While it has been stated that the American media is generally anti-Iraq war biased, I have held out hope that the media would at least recognize the good if (as) progress is made. The brave citizens of Iraq are in the middle of something which should be moving toward progress, and right or wrong the U.S. is involved. Historically, freedom is often bought with blood, and many Iraqi citizens seem to concur with Patrick Henry that the price is worth paying. How ironic, in light of our colonial heritage that the BBC titles their article on Iraq "Iraq voters back new constitution" when CNN titles their article "U.S. military death toll in Iraq reaches 2,000". I thought the British are the conservative and objective voice of the news, while the Americans are supposed to be optimists. What is going on?
Follow-Up: Hours later the BBC has put up the same AP article as CNN under the same title. I don't think I am back to square one though. I believe that the steps toward real freedom for the Iraq people should be more celebrated EVEN IF one disagrees about the beginnings of the war or the multi-national (or what is left of it) presence there.
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
Monday, October 17, 2005
Meditations on a Marathon
"On this system one could fight all the forces of existence without deserting the flag of existence. One could be at peace with the universe and yet be at war with the world."
G.K. Chesterton
A dear friend of mine ran a marathon this past weekend. It was my first opportunity to watch any part of a marathon in person, and I was unsure as to what I should expect. I'm glad to say that I loved it. The freedom to support and cheer everyone on, both strangers and friends, was exhilarating.
It struck me that the reason why people are so quick to cheer the runners on is because we are, for the most part, simply impressed with the daring to attempt such a daunting task. We recognize that the marathon represents the peak of training, and that all of the runners have paid a price for entering the race. By the time they cross the starting line, they have already committed time, energy, and finances to the task ahead. And we respect them for that.
But, at the same time, the unwavering support received by the runners is combined with a stark knowledge of how they stack up against their competitors. For the vast majority of the runners, in fact, the race is not competitive in any meaningful way. But, because the runners have earned our respect just by crossing the starting line, we are free to cheer for the runners without disappointment. We want them to run better, faster, and stronger than they think is possible, all the while content with the desire to run such a grueling race.
As I was watching the race, I both marveled at the community surrounding the runners and sensed that there was something quietly familiar with the picture. It struck me that cheering for the runners reminded me of some of the finest sentiments that people can exhibit. There is tremendous freedom in loving something without constraints, even to the point of irrationality. With a boundless love, nothing is sacred. We can mold, shape, and influence the object of our love so that, in the end, it may look nothing like the thing we started with. That love wishes that the object be better, faster, and stronger than others might think is possible, all the while content with whatever the outcome might be. Such a love is rare because it is simply too easy to err in either direction. Love without change is pointless. Change without love is destructive. But the freedom to love something to the point of redemption is the finest of all virtues.
G.K. Chesterton
A dear friend of mine ran a marathon this past weekend. It was my first opportunity to watch any part of a marathon in person, and I was unsure as to what I should expect. I'm glad to say that I loved it. The freedom to support and cheer everyone on, both strangers and friends, was exhilarating.
It struck me that the reason why people are so quick to cheer the runners on is because we are, for the most part, simply impressed with the daring to attempt such a daunting task. We recognize that the marathon represents the peak of training, and that all of the runners have paid a price for entering the race. By the time they cross the starting line, they have already committed time, energy, and finances to the task ahead. And we respect them for that.
But, at the same time, the unwavering support received by the runners is combined with a stark knowledge of how they stack up against their competitors. For the vast majority of the runners, in fact, the race is not competitive in any meaningful way. But, because the runners have earned our respect just by crossing the starting line, we are free to cheer for the runners without disappointment. We want them to run better, faster, and stronger than they think is possible, all the while content with the desire to run such a grueling race.
As I was watching the race, I both marveled at the community surrounding the runners and sensed that there was something quietly familiar with the picture. It struck me that cheering for the runners reminded me of some of the finest sentiments that people can exhibit. There is tremendous freedom in loving something without constraints, even to the point of irrationality. With a boundless love, nothing is sacred. We can mold, shape, and influence the object of our love so that, in the end, it may look nothing like the thing we started with. That love wishes that the object be better, faster, and stronger than others might think is possible, all the while content with whatever the outcome might be. Such a love is rare because it is simply too easy to err in either direction. Love without change is pointless. Change without love is destructive. But the freedom to love something to the point of redemption is the finest of all virtues.
Thursday, September 29, 2005
Having a Nature and Metaphysical Struggles: The Emotional Hangover
What does it mean to have a nature, an essence? Am I a bundle or a concrete particular with a certain set of properties? Well, I don’t fancy myself a bundle, and Nominalism in general seems false to me. I have written papers where I defend a substance view of humans, Substance Dualism (in a Thomistic sense, not Cartesian). However, I must confess that I would rather not believe in various bits of metaphysical realism such as abstract objects. Also, I am especially bothered by the fact that the property of Red, may not itself be Red. That just seems strange.
On the other hand, it seems right to me that the essential nature of a fish is to be in water. The problem of being a “fish out of water” is obvious and persuasive to me. No matter what anyone else might say, fish are supposed to be in water. That seems objectively clear, and NOT a matter of convention to me. Even those fish (if there are more than one KIND) that can survive outside of what for short periods of time are still generally supposed to be in the water. If this were not the case, we should be tempted to think of classifying the air loving fish as an amphibian or something all together different.
