Posted by Anthony on June 24, 2010
Here is a post that is a long time coming. First some caveats: my target audience here is the Bible-believing Christian, namely the kind that takes the Scriptures as authoritative. That said, I believe that Christianity manifests the true account of the moral code, and as such I think that what follows might apply to non-Christians, too.
Ok, now, this will sound like a weird place to start, but stick with me a moment. I consider myself a conservative (although more precisely, a libertarian-constitutionalist-voluntaryist) but I wasn’t always one. I grew up on default… that is, more or less as a liberal, especially on political and economic issues. What changed? Well, when I came to the place where I decided that Truth mattered, I realized that my belief system should, to the best of my ability, resemble reality.
This notion that I should adjust my mind to the world as it really was was really critical in shaping how I’ve come now. You see, there are lots of things that I wished were the case. Unfortunately, they aren’t. For example, I might wish that the members of the government can be trusted to look after the interests of the citizens, but it just isn’t the case. (Formative for me on this point was Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky). History and today’s newspaper reveal otherwise.
I have learned that in life, actions have consequences. I can try to shut my eyes to them and hope that by magic this time the action will have a different consequence (the one that I wished would happen) or I can accept reality. Accepting reality made me into a conservative.
Now, I say all of this in prelude because in this post I’m going to tackle something that I think even conservatives don’t get right a lot of times. I have heard liberals and pacifists and progressives all say something very similar to… “Violence is never the answer.” But I have heard conservatives say it, too. A quick google search reveals people across the spectrum making this statement.
But every sane person knows that, in fact, there are times when violence is the answer. Even most insane people know that sometimes violence is the answer.
So what we have here is a sentiment that is casually flung around that nearly all of us know isn’t true. In short, in saying such a thing, we are out of touch with reality. And one of the things I’ve learned about holding sentiments that don’t actually mesh with the real world is that inevitably bad things result. For example, if you think that you can step in front of a bus going 70 mph without getting hurt, a bad thing will result. Some times, the ‘bad things’ aren’t immediate or clear, but never fear, God cannot be mocked: we reap what we sow. WAIT! There is more to read… read on »
Posted by Anthony on September 5, 2009
This essay is long- some 2,000 words. But I think it is worth reading. Print it out if you like if that makes it easier.
————————
‘Individualism’ has a bad rap, even among Christians. To be fair, there are things in ‘individualism’ that I think are unhealthy or even immoral, too, but the key thing to remember is that any opposite of ‘individualism’ is not necessarily preferable. If we’re going to raise up ‘inter-connectedness’ (a neutral term, I hope) it must be done thoughtfully, and it cannot obliterate that which is moral or good in ‘individualism.’
The only folks that I’ve ever heard defend ‘individualism’ are the Objectivists- the offspring of Ayn Rand, that spunky atheist who escaped the clutches of communism. Rand’s views on the individual seem to be expressed most succinctly, and passionately, in her little book Anthem
, which is a favorite of mine. There is a flaw in her book however: the intrinsic value of the individual is assumed; no basis for it is provided.
And no wonder. In atheism, no basis for the value of the individual human can be provided. At best, the individual human values himself, and then out of concern for his own interests forges a social compact with other individual humans not hurt him. That is secular humanism at its core. But this can only go so far. Once ‘social compacts’ are on the table, the ‘good of society’ becomes an obvious next step. “The most good for the most people.”
I won’t explore the inevitable progression from there (“Someone must decide what that good is”) and discuss the history of abuse that consistently emerged within these systems. These are not the point of this post, but you can find comments on it on this blog and the issue is discussed in my fictional book series, Birth Pangs.
The point, here, is that within secular humanism and atheistic systems, the only thing that lasts from one generation to the next is the State. Society and the State become the ‘highest’ level organism, and the individual a mere cell within it. From the point of view of the State, the individual has as much value as a skin cell which can be scraped off and safely discarded. Naturally, more valuable cells you want to keep around- while they have utility- but the ‘brain cells’ never lose sight of the fact that the cell’s value is strictly in what it can contribute to the ‘body.’ WAIT! There is more to read… read on »
Posted by Anthony on July 10, 2009
Here is a short story I wrote inspired by the comments in this thread on PZ Myer’s blog. Enjoy!
