Remember that song by Depeche Mode? "...Someone to hear your prayers; someone who cares..."? According to Martin Gore, the songwriter, the song is about making someone (who isn't God) into your god. As he states, "...that's not a very balanced view of someone, is it?"
What got me thinking about that was the upcoming (-ish...in, you know, like a year and a half) election for President, and how I'm utterly unimpressed with any of the major-party candidates. I tend to vote Republican, not out of any sort of party loyalty but because the candidate on the ballot with whom I most agree has tended to be from the GOP. I wish this weren't the case; I'd like to see some Democrats who aren't supporters of abortion and who think the Iraq war was worth pursuing run so there would be less polarization and more competition between the parties. In some cases, if I'm uninspired by any of the options I'll typically write one of my parents in (they raised me well, so I may as well give them a shot at whatever office it is I'm voting on). I was considering Steve Adams (only one letter away from Adama, and The Admiral has been doing a successful job of shepherding humanity so far...) as something of a protest vote, but I'm now leaning towards Fred Thompson. I'm on board with most of both men's views, but electability is important. I wish Adams well, and hope his candidacy will advance the causes of faith in Christ and in reforming our political system, but we're at too critical of a point in history for me to spend my vote protesting the current way the political process is working.
In any case, part of the problem is that I believe that we Americans, aided in large part by the press, are making the position of President of the United States of America into more than it should be. We want the President to be our leader, chief executive, First Citizen, ambassador at large, hero to children and foreigners, mommy, daddy, and sometimes scapegoat all at once. That's a lot to ask of one man (or woman, when and if that day arrives). He's a celebrity, and we're interested in his personal life, accent, and who's on the ins and who's on the outs with him. If someone in his administration does something stupid or illegal, it becomes a reflection on his leadership. When foreigners, who it should remembered have their own interests in play and should by all rights love their own country more than ours, like or dislike him it is treated as a referendum on whether he's right for America. When something goes wrong we immediately look to him, either for gravitas and the proper expression of the national feeling or as a scapegoat, as though the President controls the stock market or the response of local/state agencies to natural disasters. It's related to the erosion of federalism in our national consciousness in how we always demand the best, even when it's overkill for the situation. I don't need the chrome trim and factory-added decals on my new truck, especially at $429, but darn if it isn't tempting. Nor do I need 2GB of RAM and an advanced video card on a laptop I'm going to use for web browsing and Microsoft Word...but I want it anyway. Why settle for less? In the same way, if I have a problem then I want to know that the President of the United States is on the case.
What we want is to set up a man as our god and king. As a Christian, it's often hard for me to remember that even though I can't find God by my five senses He's always there. However, at least I have faith in God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to carry me through. For those who don't have that faith in what's True, but are simply seeking to do what's right (...and there are those who aren't seeking to do what's right, too), it must be nearly impossible not to want to set up some sort of idol so we can have a place to direct our feelings and longings. As a nation imbued with a Christian aesthetic, even a Protestant and increasingly an Evangelical one, we've set up all sorts of icons and formulations regarding our country. Just trying to sort out all the images on a dollar bill will make your head hurt (it was only the fun story and the pleasant-to-look-at lead actress that helped me while watching National Treasure). As Gideon found out when he made a golden ephod which later became an idol, icons can very easily become idols if we become careless and irresponsible.
To a large extent, that's what I think has happened. Life is complicated, and a good case can be made that we're more aware of more troubles than those in the past. We're worried about the situation in Iraq, although Iran is also kind of scary and it's a good thing the North Koreans are only starving, not shooting the nukes they may or may not have at us. Darfur is worrisome as well, especially as nothing seems to be going on. Meanwhile, depending on your bias, you may believe either that the neocons are working to establish a theocracy with the help of the Illuminati or that militant homosexuals are trying to turn our country into a NAMBLA playground. Taxes are impossible to figure out, some appalling decision was just made by the local government or reached by some court in a state in which you don't live (as your state tends to be a model of reason, as Virginia tends to be). All this and more, which doesn't even include Jenny needing braces and headgear and how Barry Bonds may have used steroids. It's a lot to take in, and shifting some of the responsibility for figuring out how our government works (which, to be fair, is pretty complicated at times) is very tempting. We can't know everything, and even being politically savvy is very time-consuming, especially when we've just gotten back from work and the kids have a soccer game or there's a paper due tomorrow. However, we've seemingly abdicated just about all of our knowledge of our own government and the world of politics. Instead of figuring for which things our state (Commonwealth, in the case of oft-reasonable and definitely exemplary Virginia) is responsible and which things are under the purview of the national government in Washington DC, we simply want to go to the most obvious and seemingly-highest-ranked source, whom we believe to have the power to give and to take away.