Furthermore, it seems right to me that I have a nature. I might even do things that go against my nature. For example, those childhood times where I have tried to fly have contributed to my overall sense of bodily discomfort presently. I think most people would agree to this generally.
However, the problems come quickly because the argument from nature is often used to defend various moral claims. An interesting spilt on this issue is homosexuality. Some want to appeal to nature (in a “thin sense”) and claim that homosexuality is simply determined by our genes. (I will not comment on the merit of this scientific evidence at this time). One’s nature (thinly) determines our sexual preference, it is argued, so they cannot be morally blame worthy for homosexuality. Now, what I, as a proponent of libertarian freedom, don’t like things that suggest that I did not choose. I occasionally entertain the thought I may have had influence on who my parents were to be. Granted, there are some things that in the end I must admit I cannot control about myself (e.g. what beliefs I directly choose, my parents, feelings, etc.). But I don’t have to like it.
On the other hand, others will claim that the human essence is by nature (thick, metaphysical sense) not supposed to be homosexual. Those who make this claim in a think sense are speaking much more deeply than referring to “plumbing.” The problem here is possibly my lack of information or possibly epistemic support. My question is “what is exactly are you ‘looking’ at to make such a judgment about natures?”
I am planning on finding out, about natures and who is looking at what. I want to know who is right, why she is right, and how does she know. What do you think? And what bothers you about your view?
On the other hand, it seems right to me that the essential nature of a fish is to be in water. The problem of being a “fish out of water” is obvious and persuasive to me. No matter what anyone else might say, fish are supposed to be in water. That seems objectively clear, and NOT a matter of convention to me. Even those fish (if there are more than one KIND) that can survive outside of what for short periods of time are still generally supposed to be in the water. If this were not the case, we should be tempted to think of classifying the air loving fish as an amphibian or something all together different.
Furthermore, it seems right to me that I have a nature. I might even do things that go against my nature. For example, those childhood times where I have tried to fly have contributed to my overall sense of bodily discomfort presently. I think most people would agree to this generally.
However, the problems come quickly because the argument from nature is often used to defend various moral claims. An interesting spilt on this issue is homosexuality. Some want to appeal to nature (in a “thin sense”) and claim that homosexuality is simply determined by our genes. (I will not comment on the merit of this scientific evidence at this time). One’s nature (thinly) determines our sexual preference, it is argued, so they cannot be morally blame worthy for homosexuality. Now, what I, as a proponent of libertarian freedom, don’t like things that suggest that I did not choose. I occasionally entertain the thought I may have had influence on who my parents were to be. Granted, there are some things that in the end I must admit I cannot control about myself (e.g. what beliefs I directly choose, my parents, feelings, etc.). But I don’t have to like it.
On the other hand, others will claim that the human essence is by nature (thick, metaphysical sense) not supposed to be homosexual. Those who make this claim in a think sense are speaking much more deeply than referring to “plumbing.” The problem here is possibly my lack of information or possibly epistemic support. My question is “what is exactly are you ‘looking’ at to make such a judgment about natures?”
I am planning on finding out, about natures and who is looking at what. I want to know who is right, why she is right, and how does she know. What do you think? And what bothers you about your view?
Sunday, September 18, 2005
The Balance of engagement
Side one: My instincts lead me away from television (I don't really watch much anyway) and many of the things in culture. I don't want to be like everyone else. I don't want my kids to be like everyone else. I want to be like Aquinas or Aristotle or someone Great. I want to make a difference in the world and not merely accept the current medium's of culture today. I want to be literate - that is read the Great books (plus books that are great)
Side two: While Novels are still important, it SEEMS that movies are the biggest push in culture. And who can really influence someone else if we are not engaging in the culture? It seems that one can best shape culture from within it. "In but not of" seems to be a good rule here.
So, what can we look at to know if "we" are in balance? Then, what ever it is we are looking at, how do we know we are interpreting the results correctly?
Here Jesus is a strange answer. Jesus was predictably unpredictable. However, He was always about His Father's will. This clears up the main stuff (torturing babies for fun is wrong, etc.), but it seems plausible that I could help the most by being truly counter-cultural; however, it could be argued that writing novels or movie scripts could have lots of impact too.
Maybe feeling the tension is what keeps us balancing His will and plan for our lives, but no matter how many times you walk the tight rope, you still get butter flies: It is still dangerous, and you can still fall.
Side two: While Novels are still important, it SEEMS that movies are the biggest push in culture. And who can really influence someone else if we are not engaging in the culture? It seems that one can best shape culture from within it. "In but not of" seems to be a good rule here.
So, what can we look at to know if "we" are in balance? Then, what ever it is we are looking at, how do we know we are interpreting the results correctly?
Here Jesus is a strange answer. Jesus was predictably unpredictable. However, He was always about His Father's will. This clears up the main stuff (torturing babies for fun is wrong, etc.), but it seems plausible that I could help the most by being truly counter-cultural; however, it could be argued that writing novels or movie scripts could have lots of impact too.
