October 25th, 2009 by Justin
Secular society even benefits these people
Great post recently critical of traditional evangelicalism and supportive of a secular/ religiously neutral public square. It is not just secular people who can appreciate the virtues of a secular society and state. I like this quote:
Take politics for example. So many believers foam at the mouth when it comes to government intrusion into the church walls and church schools and families lives YET those same people rant and rave when it comes the government NOT making laws against abortion or gay marriage which are also personal issues. These people want to ban this, boycott that, and try and infuse Christian ideology into a clearly secular culture. They will lie and exaggerate the truth to try and get a “Christian” law passed, and then cry that they are being persecuted when someone slaps their hand and says no.
So here is a newsflash…..America IS NOT a Christian nation…
Amen. No pun intended.
October 24th, 2009 by Justin
A "sign" of things to come?
Some prominent Republicans like Dick Armey, Sarah Palin and Rick Santorum have decided to endorse the Conservative Party candidate instead of the Republican candidate in a New York congressional race. Whether this is a precursor to a larger and broader trend of fracturing within the conservative movement remains to be seen, of course.
But one thing that is certain is that the Republican party is rapidly approaching a crossroads, with three possible alternatives: (1) it can continue to go down the route of big-government and big-money politics, maintaining its status as one side of the coin, with the Democrats occupying the other, (2) it can regroup and reorganize into a truly authentic opposition party, taking real stands on real issues rather than making endless meaningless platitudes, (3) most unlikely, it may just split into two new political parties—a moderate, compromise-oriented center-right party and a narrower, more rigid (but more passionate) far-right one.
Now history says the most likely outcome is that the Republican party will remain intact, and either temporarily (for 5 or 10 years) turn more conservative and authentic (i.e. truly different from the Democrats), or withstand this short term assault from the right flank and, by this time next year, wind up back to where it was under Bush—back to traditional power politics. I consider the more conservative lurch to be quite plausible simply because of the unprecedented and almost pathological expansion of debt and government spending under the current Democrats in power (to say nothing of their actual policy program, which is polarizing in and of itself), whereas in normal times the smart money would unequivocally be on the establishment party powerbrokers and the status quo.
All of this said, we should not forget a crucial part of the equation—Obama and the national Democratic leadership. They are (so far) terrible leaders, but they are not stupid. They might—emphasis on might—see the rising tide of the “right-wing fanatics” begin to enter the corridors of power, and decide to shift to a more moderate, compromising and inclusive course with the purpose of maintaining their hold on power. Of course, if Republicans gain any significant inroads in next year’s elections, this will happen automatically as the White House, like under Clinton, will need to compromise to get anything done.
Assuming the Democrats don’t take such a moderate course, it’s all eyes on the right next year. 2010 has the potential to be a major year for Republican politics. Then again, it might just be the year that never was. In that case, it’s back to business as usual.
October 23rd, 2009 by Justin
Boobs and Bibles can make strange bedfellows
It recently re-entered the public consciousness that Carrie Prejean, the former Miss California, has had her breasts enhanced. She has also cited her strong Christian faith as a main factor informing her opposition to gay marriage. Does anyone sense a contradiction here? Now, regardless of one’s position on the issue of gay marriage, Prejean brings to light the abject hypocrisy that festers deep within modern American Christian conservatism. This is not to say that modern American secular liberalism is a paragon of forthrightness and sincerity—but that’s another topic.
The issue is far larger than Miss Carrie Prejean, for she is a relatively insignificant example of this broader and deeper phenomenon. The essential problem is this: modern Christian conservatives live in a free, politically secular, post-Enlightenment, post-Scientific Revolution sociopolitical system, and have and continue to benefit from all the progress and wonders that kind of system provides—and yet at the same time they seek to maintain and expand and even impose the beliefs and values of a religious system that is almost fully incompatible with that kind of system.
Whereas a truly free and open sociopolitical system is by definition secular—it must be, so as to not preference one segment of society over another—these people seek to merge church and state closer.
Whereas public policy in such a system is derived primarily from a rational consideration of real-world evidence of what will or will not benefit people, the Christian conservatives seek to set policy according to what their faith demands, regardless of evidence. (This assumes, of course, that thousands of years of debate and discord on the meaning of various religious concepts has been settled.)
Whereas a truly free and open sociopolitical system grants a wide variety of lifestyles and behavior patterns full legal protection and recognition and freedom, the Christian conservatives seek instead to give special status to certain specific lifestyles while restricting the freedom of others. I could go on.
