. This is definitely not facilitating the appreciation of fine art, is it?
Tags: classical-music, music, news, politics, psychology, The Arts
Well, as it turns out, attending the annual INAIR conference didn’t afford me quite as much time and energy to write as I had hoped. It’s amazing just how numb your mind gets after you’ve sat through multiple sessions, however interesting you may have found the material. But now that the conference is over and I’m feeling a bit refreshed, let me share a few of the thoughts and impressions I’ve gained from the past couple of days.
Our keynote speaker was Dr. Blaise Cronin of Indiana University – Bloomington. One area of his expertise involves strategic intelligence, and he spoke a bit on terrorism and terrorists. He described one of the major problems with facing terrorism in our country – the terrorists come from a culture where they are forced to examine their place in the world. They have some understanding of where they stand, of what the whole picture is, of what they have to do to effect the kinds of changes they want to see.
Conversely, the agencies and institutions in this country that are endeavoring to countermand these terrorist cells are isolated groups with closed communication systems. These agencies do not share intelligence with one another well and do not have experts who are adequately equipped with the proper knowledge and skill sets necessary to address the threat of terrorists. For instance, there is a wealth of wiretap information archived in the CIA that is virtually useless because we do not have enough analysts who know the Arabic language to listen to it and draw out the information we need to short-circuit terrorist plots. In effect, our intelligence agencies have a bad case of tunnelvision because there is less than ideal dialogue and discussion. They are, to some extent, unable to see alternatives that would suggest better ways of heading off threats to our national security.
He related this information to my field by warning against falling into the same traps. In order for institutions of higher learning to be truly effective, we must all share knowledge amongst each other. In doing so we boost our collective knowledge, we refine our skills, and we pose the prospect of alternative forms of action that have yet to be considered. This is the sort of cooperation that allows any business or institution to grow and become even more effective.
Allow me to apply this even further. This is the very reason why I enjoy writing down and sharing my thoughts here. I look for open dialogue and discussion with other, the sharing of ideas and viewpoints, exactly because I do not want to fall into the trap of tunnelvision. Dr. Cronin stated that statistics have shown that the guesses of average citizens are just as accurate as the guesses of experts, in any topic or issue. This is because experts fail to recognize that they have learned their area so thoroughly that they neglect to consider all the alternatives. They begin to think that events can only transpire in a limited number of ways. Sometimes, this is the case, but often it is not.
In sharing my thoughts with others in this medium, I am able to compare what I know with a limitless supply of other viewpoints. I can break out of that trap of tunnelvision by making myself vulnerable to critique and criticism. I am able to be coaxed into considering other alternatives to any number of issues that I face on a regular basis. In short I am reminded that I am not an expert in anything and that there are so many alternative ways that situations and issues can play out.
I appreciate all the feedback I get from my readers, and I greatly enjoy the discussion and stretching experiences. For all of you who read, I hope I am able to stretch the way you think a little bit. And for all of you who stretch me, thank you.
Tags: politics, terrorism
Sometimes, finding consistency and balance in various aspects of my personal worldview isn’t easy. For instance, I believe that homosexuality is wrong, that it is sin, and that it should be avoided and abstained from by even the most blatant of homosexual-leaning individuals. Yet, I believe in the freedoms espoused by our country’s laws and ideals, and as such I believe that it is allowable for homosexuals to live their lives as they see fit, so long as they do not, in the process, attempt to steal or destroy the rights of those not like them.
I also believe that it is a waste of time and resources, not to mention a detriment to the testimony of Christians everywhere, to pursue a course of legal action that will bar homosexuals from gaining the rights to marry and tap into those resources reserved for married heterosexual couples. I am not convinced that this is the proper (or most effective) approach to ministering God’s love to the homosexual community since legal action generally only fosters anger and resentment against God’s people (a resentment that, admittedly, the Christian community has brought upon itself).
These questions, then, beget still other questions – where do we draw the line, or should the line even be drawn? For instance, if we allow homosexuals to marry and gain benefits that are reserved for married couples, per the freedoms of this nation in which we live, do we then also allow them to adopt children (since homosexuals are biologically unable to produce children on their own)? If we acknowledge that homosexuality is wrong, that it is sinful, are we then justified in allowing them to raise children, particularly since we have already established a precedent of allowances in permitting marriage and benefits rights?
Add to this another value – I believe that allowing the government to dictate and regulate every part of our lives is a very bad thing, as it restricts so many of the very freedoms we hold dear. Should the government even be involved in this process, should it take a special interest here by disallowing certain freedoms because one group has fears and concerns? My primary concern in allowing homosexuals to adopt is not necessarily that these children will grow to themselves become homosexual, since at least part of homosexual leanings can be attributed to biology and physiology, or that they will be psychologically handicapped or confused as a result of being raised by same-sex parents, since it can be argued that many children coming out of abusive, heterosexual homes are also extremely screwed up.
