Good afternoon, fellow blog readers, I apologize for the failures in blog writing on Friday and the subsequent delayed post today. But I think that there is a bigger tragedy that should be on all of our minds.
The type of thing that happened in France just doesn't happen on a normal basis. I haven't seen something like this in my lifetime. 9/11 is a similar event, but there's something different about someone having the audacity and the calm demeanor to cause this kind of panic and to watch the faces of people that they shoot and kill one by one.
That doesn't make the losses of lives any more tragic but it does raise questions about the nature of the evil we are now seeing. I can imagine, though thankfully, it's only something I can imagine that it is easier to take a life if you do not see the results. Victim images are hard to deal with on any level, and I can't imagine how I would feel causing them. But I'm getting sidetracked a bit.
Today, I want to simply urge you to pray for the people affected by this tragedy, and more than that, I want to ask that you remain burdened by prayer for the next several months about this tragedy. I think it is very easy for us as Christians to feel burdened about a tragedy like this for a few days, pray about it much through those times and then move on with life, as if nothing had ever happened.
When was the last time you prayed about the still ongoing ISIS crisis? Our minds are geared toward hearing the stories of disasters, but we're not always great about seeing people recover from those suffering.
Join with me in praying that the church in France and the surrounding countries (and maybe even a few well-established churches in America) would be burdened by the Lord with a clear insight in how they should respond. Join with me in praying that the church, both in America and around the world, is forever changed and burdened by this event. Join in me praying that our lives themselves will change in focus.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Monday, November 16, 2015
Monday, November 2, 2015
Order, Guilt, and Persuasion
Before I get into the content of my blog today, I would just love to acknowledge that my Bengals are 7-0 for like the first time in franchise history!!! That is pretty phenomenal to me. So anyway, onto other things.
As a side note, today's blog post is more theoretical in nature; do not expect to come away with three points of application to your life of communication. I mean, there are things to apply, but I'm not doing that work for you today.
Communication theorist Kenneth Burke claims that symbols are a fundamental aspect of our persuasion. How we use symbols (of which words are a crucial part) influence a large amount of the way that we view the world.
Because of this Burke is obsessed with his idea of dramatism, or a look at how humans use symbols. Burke would object to the maxim that "Actions speak louder than words," on the basis that there is no distinction between the two - our language is a process of acting. To discuss this object of dramatism, we are going to look at first, humans' use of symbols, the process of accruing guilt, and then the process of redeeming guilt from a situation.
He believes that our language is a clear indicator of our attitude, so that we cannot help but reveal what we think by what we say. Our attitudes are forerunners of our actions. Anything we do is going to be the result of how we perceive the world. Thus, our language is a predictor of our actions.
It also seems possible that the language we use or are consistently around could influence our behavior. If we become desensitized to a certain way of viewing the world, it becomes easier to marginalize different people or do things that we would normally consider terrible. Our rhetoric will become our behavior.
The most important thing to understand about this definition is where that order comes from. Burke lists three specific areas of language that contribute to the area of order, and thus the area of guilt.
First of all, the negative. By its very nature, when we label something with a word, we exclude it from being something else. When I call this device that I am typing on a computer, it can no longer be a phone or tablet.
Burke argues that this negative space is a human-created existence. By his rationale, there is nothing about this computer that prevents it from being a tablet, except that I say that it isn't. He's actually wrong here. Although we as humans could have labeled this device as a tablet instead of a computer at one point, we haven't and our labeling of it doesn't change what it is.
More to Burke's point, simply saying that something is good or bad doesn't change the fact that it was already good or bad in the first place. That issue of morals is actually what is relevant to Burke's idea of guilt in the first place. Burke argues that we experience guilt because our language gives us a sense of right and wrong, and a sense of order when it comes to morality. When we then break that order, we experience discomfort.
The second way language creates order is a system of hierarchy. Here Burke argues that ultimately when we use language to differentiate between people, we create structures where some people are inferior to others.
We create a structure of different statuses within a culture. Borchers provides the example of our class system here at a university, where the labels, freshman, sophomore, junior, and senior all seem to indicate a different status. The goal then of any freshman is to become a sophomore, and the sophomore is to become a junior, and a junior wants to become a senior.
This illustrates that not only does this labeling create a hierarchy, but it also shows that in our pursuit for order, we will try to move ourselves up the hierarchy to a higher social status, meaning that when we fail to do so, we experience significant discomfort and guilt.
Finally, Burke highlights the idea of perfection, which he takes to mean our desire to take ideas to the extreme. It is the idea that good is the enemy of great. We will not be content with that which is good if there is a chance that we can get the best.
Our desire in all things is to ensure that we get the best possible option of all that is available to us. This means that when we are forced to give less than 100%, or just get less than 100%, we feel anxious, and experience what Burke would call guilt.
The first is called tragic purification, or the terms of order. In this view, you work through four stages. Stage 1 is order. You are not in distress or specifically feeling any guilt. Then in stage 2, guilt enters in, and you find yourself a little out of order.
Stage 3 is purification, meaning the stage in which you work to rid yourself of the guilt. This can be done either by accepting the responsibility for yourself (mortification) or blaming the incident on somebody else (victimage). Once order is restored, you have reached stage 4: redemption.