So much for what they believe, which is bad enough. But now here comes the twist: the religious conservatives act in a way that frequently clashes with their religion—clashing either with the ideals and values they actually espouse, or with other aspects of their faith. The ever-present potential for contradiction stems from the fact that these people do not live in a sociopolitical order that conforms to their deeply-held beliefs—that would be a medieval one (as such, if they lived in Saudi Arabia, for example, they would be all set). And as long as they live in a society that is, at a fundamental level, secular and free there will be constant temptations to engage in: (1) lust, (2) gluttony, (3) wrath, (4) sloth, (5) envy, (6) pride and (7) greed. And many or most of them do engage in one or more of these things.
So, how does all this relate to little Carrie Prejean? Simple: true Christians don’t get breast implants. Furthermore, true Christians would not even entertain the idea of participating in a beauty pageant. (Bikini-clad babes parading their goods for the world to see…lust anyone?) I will have a screed on the pure nonsense of beauty pageants themselves in a future post.
Now, I have no doubt that Carrie Prejean truly believes that she is a good Christian woman. The same can be said for countless other Christian conservatives. They evidently base this belief principally on their positions on various political and social issues, such as abortion, gay marriage/ gay rights, pornography, or religious symbols in public places. These are interesting little litmus tests for one’s beliefs, but they are often more narrow indicators of a political or ideological way of thinking, not so much the foundations of a spiritual or religious life.
The question is, do they actually live their lives in accordance with the dictates of their religion, even accounting for the ambiguity and debatable components? Do they basically live according to the major principles of the faith? The answer is, at best, uncertain, and therefore we can say with confidence that modern Christian conservatism is infected with the hypocrisy bug. Far too many high-horse, holier-than-thou moralists in our society presume to tell others how to live their lives, even going so far as to impose their backward beliefs on others, and yet, when push comes to shove, they must inevitably be seen as imperfect humans, just like the rest of us.
If someone wants to get breast implants—that’s fine. If someone wants to live a life according to a particular established religion, that’s fine too. If someone claims to believe in a particular established religion, but lives in a way that contradicts it, that is hypocrisy. When they presume to dictate how others should live their lives, claiming legitimacy because of that established religion, that is dangerous and wrong, plain and simple.
October 19th, 2009 by Justin
"Banks": I like this one more than the ones we bailed out
Paul Krugman today reminds us that the big banks and financial institutions that played a key role in the current economic crisis have been getting back to their old tricks of unwise risk-taking, anti-regulation lobbyism, and accounting hocus-pocus for months now. What is extraordinary about the current crisis is that it has produced massive (negative) change in economic wellbeing for millions of people, but real (not superficial) regulatory and policy changes have been few and far between.
Has Obama talked openly about restructuring the economic system at a fundamental level? No. Instead he and the Democratic dunderheads in Congress have pursued an Unmitigated Debt Agenda (UDA) by lavishing billions on pet projects and K Street cronies through a so-called “stimulus” bill. Supposedly there are some tax cuts in it—big deal. I’m sure putting an extra $50 per year in some nurse’s bank account shall do wonders for the economy. Meanwhile, they’re about to one-up themselves by passing a healthcare bill that will waste hundreds of billions more without even covering all of the uninsured.
The real, longer-term danger, though, is in the realm of philosophy: by wasting such incomprehensible amounts of public money on such unhelpful projects, the fiscally challenged UDA liberals in the government are giving ALL government intervention in the economy a bad name, including sane financial regulation. Thus, the natural reaction of most people in the middle will be “the government ‘intervened’ in the economy in 2008 and 2009, and look what a disaster it was—the true answer must be to limit such government intervention.” That would be a dangerous and unfortunate outcome.
October 18th, 2009 by Justin
An opinion piece in the New York Times today tries to draw lessons about the interface of military strategic and political decisions applying to the US campaign in Afghanistan, based on the experience of Vietnam. There are some interesting observations.
However, it is fascinating how important the American military men (and politicians and analysts) always think they are in the wellbeing of poor, developing societies. There is no question that the military plays a crucial role in achieving and maintaining the peace in a society (assuming they do it right), but its importance is of a much narrower type than they typically think.
The US has displayed a tendency to think that if we send troops over to another part of the world, they will quell whatever situation there is, establish peace, and put that society on a path to prosperity and stability.
Never mind about the underlying character of the people, the kind of values or lifestyle they have, the quality of their leadership, their historical experience (or lack thereof) with democracy, etc, etc. All that is needed is for the generals and the president to “get the strategy right.”
When will they understand that if a society and a people are not understood and adequately reckoned with, the best “military strategy” on earth will not be worth a damn? Probably when there’s no more money to pay for the troops in-country, much less send new ones, thereby rendering the whole debate moot.