My concern is that children coming out of homosexual homes will already be conditioned to view homosexuality as every bit as acceptable as heterosexuality. I don’t have a problem with them being tolerant of homosexuals having relationships and getting married, but I wonder if they will ever come to recognize that homosexuality is actually wrong. How will children raised in such homes handle the tension should they come to accept Christ as their Savior and learn what the Bible has to say about homosexuality? Suddenly, they are faced with the knowledge that homosexuality is sin and the conflict that their parents are living in sin.
I suppose, though, that this would likely be not much different than those children faced with a parent who has had an affair, who is abusive, who has divorced, who is addicted to drugs or alcohol, or any of a dozen other vices. Maybe the problems would be no more severe; they would just be problems of a different nature, problems that the Christian community would have to adapt to in order to face head-on, to face with the power to heal. Homosexuals who are allowed to adopt would give children with no homes a place to live, albeit one that might be less than ideal.
I’m still not sure that I endorse homosexual adoption. It’s a process that I am still working through in my own head, and I am very open to feedback and opinions from others on this issue. Where does the line between personal freedom and the welfare of the majority fall? My own concerns in allowing homosexuals to adopt is for the welfare of the children involved. Unfortunately, this is still such a new issue that there is very little long-term research available to describe what the effects of such practices might be. In the meantime, I do urge Christians to be patient and compassionate, because as we have seen in so many other places, becoming angry and hateful and spiteful does absolutely nothing to help the situation. The world is changing around us almost faster than we can keep up, but the pre-eminence of Christ is still able to effect healing and change on a powerful, widespread scale that should be humbling to us all. We should remember that and tap into before considering any actions that might prove harmful to the cause of Christ.
Tags: adoption, christianity, freedom, homosexuality, politics
Some things just won’t let me alone until I write about them, and this is one of those things.
I read in the news yesterday that Saddam Hussein had taken to protesting his own trial by going on a hunger strike. Add this to his other antics – shouting, insults, arguments, walkouts, and simply not appearing in court – and I suddenly have the image of a circus in my mind. Now, I realize that things are different there in Iraq. I realize that the government is still getting its feet under it, still getting itself established, but what kind of justice system gives the defendant the choice as to whether or not he shows up at his trial or whether he is allowed to stay or leave? And seriously, does Saddam really think that by going on a hunger strike that he’s hurting anyone other than himself? He strikes me as little more than a petulant toddler who resorts to screaming and bawling whenever he doesn’t get his own way; and Saddam certainly hasn’t been getting his own way lately. His little tactics at stalling the trial are, frankly, little more than annoyances, and it’s just too bad that he hasn’t been put in his place a little better. I mean, the guy has murdered millions of his own people, and he’s been allowed to walkout or simply not show up to trial?! For a man who once had quite a bit of power, he’s not a very big thinker. But then again, he’s little more than a bully, and bullies aren’t known for their brains. His tantrums only accomplish to delay the inevitable, but of course, I’m sure that’s what he’s counting on.
Tags: human-behavior, politics, world-events
I participated in a discussion a while back with a handful of people on a discussion forum I frequent. The topic was capital punishment in general and rape crimes in particular. Specifically, the question was whether or not rapists should be put to death, imprisoned for life, or ‘reformed’ by a certain amount of time behind bars. Personally, I’ve always believed that rapists should have a certain part of their anatomy removed as painfully as possible and then be executed, and I stated this in the discussion. Now, whether or not that is ethical is beside the point – that’s just how my emotions play out when I hear of scum like this. Surgery or no, I do think that rapists deserve the death penalty because of what they have taken away from their victims. Someone challenged me on this point, and my response was a question – “Then why would every single woman I know rather put up a fight and be killed than to be raped?” My understanding is that being raped is a fate worse than death. Then the next challenge – “How does taking a life, whether it be for rape or taking another life, make the situation any better?”
And for the longest time I had no answer to that question. Sometimes, I just have to back away and leave a question alone for a while before I can think through it enough to arrive at a satisfactory answer. A fair amount of thought was devoted to this question. I knew that there is a place for capital punishment, despite the point of the challenge. It just felt wrong to me that someone should go unpunished for heinous crimes against society. And it has always bugged me to know that a portion of my tax money goes to support killers and rapists. The point, however, was to put aside my personal biases as best as possible to sort through the morality and the ethics of the topic.
It’s true that taking the life of the murderer or the rapist doesn’t make the situation any better for the victims or their families, except maybe to provide a sense of closure. Execution doesn’t undo what happened, doesn’t restore the innocence of the rape victim, doesn’t bring back the one who was killed. It doesn’t repair the pain and loss that all feel. But then again, it’s not about ‘fixing’ anything. It’s about consequences, and it’s about making society a little bit safer. And in that sense, it does make the situation better.