The second method is called the comic purification. This starts similarly to the tragic purification in that stage 1 is order. But it names the stage where order is disrupted as incongruity.
In a theory that is dedicated to the importance to how different symbols are used, it cannot go unnoticed that these two different models vary in their labeling of this stage.
Guilt provides a very strong negative connotation, which makes it seem that very drastic measures need to be taken to reestablish order. In contrast, incongruity is weaker in force and doesn't seem to need as strong of a response, which explains why this model doesn't provide one.
Instead of the guilty being punished or removed (as in tragic purification), the comic purification only requires a little laughter or encouragement to change their ways. Stage 3 of this process is belittling, which will take the form of humor, maybe even sarcasm.
Stage 4 then ends with enlightenment (a far nicer word than redemption as well), where the "guilty" party learns about what he did wrong and just reaches a higher understanding of the world.
As a side note, today's blog post is more theoretical in nature; do not expect to come away with three points of application to your life of communication. I mean, there are things to apply, but I'm not doing that work for you today.
Communication theorist Kenneth Burke claims that symbols are a fundamental aspect of our persuasion. How we use symbols (of which words are a crucial part) influence a large amount of the way that we view the world.
Because of this Burke is obsessed with his idea of dramatism, or a look at how humans use symbols. Burke would object to the maxim that "Actions speak louder than words," on the basis that there is no distinction between the two - our language is a process of acting. To discuss this object of dramatism, we are going to look at first, humans' use of symbols, the process of accruing guilt, and then the process of redeeming guilt from a situation.
Symbol Use
So what does Burke mean when he says that humans are symbol-using animals? We all know from a very core age that communication and our language is all built around symbols. But what Burke refers to goes beyond that.He believes that our language is a clear indicator of our attitude, so that we cannot help but reveal what we think by what we say. Our attitudes are forerunners of our actions. Anything we do is going to be the result of how we perceive the world. Thus, our language is a predictor of our actions.
It also seems possible that the language we use or are consistently around could influence our behavior. If we become desensitized to a certain way of viewing the world, it becomes easier to marginalize different people or do things that we would normally consider terrible. Our rhetoric will become our behavior.
Creation of Guilt
But Burke also wants to stress that language has additional power and that power has the ability to create guilt. Guilt is a "psychological feeling of discomfort that arises when order is violated." This feeling comes about as a result of a violation of order.The most important thing to understand about this definition is where that order comes from. Burke lists three specific areas of language that contribute to the area of order, and thus the area of guilt.
First of all, the negative. By its very nature, when we label something with a word, we exclude it from being something else. When I call this device that I am typing on a computer, it can no longer be a phone or tablet.
Burke argues that this negative space is a human-created existence. By his rationale, there is nothing about this computer that prevents it from being a tablet, except that I say that it isn't. He's actually wrong here. Although we as humans could have labeled this device as a tablet instead of a computer at one point, we haven't and our labeling of it doesn't change what it is.
More to Burke's point, simply saying that something is good or bad doesn't change the fact that it was already good or bad in the first place. That issue of morals is actually what is relevant to Burke's idea of guilt in the first place. Burke argues that we experience guilt because our language gives us a sense of right and wrong, and a sense of order when it comes to morality. When we then break that order, we experience discomfort.
The second way language creates order is a system of hierarchy. Here Burke argues that ultimately when we use language to differentiate between people, we create structures where some people are inferior to others.
We create a structure of different statuses within a culture. Borchers provides the example of our class system here at a university, where the labels, freshman, sophomore, junior, and senior all seem to indicate a different status. The goal then of any freshman is to become a sophomore, and the sophomore is to become a junior, and a junior wants to become a senior.
This illustrates that not only does this labeling create a hierarchy, but it also shows that in our pursuit for order, we will try to move ourselves up the hierarchy to a higher social status, meaning that when we fail to do so, we experience significant discomfort and guilt.
Finally, Burke highlights the idea of perfection, which he takes to mean our desire to take ideas to the extreme. It is the idea that good is the enemy of great. We will not be content with that which is good if there is a chance that we can get the best.
Our desire in all things is to ensure that we get the best possible option of all that is available to us. This means that when we are forced to give less than 100%, or just get less than 100%, we feel anxious, and experience what Burke would call guilt.
Redeeming Guilt
So how do we rid ourselves of this guilt? There are two models for the stages in which order, guilt, and redemption come into play.The first is called tragic purification, or the terms of order. In this view, you work through four stages. Stage 1 is order. You are not in distress or specifically feeling any guilt. Then in stage 2, guilt enters in, and you find yourself a little out of order.
Stage 3 is purification, meaning the stage in which you work to rid yourself of the guilt. This can be done either by accepting the responsibility for yourself (mortification) or blaming the incident on somebody else (victimage). Once order is restored, you have reached stage 4: redemption.
The second method is called the comic purification. This starts similarly to the tragic purification in that stage 1 is order. But it names the stage where order is disrupted as incongruity.
In a theory that is dedicated to the importance to how different symbols are used, it cannot go unnoticed that these two different models vary in their labeling of this stage.
Guilt provides a very strong negative connotation, which makes it seem that very drastic measures need to be taken to reestablish order. In contrast, incongruity is weaker in force and doesn't seem to need as strong of a response, which explains why this model doesn't provide one.