From a Christian point-of-view this has its own dangers, and for which (another) over-long post could be written, but it's also unsettling from the perspective of policymaking and concern over maintaining our freedom. Although we cavil about the Patriot Act and possibly-illegal wiretapping, we're very willing to trade or even give away our freedoms and rights. This overmagnification of the office of the Presidency is a symptom of the entropic tendency for a people to let things fall apart, when maintaining our civilization and the many benefits we derive from it is very expensive and time- and energy-consuming. That may have come across as a little melodramatic, but it's not meant to be. If you look at once-great powers Britain and France, or ancient Rome, you can see how this begins to play out. I have some ideas, hopes, and plans on how to revive ourselves, and we're not sunk yet, but it's very easy for one step to become many on the road to mediocrity. We're currently a (the?) great power, and until and unless we can pass the torch, we have a responsibility to guard it.
Monday, May 7, 2007
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Japanese is a Scary Language
A Confession
Apparently, the Jesus film has been viewed more than 5.5 billion times. I've never seen it. What should my penance be?
Hypocrisy - First Fisking for This Blog?
Apocalyptic cultist Laurie David recently gave a short interview to the Rocky Mountain News and...well, color me unimpressed. Laurie David was the producer for An Inconvenient Truth, the Jesus film of those who believe global warming is imminent, caused by mankind, and reversible.
Mrs. David proclaims that "the changes are going to come when these guys [the current administration] are still in office," i.e. the next year and a half. That's pretty soon. Look, I'm not convinced that this global warming is anything more than a cyclic variation, especially seeing as Mars is also getting warmer. To say this is merely natural is to say "cyclic variations for me, but not for thee." If anything, perhaps we should be more worried about another ice age here on Earth, as we're said to be overdue (and from Blockbuster and my local library I've very well acquainted with the badness that occurs when things are overdue).
Now, what if Mrs. David is right? Shouldn't we be pulling out all the stops? Mrs. David certainly isn't. When asked what she's doing, her response was basically that she reuses bags, drives a hybrid, and uses energy-efficient lightbulbs. She also apparently got a no-idling rule passed for her local Kiss & Ride. Perhaps she meditates each morning and lights incense as well, although the latter might actually be counterproductive to stopping global warming. There's no mention of using a bike instead of a car, of using solar or watermill power, or of hunting and gathering her own food, instead of buying them at the supermarket (with all the attendant fuel and refrigeration costs in getting them to that grocery store).
Meanwhile, you have Al Gore chartering planes to take him to his speaking engagement, where he receives as a speaking fee $100,000 ($125,000 Canadian), or $40-per-ticket. He couldn't take a train or drive a Prius?
Lastly, and contrary to Jimmy Akin, carbon offsets can be compared to the selling of indulgences in medieval Europe, at least in public perception. Given that the piece of paper does nothing, yet makes its recipients believe that they have done something good by simply spending money, the comparison does have some aptness. This whole environmentalism thing was just a belief system in the past, but with a deity (Gaia, who is unhappy and apparently impotent to stop change but omnipotent to punish us), written scriptures (Al Gore's Earth in the Balance), evangelism (An Inconvenient Truth), a prophet (Al Gore again), and a system of salvation (buy carbon-offset credits), environmentalism has finally become a religion. Watch for some isolated group in the mountains to still be practicing it two thousand years from now, like the Druze, Mandaeans, and Yazidi.
Mrs. David proclaims that "the changes are going to come when these guys [the current administration] are still in office," i.e. the next year and a half. That's pretty soon. Look, I'm not convinced that this global warming is anything more than a cyclic variation, especially seeing as Mars is also getting warmer. To say this is merely natural is to say "cyclic variations for me, but not for thee." If anything, perhaps we should be more worried about another ice age here on Earth, as we're said to be overdue (and from Blockbuster and my local library I've very well acquainted with the badness that occurs when things are overdue).