=======
Adam and Eve and the Tree of Knowledge of Knowledge
“I got here as fast as I could!” gasped the old man. He put one hand on the hood of the squad car and bent over as he tried to catch his breath.
The annoyed chief stared at the man waiting for him to explain who he was because the chief didn’t recognize him at all. At last, the balding and sweating gentlemen stood erect and stared back at the chief expecting some word of thanks or gratitude from him. But the chief was silent.
“Well, don’t you want my help?” the old man snapped.
“I don’t know who you are,” the chief grumped back.
“Don’t you know who you’ve got up there?” the old man gestured in the direction of the top of a seven story building that was the object of all the attention.
The chief shrugged, irritated, “Two people threatening to jump?”
The old man scowled.
“This is what I’ve been trying to tell you, chief,” said a police officer standing nearby.
“What? Just tell me already!” the chief cried out, slapping his hand on the hood of the car.
“That’s Adam and Eve,” the old man snarled, “and I’m Dr. Stein Franken.”
“Good grief,” the chief exhaled. “Give me those binoculars!” Officer Todd handed them over and the chief gave a closer look to the man and the woman standing on the edge of the building. “Good grief,” the chief said again, adding some profanity under his breath.
Dr. Franken put his hands on his hips and assumed a posture that had proven itself effective over the years. “Now, tell me what’s going on? How did those two get up there?”
“Well,” the chief began, “as near as I can tell, it began about an hour ago at the local book store. These two had gone in and got themselves caught switching books in the mythology and science sections-”
“That’s not a crime,” Dr. Franken snapped. “I myself take books out of the science section and put them in the mythology section where they belong. I do that all of the time.”
“No, they were doing it the other way around,” said Officer Todd.
Dr. Franken gasped in shock, “Why, that’s a felony.”
“Exactly,” said the chief.
There was irony here but Dr. Franken didn’t realize it. WAIT! There is more to read… read on »
Posted by Anthony on June 7, 2009
The impact that Saul Alinksy’s ideology had in the thinking of the man currently occupying the office of the presidency, one Barack Hussein Obama, is well documented. Thus, I will not document it myself, and submit the reader to Google.
Having only read excerpts of Alinksy’s Rules for Radicals, I was pleased to have the opportunity to sit down and read it for myself in its entirety. Knowing how influential Alinksy was for the young Obama (and many others who now occupy seats of power) I am more worried than I was before now that I’ve actually read this book. Go to the library and pick up the book. You need to read it.
The subtitle of the book is “A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals.” It is not an inappropriate subtitle. Alinsky is all about pragmatism and realism. Alinsky is dismissive of ethical questions related to the question “Does the end justify the means?” He says:
The practical revolutionary will understand Goethe’s “conscience is the virtue of observers and not of agents of action”; in action, one does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent both with one’s individual conscience and the good of mankind. The choice must always be for the latter. Action is for mass salvation and not for the individual’s personal salvation. He who sacrifices mass good for his personal conscience has a peculiar conception of “personal salvation”; he doesn’t care enough for people to be “corrupted” for them. (pg 25, chapter titled: Of Means and Ends) WAIT! There is more to read… read on »
Posted by Anthony on May 31, 2009
About ten days ago I posted an entry arguing that neither secularism or science are value neutral and gave the example of the science book at the center of the Scopes Monkey Trial which- portraying itself as science- advocated for eugenics. A commentator (by my estimation) missed the point of my post and focused on the implication that evolutionary theory logically necessitates the acceptance of eugenics. I said at the time, and I say now, that I do not personally believe that this is the case.
Nonetheless, it is an undeniable fact that at the turn of the last century evolutionists were advocating eugenics with enthusiasm with great public support.