Instead of the guilty being punished or removed (as in tragic purification), the comic purification only requires a little laughter or encouragement to change their ways. Stage 3 of this process is belittling, which will take the form of humor, maybe even sarcasm.
Stage 4 then ends with enlightenment (a far nicer word than redemption as well), where the "guilty" party learns about what he did wrong and just reaches a higher understanding of the world.
Monday, October 19, 2015
We Really Don't Know
So... The Bengals are 6-0! And that doesn't have anything to do with politics, but I'm figuring out what I am writing about right now, so I just wanted to let you know that excitement.
So... The world is complex and complicated as usual, and we all pretend to know what's going on, because that's what people DO!
Because let's just be honest, how much do we truly understand about the insider positions of the politics, or about the inner positions of Syria, or how Germany will respond to the immigrants when they come through.
So what I would love to see happen is that news providers are willing to admit that there are lots of things that we just don't understand about the world.
Monday, October 5, 2015
Umpqua Community College
It was a small town in Oregon that where a mass shooting occurred. It wasn't a place that was expected to be dangerous. Everyone felt very safe. And then the disaster came. And as the disaster came, now no one anyone feels safe. Even though they are just as safe now as they were before, public perception of danger has increased substantially.
Our hearts and our prayers go out to the families of these victims, and for all those who are wounded. Undergoing this much trauma is not going to be easy. The road to normalcy is long, and tracked with the knowledge that things will not return to as normal as one would hope.
Monday, September 14, 2015
Immigration Crisis: What You Need to Know
Refugees from Syria are walking on foot to get to Germany because Germany is the one European state that seems excited for more immigrants. This is perhaps because their population is currently declining while the population of many other European nations is rising.
England offered up asylum for 20,000 people. Germany laughed and said they were ready for 500,000 every year for several years. Well done, UK. Your number looks kinda small. Apparently Germany doesn't need any help.
Hungary has offered police escort for the migrants on their border to help them get to Germany and Austria.
Perhaps what you really need to know is that these migrants have been travelling for a while, even though the media has just reported it. (Thank you photojournalists for making this a news story in the first place.) They are running from Syria and the unrest there for their very lives.
What they desire is peace, protection, and security. Maybe even a chance to start a new life outside of a civil war. And that's what you need to know.
In other news, I said the words "Civil War," so now I'm thinking of Captain America 3.
Also, how about them Bengals? Then again, it was the Raiders. Time will tell.
England offered up asylum for 20,000 people. Germany laughed and said they were ready for 500,000 every year for several years. Well done, UK. Your number looks kinda small. Apparently Germany doesn't need any help.
Hungary has offered police escort for the migrants on their border to help them get to Germany and Austria.
Perhaps what you really need to know is that these migrants have been travelling for a while, even though the media has just reported it. (Thank you photojournalists for making this a news story in the first place.) They are running from Syria and the unrest there for their very lives.
What they desire is peace, protection, and security. Maybe even a chance to start a new life outside of a civil war. And that's what you need to know.
In other news, I said the words "Civil War," so now I'm thinking of Captain America 3.
Also, how about them Bengals? Then again, it was the Raiders. Time will tell.
Monday, August 31, 2015
Hodge-Podge of Randomness
As I opened this new post, I noticed my serve told me I have written 221 posts, and I was like, "Yay, I like that number." Now hopefully, my audience is geeky enough to realize why that is a big deal.
But this is not a day to talk about the virtues of the world's favorite highly functioning sociopath because he actually isn't very virtuous. Oh, and it has nothing to do with politics and culture in America today.
In other news, actually relevant to American culture, the sport of legalized violence is starting up in two weeks. AND I AM SUPER EXCITED! Because I like football despite the fact that it really kind of is that whole legalized violence thing. Yeah, whatever. Also, concussions are kinda bad. Really bad. But I refuse to play it for that reason.
Of course, that doesn't mean I'm free from concussions. I have seen a member of my debate team last year who got a concussion while on a debate tournament. Of course, that was because she was recovering from a concussion, and we had an fender-bender. The whiplash did not do her well.
Now if that doesn't float your boat, TV series news seasons should begin pretty shortly, and I think that's pretty swell. It's time for another season of Castle, Doctor Who, Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., and Doctor Who. Oh, I already said that one didn't I? If anyone has any idea on how I could get my hands on the first three episodes of Agent Carter, I would greatly appreciate it.
In a completely different section of the world, the presidential campaign continues to bore its way on. I know, I'm not supposed to have this attitude as the beacon of stay informed at all costs, but it's far too early to know anything that's going on in the race. And I really want to get more involved when I have to worry about fewer candidates.
But there are some interesting tidbits. First, South Carolina is requiring those on the primary ballot to rule out running as a third party. A very good political move for the Republicans; this ensures that Trump must agree to support the GOP nominationif when he doesn't win the candidacy. Of course, one can and maybe should question the legitimacy of keeping someone off the ballot as a form of political manipulation.
Also, why is no one covering the Democratic race yet? It seems that even as Hillary Clinton's credibility with the media consistently gets worse, no one wants to cover any of the better options (admittedly many of those aren't better options, but there are definitely a few) that the Democrats actually have. In a world where liberal media reigns supreme, this is actually quite shocking as it seems disadvantageous to the party's chances next November.
And finally, can we just take time to acknowledge that football season is about to start?