Maybe feeling the tension is what keeps us balancing His will and plan for our lives, but no matter how many times you walk the tight rope, you still get butter flies: It is still dangerous, and you can still fall.
Thursday, September 15, 2005
Waiting for a phone call
So I'm sitting here, waiting for a phone call that will tell me where I live next year. It could be anywhere. New York? Maybe. San Francisco? Perhaps. Toledo, Ohio? Who knows. ;-)
It is, in all honesty, a bit unnerving. But at the same time, I get the sense that it's a wonderful opportunity to learn something about peace and patience. There is nothing I can do at this point to change my fate. The phone call will or will not come on its own terms. My choice is whether I will fill my time productively or if I will fill the hours with nervous energy. My hope is that I have the good virtue to wait with patience, filled with the peace of knowing that things like this always work for the best.
It is, in all honesty, a bit unnerving. But at the same time, I get the sense that it's a wonderful opportunity to learn something about peace and patience. There is nothing I can do at this point to change my fate. The phone call will or will not come on its own terms. My choice is whether I will fill my time productively or if I will fill the hours with nervous energy. My hope is that I have the good virtue to wait with patience, filled with the peace of knowing that things like this always work for the best.
Friday, September 09, 2005
Now That's Experience!
What do you do with a man who runs a horse association so far into the ground that he's forced to resign?
Well, apparently you make him director of FEMA.
I'm hopeful that after the disaster that was hurricane Katrina, Congress has the foresight to legally require disaster management experience before receiving a high-level appointment in FEMA. While I'm really happy that Michael Brown had the good luck to be friends with President Bush, I'm saddened by the fact that the friendship actually cost people their lives.
We are a nation of almost three hundred million individuals. We deserve better.
Well, apparently you make him director of FEMA.
I'm hopeful that after the disaster that was hurricane Katrina, Congress has the foresight to legally require disaster management experience before receiving a high-level appointment in FEMA. While I'm really happy that Michael Brown had the good luck to be friends with President Bush, I'm saddened by the fact that the friendship actually cost people their lives.
We are a nation of almost three hundred million individuals. We deserve better.
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
Who Speaks for Evangelicalism?
Pat Robertson is at it again. Sparking worldwide controversy, Pat Robertson has recently called upon the United States to assassinate the President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez.
This statement is worrisome for several reasons. First, from a political standpoint, it's absolutely absurd to think that the United States could benefit from the political assasination of an inflammatory South American leader. Robertson compared the United States' relationship with Chavez with our military action in Iraq, which not only is a poor argument, but also offers an interesting glimpse into the extreme right's conception of what justifies military action. The war in Iraq, of course, was justified primarily because of a perceived threat due to the stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction. Bolstering these considerations were various references to Saddam's despicable human rights record, and the need for a fresh change in Iraq. This, of course, is simply not the situation in Venezuela. There are no allegations of weapons of mass destruction, and no allegations of mass graves. Instead, the United States' difficulties with Chavez center on complaints of region destabalization and illicit support of Castro's regime in Cuba. In sum, Robertson believes that political assasination, as a cheap and easy alternative to preemptive war, is justified simply as a means of batting away a gnat. This is not only politically absurd but also a frightful support for unbridled American hegemony.
From a spiritual standpoint, these kinds of comments are terrible because they cast a terrible shadow over evangelicalism. Does this man speak for Christians? What are intelligent people supposed to think when they hear a Christian make such awful comments? God help us.
My hope, though, is for a high-profile Christian to stand up and condemn the arguments. It doesn't have to be political, even. The response need only point out the obvious. Political assasination is, at this point at least, illegal. Encouraging the military to violate United States law is not only unethical, it's unchristian.
This statement is worrisome for several reasons. First, from a political standpoint, it's absolutely absurd to think that the United States could benefit from the political assasination of an inflammatory South American leader. Robertson compared the United States' relationship with Chavez with our military action in Iraq, which not only is a poor argument, but also offers an interesting glimpse into the extreme right's conception of what justifies military action. The war in Iraq, of course, was justified primarily because of a perceived threat due to the stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction. Bolstering these considerations were various references to Saddam's despicable human rights record, and the need for a fresh change in Iraq. This, of course, is simply not the situation in Venezuela. There are no allegations of weapons of mass destruction, and no allegations of mass graves. Instead, the United States' difficulties with Chavez center on complaints of region destabalization and illicit support of Castro's regime in Cuba. In sum, Robertson believes that political assasination, as a cheap and easy alternative to preemptive war, is justified simply as a means of batting away a gnat. This is not only politically absurd but also a frightful support for unbridled American hegemony.
From a spiritual standpoint, these kinds of comments are terrible because they cast a terrible shadow over evangelicalism. Does this man speak for Christians? What are intelligent people supposed to think when they hear a Christian make such awful comments? God help us.
My hope, though, is for a high-profile Christian to stand up and condemn the arguments. It doesn't have to be political, even. The response need only point out the obvious. Political assasination is, at this point at least, illegal. Encouraging the military to violate United States law is not only unethical, it's unchristian.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)