You see, I believe that actions carry with them inherent consequences. I also believe that the punishment should fit the crime. If you rape or kill someone, you have to expect that you will have to face the jury, quite literally, to answer for your crimes. And if the punishment should fit, then what is more fitting than your life be forfeit if you take a life (or subject your victim to a fate worse than death)? Somehow, it has always seemed unfair and unjust to put a murderer or rapist in a place where his every need is met, where he gets three squares a day, a TV, exercise equipment, public education, and medical benefits, all at the taxpayers expense. And the concept of a speedy trial is lost today in our justice system, with appeals dragging the process out even longer.
As a Christian I believe that everyone will face God one day and answer for their life. The unrepentant, unbelieving criminal will face an eternity of punishment, the degree of which is reflective of his life’s crimes and sins. So, ultimately, justice will be meted out. But by the same token, something has to be done with these criminals in the here and now in order to protect our citizens. Prisons are already very overcrowded, and so criminals who have no business being back out on the street are released early for ‘good behavior’, only to go right back to their old ways, repeating a vicious cycle. Statistics show that the vast majority of criminals do not, in fact, learn their lesson and do repeat their crimes over and over again. If the punishment were to fit the crime, we would have fewer problems, I believe, both with overcrowding and with repeat offenders.
Capital punishment cannot repair people’s lives; they still have to go about the daily business of coping with their pain and letting time (and hopefully God) heal their wounds. But capital punishment can remove dangerous criminals from our society so that there is no fear of their repeating their offenses. They answer for their crimes, and their victims are given the reassurance that these individuals will not be able to hurt them ever again.
Mistakes are made, of course, and it is up to our authorities to shore up weaknesses in the system to prevent such mistakes from being made. But it is, I believe, a God-ordained responsibility of government to protect its people from those who harm its citizens, and as such, I believe that capital punishment has an appropriate place within our legal and justice systems.
Tags: capital-punishment, christianity, good-and-evil, justice, politics, right-and-wrong
Fred Phelps brought his rag-tag band of religious misfits to Lafayette this past Monday to picket the funeral of one our local GIs. I assume you’ve heard of this group from the Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church? They certainly have made enough noise at so many of our soldiers’ funerals recently. Well, apparently, it was Lafayette’s turn to play host to these misguided sectarians. They brought their particular brand of religious hatred to our community and offended and angered a great many of our citizens.
It seems that Phelps and his flock are of the mind that the terrorist attacks on America and the loss of life in the war in Iraq are God’s judgment on this nation for harboring homosexuals. Strange that God skipped passing judgment on homosexuals themselves and went straight to the ‘harboring’ nation. I wonder if Mr. Phelps has ever actually read his Bible because his doctrine doesn’t seem to fit anything I’ve ever read in mine.
The only place I know of where God specifically passed judgment on a people for their sexual indulgences was on the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. In that case the entire city was given over to such proclivities, save for four individuals—Lot, his wife, and his two daughters. They were the only ones spared the judgment, and that only at the request of Abraham. Once they were drawn from the city, both Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed utterly.
I wonder how Mr. Phelps can rationalize and justify his belief that God is passing judgment on our nation when there is no comparison to the degree of ‘punishment’. In fact, according to statistics I heard last night, the average loss of life for our soldiers in any war hovers around 7 percent. In this conflict the death rate has been closer to 4 percent. I’m not sure how that reflects God’s wrath. Additionally, in history God’s judgment toward sin has been very clear—He has always made it abundantly known who and what He was punishing and why so that there could be no question as to its source.
I don’t care what your political views are, and you certainly have the right to express them. These fallen soldiers are testaments to that freedom. But their funerals are not appropriate places to express them. These are people who are grieving over the loss of a loved one, and the last thing they need or want is someone yelling in their faces, rejoicing over another death as a testament to a supposed judgment from God. Go ahead, Mr. Phelps, drive that stake of grief and pain and anguish a little deeper into the hearts of these stricken families and friends. I wonder, though, how much you would appreciate it if it was your son or daughter lying there in state to be given back to the earth. If this is your idea of spreading the good news of the Gospel, of evangelizing, of sharing God’s love, then I know for sure that you don’t serve the same God that I do. My God is patient and compassionate and long-suffering, slow to anger. Yes, He is also a just God, having declared that vengeance is his, and He does meet out judgment when necessary to draw people to Him. But I do not believe that anything we have seen so far is anything other than the results of living in a fallen world as nothing meets the scale of judgment that couldn’t be anything other than God’s wrath, and I believe that God’s wrath will be sated in the hereafter, when all chips are called in.
So, Mr. Phelps, take your people back home, actually open and read your Bibles, learn what a Christian is really supposed to look like, and learn what the fruits of the Spirit look like. When you have learned some compassion and are ready to focus on growing the Kingdom, instead of spreading your hate and anger to all the places where it doesn’t belong (since it shouldn’t even exist in the first place), then come talk to us again. Remember where your hope is, or at least where it should be, in the person of Jesus Christ the Messiah. Right now, you are serving no one but yourselves, and doing it badly, at that.
Tags: american-culture, christianity, culture, human-behavior, politics