But this is not a day to talk about the virtues of the world's favorite highly functioning sociopath because he actually isn't very virtuous. Oh, and it has nothing to do with politics and culture in America today.
In other news, actually relevant to American culture, the sport of legalized violence is starting up in two weeks. AND I AM SUPER EXCITED! Because I like football despite the fact that it really kind of is that whole legalized violence thing. Yeah, whatever. Also, concussions are kinda bad. Really bad. But I refuse to play it for that reason.
Of course, that doesn't mean I'm free from concussions. I have seen a member of my debate team last year who got a concussion while on a debate tournament. Of course, that was because she was recovering from a concussion, and we had an fender-bender. The whiplash did not do her well.
Now if that doesn't float your boat, TV series news seasons should begin pretty shortly, and I think that's pretty swell. It's time for another season of Castle, Doctor Who, Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., and Doctor Who. Oh, I already said that one didn't I? If anyone has any idea on how I could get my hands on the first three episodes of Agent Carter, I would greatly appreciate it.
In a completely different section of the world, the presidential campaign continues to bore its way on. I know, I'm not supposed to have this attitude as the beacon of stay informed at all costs, but it's far too early to know anything that's going on in the race. And I really want to get more involved when I have to worry about fewer candidates.
But there are some interesting tidbits. First, South Carolina is requiring those on the primary ballot to rule out running as a third party. A very good political move for the Republicans; this ensures that Trump must agree to support the GOP nomination
Also, why is no one covering the Democratic race yet? It seems that even as Hillary Clinton's credibility with the media consistently gets worse, no one wants to cover any of the better options (admittedly many of those aren't better options, but there are definitely a few) that the Democrats actually have. In a world where liberal media reigns supreme, this is actually quite shocking as it seems disadvantageous to the party's chances next November.
And finally, can we just take time to acknowledge that football season is about to start?
Monday, August 17, 2015
I'm Sorry... I'm So So Sorry
So it's Monday. I remembered that, and truly figured out that I don't know why I didn't realize that thing about dates last night or this morning, but yeah.
Here's the thing about our presidency that you should actually know before you consider the qualifications that a candidate has for the job.
His job is not to manage the country. His job is not to fix the economy. His job is not domestic at all. His job is to be a figurehead and diplomat in foreign policy. That is his job. We cannot let that go and say that a candidate can hire good people in foreign policy because then what are we actually making a decision based upon?
That is the number one concern for me because that is the president's job. That's why I am uncomfortable with even someone as genius as Dr. Ben Carson because his foreign policy experience is lacking.
And don't get me started on Donald Trump. His abrasive attitude would not be good as the figurehead who contacts and works with foreign nations.
But that's where we should look. Because guess what? Foreign policy... is the President's...wait for it... job.
(Another important consideration is morality as well, but that's just because moral leaders is good for a nation, and not the job of a presidency to begin with.)
Here's the thing about our presidency that you should actually know before you consider the qualifications that a candidate has for the job.
His job is not to manage the country. His job is not to fix the economy. His job is not domestic at all. His job is to be a figurehead and diplomat in foreign policy. That is his job. We cannot let that go and say that a candidate can hire good people in foreign policy because then what are we actually making a decision based upon?
That is the number one concern for me because that is the president's job. That's why I am uncomfortable with even someone as genius as Dr. Ben Carson because his foreign policy experience is lacking.
And don't get me started on Donald Trump. His abrasive attitude would not be good as the figurehead who contacts and works with foreign nations.
But that's where we should look. Because guess what? Foreign policy... is the President's...wait for it... job.
(Another important consideration is morality as well, but that's just because moral leaders is good for a nation, and not the job of a presidency to begin with.)
Monday, August 3, 2015
Found: Ebola Vaccine
Good news in the light of the people who have been dying all over the world. Wait, you had forgotten about that a little, hadn't you? Oh well, the good news is now you don't have to worry about it too much because there is a vaccine that is probably going to squelch the ebola virus where it stands.
This of course assumes that the last few tests go well, that the virus doesn't adapt too quickly before the vaccine gets mass produced and that it can be made available to the poor classes that seem to be the most effected by the disease. But all in all, those seem like decent assumptions.
Ebola is not as highly adaptive as those in the collegiate debate community would have you believe (of course, nothing is as bad as the debate community makes it seem). The whole reason the vaccine is being developed is to help people and not exploit them for greedy lucre. And the first few tests have gone amazingly well.
Here's to being cautiously optimistic.
This of course assumes that the last few tests go well, that the virus doesn't adapt too quickly before the vaccine gets mass produced and that it can be made available to the poor classes that seem to be the most effected by the disease. But all in all, those seem like decent assumptions.
Ebola is not as highly adaptive as those in the collegiate debate community would have you believe (of course, nothing is as bad as the debate community makes it seem). The whole reason the vaccine is being developed is to help people and not exploit them for greedy lucre. And the first few tests have gone amazingly well.
Here's to being cautiously optimistic.
Monday, July 20, 2015
Human Scavengers. Worse than Believed
I can't seem to get away from this topic because it just keeps getting worse. This blog started as a result of a poorly-run campaign against the use of aborted fetal cells in testing products. Over time, the main companies that we as a consumer could do things about stopped using the cells for their products.