Now, what if Mrs. David is right? Shouldn't we be pulling out all the stops? Mrs. David certainly isn't. When asked what she's doing, her response was basically that she reuses bags, drives a hybrid, and uses energy-efficient lightbulbs. She also apparently got a no-idling rule passed for her local Kiss & Ride. Perhaps she meditates each morning and lights incense as well, although the latter might actually be counterproductive to stopping global warming. There's no mention of using a bike instead of a car, of using solar or watermill power, or of hunting and gathering her own food, instead of buying them at the supermarket (with all the attendant fuel and refrigeration costs in getting them to that grocery store).
Meanwhile, you have Al Gore chartering planes to take him to his speaking engagement, where he receives as a speaking fee $100,000 ($125,000 Canadian), or $40-per-ticket. He couldn't take a train or drive a Prius?
Lastly, and contrary to Jimmy Akin, carbon offsets can be compared to the selling of indulgences in medieval Europe, at least in public perception. Given that the piece of paper does nothing, yet makes its recipients believe that they have done something good by simply spending money, the comparison does have some aptness. This whole environmentalism thing was just a belief system in the past, but with a deity (Gaia, who is unhappy and apparently impotent to stop change but omnipotent to punish us), written scriptures (Al Gore's Earth in the Balance), evangelism (An Inconvenient Truth), a prophet (Al Gore again), and a system of salvation (buy carbon-offset credits), environmentalism has finally become a religion. Watch for some isolated group in the mountains to still be practicing it two thousand years from now, like the Druze, Mandaeans, and Yazidi.
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Ave Maria Law School's Self-Immolation
Honestly, this blog isn't going to be All-Catholic, All The Time. Really.
As I've read at Volokh and Mark Shea, among other places, Ave Maria Law School is in some serious self-caused trouble. Many of the professors feel as though the school is being run as the personal fiefdom of a wealthy donor and board member, while the administration argues that the school is a "failed experiment" and starting over is best. Before I go any further, let me give some background.
Ave Maria Law School, which has no direct connection to Ave Maria University in Ave Maria Township in the state ofAve Maria Florida, is an independent conservative Roman Catholic law school in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Ann Arbor is also home to the elite law school at University of Michigan, as well as being the hometown of Tom Monaghan, founder of Domino's Pizza, who is the wealthy donor mentioned in the above paragraph. Monaghan is also the a major donor and founder (I believe) of Ave Maria University and Ave Maria Township (perhaps they could secede and call their new political entity the State of Grace?). The law school, as well as the university and the town, was formed because other Roman Catholic law schools, such as those at Notre Dame, Georgetown, and so on, were considered too liberal, both politically and theologically. Although US News & Work Report ranks AMLS at the bottom, in Tier 4, the school has received some positive attention and praise, and appeared to be slowly gaining in credibility and prestige.
From my perspective, it looks as though Monaghan and the administration want to connect the law school with the university, which would likely improve both of them. However, there's more to it than that. It's doubtful that the school would keep its extremely-important American Bar Association accreditation if they moved from Michigan to Florida, as Ave Maria Township is considered the middle of nowhere (not that it stops Washington & Lee from being a top-30 law school...). Fuel was added to the fire when the administration warned faculty not to use their AMLS email accounts to send emails criticizing the administration or promoting another law school. This was apparently done because some professors had sent email to the student body saying that they were investigating carrying on the mission of AMLS in Ann Arbor if the school relocated to Florida. The administration has said that they're dead-set on moving, and that there's no "Plan B" if they don't get ABA accreditation.
Obviously, I don't know exactly what the experiment of Ave Maria Law School entailed. Monaghan had apparently bought out two other Roman Catholic law schools in the area and closed them down, along with the short-lived Ave Maria College in Michigan he had founded. At this point, the move looks like a foolish decision being made by those with the authority to do so. I suspect that few of the professors will move to the new location, and I doubt that the ABA will certify the school, which is truly a death knell as AMLS graduates won't be able to sit for the bar exam in most states. At the same time, though, even having the exact same staff in the exact same buildings would be a different school if the legal recognition of the school were transferred down to Florida. To argue otherwise would be for Roman Catholic to admit that the Church of England is the legitimate expression of the Catholic faith in Britain, as they kept the property and all but one of the bishops kept their seats.