You’ve heard the current skeptical talking point that Christianity certainly can’t be true because if you had been born in Pakistan you’d have been a Muslim. Certainly the same thinking applies here, where we might say that evolutionists today who deny the logical connection between evolution and eugenics, if they had been born in 1890, would have been Eugenicists. Right? WAIT! There is more to read… read on »
Posted by Anthony on April 17, 2009
In my last post I tried to explain that there is always a connection between freedom gained/diminished when governments tax. I was trying to make the point that one can’t speak of an economic system- any economic system- as freedom neutral. It was not my point, as some wags have suggested, to argue that all government is tyranny. It was only to ensure that we realize there is a connection.
One fellah went so far as to argue that on my reasoning stop signs decrease our freedom, too. And what about the four walls in our house, don’t they constrain us?!?!? I am afraid this misses the point. I repeat, the point was not to argue that all such considerations were wickedly evil. The point was to make sure that we are all aware of exactly what we are doing. Naturally, I think this person’s reasoning was skewed… on it, I suppose we should also take issue with our fleshly bodies. Oh, if only we were a wispy ghost, then we’d have freedom! 
A Facebook Discussion of this Issue
I raise these issues again in order to dispute a current description of the Tea Parties that were held the other day. No doubt, ‘higher taxes’ were on the agenda and people did not like the idea of putting the next generation and the generation after that into debt. That is only part of the picture. Tea Party participants (and sympathizers) also recognize that freedom and liberty is on the line, too. WAIT! There is more to read… read on »
Posted by Anthony on April 13, 2009
Quote:
Text messaging graphic pictures of yourself could soon be legal for teens in Vermont.
Lawmakers there are considering a bill that would make it legal for teenagers 18 and under to exchange explicit photos and videos of themselves – an act that’s come to be known by teens as “sexting.”
Under the current law, teenagers could be prosecuted as sex offenders if they get caught sending graphic sexual images of themselves, even if it was consensual.
Source
Here is one of those weird situations that our sexually saturated sex-crazed society has created for us to work out. First of all, I don’t think that teenagers should be prosecuted as ‘sex offenders’ if they get caught ‘sexting.’ The truly deviant ‘sex offenders’ in our society are in an entirely different category so some distinction needs to be made. However, what many seem to fail to notice is that these ‘sex offenders’ are being created by the libertine atmosphere in our society. Today it is ‘sexting.’ In ten years, in and out of a few destructive relationships and ever pushing the limits of desensitizing, you get a sex predator. Then people have the audacity to be surprised.
This idea that you can unleash sexual expression without consequences is utterly ridiculous. Regardless, there seems to be a whole class of people in our society who want to take down every limit of sexual expression while feigning disgust when people behave without limits.
So, it should not be illegal in the sense that they could be made ‘sex offenders’ but it seems to me that legalizing it is not the right tact. I mean, it is not the right tact if a generation hence you want a stable society that is not riddled through and through with pedophiles, sex addicts, broken homes, etc, etc. So what should society do? If the ‘sex offender’ legislation is removed what should replace it? I honestly don’t know. I have the feeling that the solution to the problem is well beyond the reach of the government.
My hunch is that what is needed is a sea change among parents and citizens in general who will frown on this behavior and consistently condemn it. Parents in particular have to be vigilant in monitoring the use of technology by their kids and abandon the illusion that their kids, of all kids, wouldn’t dream of engaging in such behavior. Although that comes with with a caveat: kids who have been brought up with a clear sense of where the limits are and understand that consequences follow when the limits have been transgressed will be more likely to show restraint. Human history is pretty much agreed on that point.
In contrast, consider the advice provided by a certain ‘expert’ in the article:
Karen Salmansohn is an expert on talking with teenagers about smart choices. She writes books to empower girls, and says parents need to talk to their kids about the dangers of sexting — using their language.
“Don’t talk to them in language saying this is right this is wrong. That’s not going to get to a kid,” Salmansohn said.
“You have to talk them, you know what you think is cool isn’t so cool. You have to use the language of cool because that’s why they’re doing it.”
This is mostly nonsense. I don’t agree for a minute that kids are doing it because its ‘cool.’ We aren’t talking about a hair style fad. We’re talking about a particularly powerful biological impulse. An impulse, I might add, our society has collectively decided it won’t dare constrain. WAIT! There is more to read… read on »