But profiting from the body parts from unborn murder victims continue, and now we have it in a completely different and even more heinous direction. Planned Parenthood has admitted to selling body parts from aborted babies. But what makes this even worse is that to do this one has to make sure the baby dies outside of the body, which is a legally questionable area.
It further creates the manipulation I feared where people go out of their way to utilize resources from these victims. That's kinda scary.
While I value and appreciate resourcefulness, I think that line is drawn when it comes to the sanctity of human life and the remains of human babies. I think that this is heinous and unacceptable. But then there are hardly any arguments about that.
The question is, how do we respond? What avenues are available for us here? While a legal option is necessary and beneficial for this, I don't think we should let this opportunity go unused. We have common ground with abortion advocates right now, who for the most part are equally disturbed by this situation.
That common ground could be a helpful starting point for discussion about abortion in general, as well as for the reason why we hold that abortion is murder. It hasn't to do with science, but God. This could be a prime opportunity to touch people's minds and hearts not just in the "political" views of abortion, but also in the gospel.
But more importantly, we must pray. That is the best thing we can do about this situation. Yes, we must be able to push for policy, but the battle will not be from our hands, but from the Lord. Let's pray that He will fight for us in this abortion tragedy.
But profiting from the body parts from unborn murder victims continue, and now we have it in a completely different and even more heinous direction. Planned Parenthood has admitted to selling body parts from aborted babies. But what makes this even worse is that to do this one has to make sure the baby dies outside of the body, which is a legally questionable area.
It further creates the manipulation I feared where people go out of their way to utilize resources from these victims. That's kinda scary.
While I value and appreciate resourcefulness, I think that line is drawn when it comes to the sanctity of human life and the remains of human babies. I think that this is heinous and unacceptable. But then there are hardly any arguments about that.
The question is, how do we respond? What avenues are available for us here? While a legal option is necessary and beneficial for this, I don't think we should let this opportunity go unused. We have common ground with abortion advocates right now, who for the most part are equally disturbed by this situation.
That common ground could be a helpful starting point for discussion about abortion in general, as well as for the reason why we hold that abortion is murder. It hasn't to do with science, but God. This could be a prime opportunity to touch people's minds and hearts not just in the "political" views of abortion, but also in the gospel.
But more importantly, we must pray. That is the best thing we can do about this situation. Yes, we must be able to push for policy, but the battle will not be from our hands, but from the Lord. Let's pray that He will fight for us in this abortion tragedy.
Friday, July 3, 2015
Let Freedom Ring
So today is July 3. The day that sirens really started needing things up on Independence Day.
What? You had more serious thoughts about today. Fine.
So as of tomorrow, America had been free from Britain and its heavy tax on breakfast beverage for 239 years. That is quite a lot!
And on that day, there was an underlying principle at place in what we thought about our actions- freedom, and more specifically representation.
As Abraham Lincoln would explain four score and seven years later, it was too create a government, "of the people, for the people, and by the people."
And that's pretty special. We have a republic, if we can keep it.
This week's devotional post will be seen on Monday. Thanks for your patience.
Also I apologize for Monday's delayed post. I guess it didn't post as I scheduled it to. #imnotgoodwithtechnology
Monday, June 29, 2015
Supreme Court Overreach
Two important cases hit the Supreme Court this week (and we will discuss each of them in this post), but honestly, the wrong one is receiving the attention.
Don't get me wrong - homosexuality is a sin. But I don't see that the Supreme Court decision is that big of a deal from the standpoint of Christian ethics. From the way people are talking, this signifies that Christians have lost the battle on marriage and that this redefinition will corrupt society.
While marriage is incredibly important, and its redefinitionwill has corrupted society.
The reason why this decision is no big deal is that Christians lost the battle on marriage back some, I don't know, years and years ago when it was still shameful in our culture to be homosexual. We lost the battle on marriage when it was redefined to only mean a union based on the love of two people, and their desire for commitment.
Marriage has never been solely about people. It's been about God. It's been a covenant before God that reflects God's relationship with His people. In the Old Testament, that meant the Israelites; in the New Testament and now, that means the church. At the point where we lost that in heterosexual relationships, the battle on marriage was already lost.
Once marriage is redefined as only the celebration of love between two people (we are not talking about sex here), can you really argue with homosexual marriage? I mean, it certainly seems offensive and nonsensical to say that heterosexual love is somehow more worthy to be celebrated than homosexual love.
But once marriage was redefined by the way our culture framed it, that's what we would be left arguing. But in the grand scheme of things, this court decision matters little from the standpoint of the sanctity of marriage because marriage had already been corrupted long ago. This is simply a manifestation of that.
From a political standpoint, things do prove to be a bit more interesting. It would seem to me that this whole homosexual marriage decision should never have been made by a court. The Supreme Court's role is to interpret the Constitution, and the way that they managed to work that into this decision is a little questionable.
To say that the right to marriage is included under the fourteenth amendment's protection is just flat out ridiculous. There is very little referenced in the text about the dignity that Justice Kennedy sees as paramount to this position. Additionally, you could question, why marriage ever had anything to do with the government in the first place? Oh, right, taxes.
But why even on a broader level is this a federal issue? The fourteenth amendment is the catch-all for applying the Constitution to the states and those claims are very dubious indeed.