It seems to me that a wiser course of action would have been to start a satellite campus in Florida. If it was economically viable then the two campuses would strengthen each other and provide more opportunities, and if not viable than resources could quietly be shifted to one of the schools. Not being in the know, however, I have no idea if this would have been possible. In the meantime, though, just about everyone comes out poorly, with the faculty and administration looking petty and the students looking abandoned. I have a soft spot for the Catholics, and I hope God will continue the mission of the school somewhere, regardless of mankind's pettiness.
As I've read at Volokh and Mark Shea, among other places, Ave Maria Law School is in some serious self-caused trouble. Many of the professors feel as though the school is being run as the personal fiefdom of a wealthy donor and board member, while the administration argues that the school is a "failed experiment" and starting over is best. Before I go any further, let me give some background.
Ave Maria Law School, which has no direct connection to Ave Maria University in Ave Maria Township in the state of
From my perspective, it looks as though Monaghan and the administration want to connect the law school with the university, which would likely improve both of them. However, there's more to it than that. It's doubtful that the school would keep its extremely-important American Bar Association accreditation if they moved from Michigan to Florida, as Ave Maria Township is considered the middle of nowhere (not that it stops Washington & Lee from being a top-30 law school...). Fuel was added to the fire when the administration warned faculty not to use their AMLS email accounts to send emails criticizing the administration or promoting another law school. This was apparently done because some professors had sent email to the student body saying that they were investigating carrying on the mission of AMLS in Ann Arbor if the school relocated to Florida. The administration has said that they're dead-set on moving, and that there's no "Plan B" if they don't get ABA accreditation.
Obviously, I don't know exactly what the experiment of Ave Maria Law School entailed. Monaghan had apparently bought out two other Roman Catholic law schools in the area and closed them down, along with the short-lived Ave Maria College in Michigan he had founded. At this point, the move looks like a foolish decision being made by those with the authority to do so. I suspect that few of the professors will move to the new location, and I doubt that the ABA will certify the school, which is truly a death knell as AMLS graduates won't be able to sit for the bar exam in most states. At the same time, though, even having the exact same staff in the exact same buildings would be a different school if the legal recognition of the school were transferred down to Florida. To argue otherwise would be for Roman Catholic to admit that the Church of England is the legitimate expression of the Catholic faith in Britain, as they kept the property and all but one of the bishops kept their seats.
It seems to me that a wiser course of action would have been to start a satellite campus in Florida. If it was economically viable then the two campuses would strengthen each other and provide more opportunities, and if not viable than resources could quietly be shifted to one of the schools. Not being in the know, however, I have no idea if this would have been possible. In the meantime, though, just about everyone comes out poorly, with the faculty and administration looking petty and the students looking abandoned. I have a soft spot for the Catholics, and I hope God will continue the mission of the school somewhere, regardless of mankind's pettiness.
TS O'Rama Has Gone Insane
How else to explain this post, where he waxes proud of his new toilet and challenges Richard Rich, a 16th century Chancellor of England, to a commodal flush-off? Perhaps TS is still upset over the martyrdom of Thomas More.
Explaining Catholicism
Being Anglican(-ish) is kind of an interesting situation. At times you're despised by Protestants and Evangelicals* as a crypto-papist but by Roman Catholics as a mere heretic, and at other times you're seen as sufficiently close to whatever the mark is to be a reliable glimpse into the other side. Due to this via media, I think a disproportionate number of Anglicans have looked into Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Wesleyanism, and/or Calvinism at times. I don't know much about Orthodoxy, but I place myself somewhere between Wesleyanism and Catholicism and utterly reject Calvinism. However, my interest in denominations has gained me something of a reputation as a go-to guy for people having questions about other Christian traditions.