Determining what marriage should look like in each state is something that should probably be decided by people in that state, not bureaucrats in robes sitting behind a bench. But I have shown a little too much of my libertarianism in this post.
I guess we should look at the other important Supreme Court decision now. I haven't heard as many opinions on this that I disagree with, so I won't spend as much time on it. But I wonder how many of you immediately know what I'm talking about when I mention the other decision.
The Affordable Care Act was being challenged, but not so as if to repeal it or take it off the books. No, this challenge said that the text of the law did not allow federal power where the federal government wanted power.
The question was about in places where states do not want to establish exchanges. The federal government does not have the authority to force states to comply with this part of the law, and that the Court did not contest. Instead, in these places, the federal government simply runs the exchange.
The question before the court was if the federal government, by the text of the law, would be able to enforce subsidies themselves in this situation. As Dr. Marc Clauson reports,
It would seem rather problematic for the law that can be stifled by a state who does not want to set up an exchange. In that situation, there seems to be no reason to assume that the subsidy program of Affordable Care Act can apply, unless you take the meaning of state to mean government, rather than one of the 50 states.
Which I suppose is possible, but making that clarification of a vague law is hardly the role of the Supreme Court. Clarifying the law in this way is the spot of the legislative branch itself. Allowing the Court to do this is an open door for them "clarifying" many laws now and in the future.
But the clarification even now still doesn't make a whole lot of sense. As Dr. Clauson wrote,
So, from the standpoint of the Court doing what it's supposed to do, it was a pretty bad week in both of these cases as both represent overreach.
Don't get me wrong - homosexuality is a sin. But I don't see that the Supreme Court decision is that big of a deal from the standpoint of Christian ethics. From the way people are talking, this signifies that Christians have lost the battle on marriage and that this redefinition will corrupt society.
While marriage is incredibly important, and its redefinition
The reason why this decision is no big deal is that Christians lost the battle on marriage back some, I don't know, years and years ago when it was still shameful in our culture to be homosexual. We lost the battle on marriage when it was redefined to only mean a union based on the love of two people, and their desire for commitment.
Marriage has never been solely about people. It's been about God. It's been a covenant before God that reflects God's relationship with His people. In the Old Testament, that meant the Israelites; in the New Testament and now, that means the church. At the point where we lost that in heterosexual relationships, the battle on marriage was already lost.
Once marriage is redefined as only the celebration of love between two people (we are not talking about sex here), can you really argue with homosexual marriage? I mean, it certainly seems offensive and nonsensical to say that heterosexual love is somehow more worthy to be celebrated than homosexual love.
But once marriage was redefined by the way our culture framed it, that's what we would be left arguing. But in the grand scheme of things, this court decision matters little from the standpoint of the sanctity of marriage because marriage had already been corrupted long ago. This is simply a manifestation of that.
From a political standpoint, things do prove to be a bit more interesting. It would seem to me that this whole homosexual marriage decision should never have been made by a court. The Supreme Court's role is to interpret the Constitution, and the way that they managed to work that into this decision is a little questionable.
To say that the right to marriage is included under the fourteenth amendment's protection is just flat out ridiculous. There is very little referenced in the text about the dignity that Justice Kennedy sees as paramount to this position. Additionally, you could question, why marriage ever had anything to do with the government in the first place? Oh, right, taxes.
But why even on a broader level is this a federal issue? The fourteenth amendment is the catch-all for applying the Constitution to the states and those claims are very dubious indeed.
Determining what marriage should look like in each state is something that should probably be decided by people in that state, not bureaucrats in robes sitting behind a bench. But I have shown a little too much of my libertarianism in this post.
I guess we should look at the other important Supreme Court decision now. I haven't heard as many opinions on this that I disagree with, so I won't spend as much time on it. But I wonder how many of you immediately know what I'm talking about when I mention the other decision.
The Affordable Care Act was being challenged, but not so as if to repeal it or take it off the books. No, this challenge said that the text of the law did not allow federal power where the federal government wanted power.
The question was about in places where states do not want to establish exchanges. The federal government does not have the authority to force states to comply with this part of the law, and that the Court did not contest. Instead, in these places, the federal government simply runs the exchange.
The question before the court was if the federal government, by the text of the law, would be able to enforce subsidies themselves in this situation. As Dr. Marc Clauson reports,
"The issue in this case is whether the Act’s tax credits are available in States that have a Federal Exchange rather than a State Exchange. The Act initially provides that tax credits 'shall be allowed' for any 'applicable taxpayer.' 26 U. S. C. §36B(a). The Act then provides that the amount of the tax credit depends in part on whether the taxpayer has enrolled in an insurance plan through 'an Exchange established by the State under section 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.'"
It would seem rather problematic for the law that can be stifled by a state who does not want to set up an exchange. In that situation, there seems to be no reason to assume that the subsidy program of Affordable Care Act can apply, unless you take the meaning of state to mean government, rather than one of the 50 states.
Which I suppose is possible, but making that clarification of a vague law is hardly the role of the Supreme Court. Clarifying the law in this way is the spot of the legislative branch itself. Allowing the Court to do this is an open door for them "clarifying" many laws now and in the future.
But the clarification even now still doesn't make a whole lot of sense. As Dr. Clauson wrote,
"The Court apparently wanted to save Obamacare. So it said essentially that the term “state” the language above meant either a state or the Federal government. This meant that it had to interpret the word state as “the state,” some government, any government, to get to the point of including the Federal government. Roberts seemed to realize this, since he said it was not a natural interpretation. But that didn’t stop him or the majority."Thus, the Court saves Obamacare instead of letting it go through the normal legislative procedures. And you know, that is a scary precedent to set.
So, from the standpoint of the Court doing what it's supposed to do, it was a pretty bad week in both of these cases as both represent overreach.
Monday, June 15, 2015
The Class of 200 (Blog Posts, That Is)
It is the month of June, which Hallmark is informing us is the month for Dads and Grads! Most graduation parties by this point have passed, but there might be a few stragglers that we haven't yet gotten to. Some people just have to be late in their graduation parties. Such annoying people (yes, I realize mine was a year late, but not every reader of this blog knows that!).
But seeing as how it is that time of year, and people have received Yearbooks with all those fun awards in them, and it also just happens to be the 200th post of this blog (!!!), I thought we would see which one of my blog posts would win which Yearbook Awards!
So here are your Yearbook Awards for the Class of 200!
Category: Devotion
Date: September 26, 2014
Message: We are all vulnerable to sinful temptations.
Why the Mighty Have Fallen: A Sequel
Category: Devotion
Date: February 20, 2015
Message: We must serve God for the right reason - enjoying Him.
These two blog posts have been together since Dr. Miller's lectures on Job clarified a little bit about what I was trying to discover in the book of Job in the following September. Together, they inform us that serving God does not make us invulnerable to temptation and that the best way, to withstand that temptation is to be serving God for His sake, and not our own. With that kind of attitude, this relationship could last for a while!
Date: April 24, 2015 (just barely)
Message: You should show gratitude to God by telling others about what He has done.
Ultimately, what this blog post has said has completely escaped my mind most times. Instead, what I remember about it is that I forgot to write it until I was just about to go to bed on Friday night. You know, when it was supposed to have been published on Friday Morning. Yeah, sot that's not the most shining moment of this blog, and this here post will forever be memorialized as the one that just couldn't stay on time.
But seeing as how it is that time of year, and people have received Yearbooks with all those fun awards in them, and it also just happens to be the 200th post of this blog (!!!), I thought we would see which one of my blog posts would win which Yearbook Awards!
So here are your Yearbook Awards for the Class of 200!
Biggest Overachiever
The Purpose of the Christian Life
Category: Ethics
Date: June 23, 2014
Message: Glorifying God is a lifestyle, not a catchphrase.
What it means to glorify God. Yes, that's a really easy topic to discuss in a short 900 word blog post. I'm sure that you covered it very deeply.
Ok, so yes, maybe deciding to answer the nebulous question - what does it mean to glorify God? outside of a simple Sunday School answer was a bad idea for such a short post, but hey, it doesn't seem like I did THAT bad! And what can I say? I really am an overachiever.
The Purpose of the Christian Life
Category: Ethics
Date: June 23, 2014
Message: Glorifying God is a lifestyle, not a catchphrase.
What it means to glorify God. Yes, that's a really easy topic to discuss in a short 900 word blog post. I'm sure that you covered it very deeply.
Ok, so yes, maybe deciding to answer the nebulous question - what does it mean to glorify God? outside of a simple Sunday School answer was a bad idea for such a short post, but hey, it doesn't seem like I did THAT bad! And what can I say? I really am an overachiever.
Class Clown
Category: Holiday
Date: September 1, 2014
Message: I have no idea
The short description of message probably details all you need to know about this post. I just sort of put pen to paper...um...finger to keyboard, and the result was a satirical, sarcastic, random, and apparently well-appreciated blog post about the most ironic holiday of them all. I guess the closest thing to a point in this blog post is that Labor Day doesn't fulfill its purpose.
Date: September 1, 2014
Message: I have no idea
The short description of message probably details all you need to know about this post. I just sort of put pen to paper...um...finger to keyboard, and the result was a satirical, sarcastic, random, and apparently well-appreciated blog post about the most ironic holiday of them all. I guess the closest thing to a point in this blog post is that Labor Day doesn't fulfill its purpose.
Cutest Couple
Oh, How the Mighty have Fallen and Why the Mighty Have Fallen: A Sequel
Oh, How the Mighty Have FallenCategory: Devotion
Date: September 26, 2014
Message: We are all vulnerable to sinful temptations.
Why the Mighty Have Fallen: A Sequel
Category: Devotion
Date: February 20, 2015
Message: We must serve God for the right reason - enjoying Him.
These two blog posts have been together since Dr. Miller's lectures on Job clarified a little bit about what I was trying to discover in the book of Job in the following September. Together, they inform us that serving God does not make us invulnerable to temptation and that the best way, to withstand that temptation is to be serving God for His sake, and not our own. With that kind of attitude, this relationship could last for a while!
Scholar as Pastor: Reflections on the Differing Roles of the Academic and Pastor, and Pastor as Scholar: Reflections on the Differing Roles of the Academic and Pastor (Part 2)
Scholar as Pastor: Reflections on the Differing Roles of the Academic and Pastor
Category: Ethics
Date: September 22, 2014
Message: Scholars are primarily concerned with supplying the materials to be used on the frontlines of the battlefield.