One of those instances was tonight, when a friend of mine invited me over to talk to her roommate about what Roman Catholics believe, as the roommate is Evangelical but has her eye on a Catholic guy. Of course, I'm not Roman Catholic, but I have a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, have attended RC masses, and have read up on Catholic beliefs. I've been told that my understanding of Catholicism is pretty much on-target, although I do have some serious disagreements with it.
In any case, she and my friend quizzed me for a long while, asking for clarification and Biblical support for Catholic doctrines. I went and explained how the RCs see the Bible as coming through the Church, how praying to saints is like asking a friend to pray with you, how Catholics don't try to work their way into heaven, and how sacraments are seen as imparting a change on the nature of the recipient. I also pointed out that in terms of the Holy Spirit, Catholic and Pentecostals/Charismatics are much closer to each other than they are to Cessationist Protestants and Evangelicals. They took it in, asked good questions, and said they might have some other questions soon.
For me, I really enjoy that kind of discussion. Catholics and non-Catholics alike tend to have mistaken understandings of each other, and that's not a good thing. I have some serious disagreements with Catholic doctrine; I don't claim that they worship the Pope or believe Mary is greater than Jesus. It'll take a miracle for there to be true reconciliation, but perhaps the drift can be slowed and a process of healing the universal Church can begin. After all, when Christ returns, he's expecting a bride, not a harem.
*Modern Evangelicalism isn't really a protest against Catholicism. In fact, it often has very little to do with Mainline Protestantism, especially if the Evangelicals are also Charismatics. Catholics seem to often use the term "Protestant" to refer to all non-Orthodox non-Catholics, and "Fundamentalist" to refer to Evangelicals. In general, Mainline Protestants (classically, Episcopalians, Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Baptists) refer to themselves as Protestants, while Evangelicals (a more nebulous group, but almost always including "Bible Church" groups) generally consider "Fundamentalist" to be pejorative unless they're KJV-only and do things like forbid dancing, card-playing, and movies. Calling an Evangelical a Fundamentalist is like calling a Roman Catholic a Papist (or Mary-Worshipper), and calling an Evangelical a Protestant is like saying that the Greek Orthodox are Catholics.
One of those instances was tonight, when a friend of mine invited me over to talk to her roommate about what Roman Catholics believe, as the roommate is Evangelical but has her eye on a Catholic guy. Of course, I'm not Roman Catholic, but I have a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, have attended RC masses, and have read up on Catholic beliefs. I've been told that my understanding of Catholicism is pretty much on-target, although I do have some serious disagreements with it.
In any case, she and my friend quizzed me for a long while, asking for clarification and Biblical support for Catholic doctrines. I went and explained how the RCs see the Bible as coming through the Church, how praying to saints is like asking a friend to pray with you, how Catholics don't try to work their way into heaven, and how sacraments are seen as imparting a change on the nature of the recipient. I also pointed out that in terms of the Holy Spirit, Catholic and Pentecostals/Charismatics are much closer to each other than they are to Cessationist Protestants and Evangelicals. They took it in, asked good questions, and said they might have some other questions soon.
For me, I really enjoy that kind of discussion. Catholics and non-Catholics alike tend to have mistaken understandings of each other, and that's not a good thing. I have some serious disagreements with Catholic doctrine; I don't claim that they worship the Pope or believe Mary is greater than Jesus. It'll take a miracle for there to be true reconciliation, but perhaps the drift can be slowed and a process of healing the universal Church can begin. After all, when Christ returns, he's expecting a bride, not a harem.
*Modern Evangelicalism isn't really a protest against Catholicism. In fact, it often has very little to do with Mainline Protestantism, especially if the Evangelicals are also Charismatics. Catholics seem to often use the term "Protestant" to refer to all non-Orthodox non-Catholics, and "Fundamentalist" to refer to Evangelicals. In general, Mainline Protestants (classically, Episcopalians, Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Baptists) refer to themselves as Protestants, while Evangelicals (a more nebulous group, but almost always including "Bible Church" groups) generally consider "Fundamentalist" to be pejorative unless they're KJV-only and do things like forbid dancing, card-playing, and movies. Calling an Evangelical a Fundamentalist is like calling a Roman Catholic a Papist (or Mary-Worshipper), and calling an Evangelical a Protestant is like saying that the Greek Orthodox are Catholics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)