Pastor as Scholar: Reflections on the Differing Roles of the Academic and Pastor (Part 2)
Category: Ethics
Date: October 6, 2014
Message: Pastors are primarily concerned with communicating biblical truth to their congregation.
It's hard to remember a time when these two weren't paired together; sometimes, it seems like only two weeks passed before the "Pastor as Scholar" entered the life of "Scholar as Pastor." Given how much they have in common, it's hard to imagine that they will ever split up either. After all, they both go to show that there isn't as much difference between the pastor in his congregation and the scholar in his university - both study the Bible rigorously, both preach on a regular basis, and both must be willing to pour into the hearts of those entrusted underneath them.
Apologetics Series 1: Absolute Truth, and Re-examining Absolute Truth: A Deeper Look at the Contradiction of Relativism
Apologetics Series 1: Absolute Truth
Category: Apologetics
Date: November 20, 2013
Message: Truth exists because to say otherwise is contradictory.
Re-Examining Absolute Truth: A Deeper Look at the Contradiction of Relativism
Category: Apologetics, Ethics
Date: November 3, 2014
Message: Truth exists because to say otherwise is contradictory.
Along with his 6 brothers and sisters, "Apologetics Series 1: Absolute Truth" was one of the first blog posts to enter this blog. It seemed as if he would never find the perfect match, but then she came along. "Re-Examining Absolute Truth" made "Absolute Truth" a better logical argument, and for that, we are all grateful.
So, I need to get out of my fun roleplay because it is a little difficult to explain why the second of these blog posts came to be. Simply, my first stab at showing absolute truth was a little flat and shallow. When I was assigned a paper to show the reality of objective knowledge, I found the added depth in that paper to be worthy of another blog post.
And now, it seems impossible to imagine that anything could ever come between the two of them!
Category: Apologetics
Date: November 20, 2013
Message: Truth exists because to say otherwise is contradictory.
Re-Examining Absolute Truth: A Deeper Look at the Contradiction of Relativism
Category: Apologetics, Ethics
Date: November 3, 2014
Message: Truth exists because to say otherwise is contradictory.
Along with his 6 brothers and sisters, "Apologetics Series 1: Absolute Truth" was one of the first blog posts to enter this blog. It seemed as if he would never find the perfect match, but then she came along. "Re-Examining Absolute Truth" made "Absolute Truth" a better logical argument, and for that, we are all grateful.
So, I need to get out of my fun roleplay because it is a little difficult to explain why the second of these blog posts came to be. Simply, my first stab at showing absolute truth was a little flat and shallow. When I was assigned a paper to show the reality of objective knowledge, I found the added depth in that paper to be worthy of another blog post.
And now, it seems impossible to imagine that anything could ever come between the two of them!
Most Inspirational
You are Not Alone
Category: Devotion
Date: May 16, 2014
Message: The Christian's plight is not as dismal as it may seem.
This blog post will never cease to encourage you when you are feeling down. As it tells the story of Elijah fretting about being the last servant of the Lord, it reminds you that there were 7,000 other servants of the Lord at that time. And better yet, he does this so succinctly that I need to stop this blurb, so that I don't talk longer than him!
Most liked by Parents
(That would be my parents, for the record.)
Category: Ethics
Date: February 16, 2015
Message: Christian culture over-emphasizes the necessity of marriage when the reality is, it's not meant for everyone.
This post is well loved by my parents because of Jane Austen. Who doesn't love Jane Austen? And the way that it brilliantly points out the irony that it is actually the woman who want to get married, not the man within the story. On a more serious note, it is much respected that this post likes to point out how Christians today are focused upon finding a spouse, rather than considering how one might serve God, single or married. Additionally, my mom being mom likes that I document so repeatedly my internal partiality to marriage. It's a nice personal touch.
Internet, Iron Man, and Indebtedness
Category: Devotion
Date: August 22, 2014
Message: As Christians, our lives ought to show gratitude to Christ for his sacrifice to save us.
This post is well-loved by my parents because it doesn't attempt to do anything that it cannot do. It takes a simple message and delivers it powerfully and relaxed. Yet despite the simplicity of the message, people don't seem to be doing it. So are our lives lives of gratitude or do our actions reveal that we just don't care?
Why Reading the Bible makes me More Libertarian
Category: Politics
Date: January 20, 2014
Message: The Bible should not be read to form a political worldview. Even still, conservatism and libertarianism align with the Bible.
This post speaks to its parents' long frustration with hearing why if we're really good Christians, we much be liberal progressivists because of course, they're the only ones with compassion to the poor. It is appreciated that the distinction between government and individual responsibility is emphasized, showing that the Bible never asks the government to care for the poor, but rather the individual Christian.
Most Likely to Make Pop Culture References
Category: Politics
Date: April 28, 2014
Message: Only God should decide who lives and who dies.
This blog post just can't help itself. Making a very serious point about the death penalty, it just has to throw in a quotation from the Lord of the Rings. I'm not sure, what's weirder, that there was a quotation thrown in, or that the quotation fit so well.
Admittedly, this was a hard call to make - many blog posts have hidden and sometimes obscure references to Doctor Who (ok, these are usually more overt), Lord of the Rings, Pride and Prejudice, and Marvel movies! But this post just seemed to use a reference in the most perfect way imaginable.
Most Likely to Show up Late for their Own Wedding
This Post may be Worth the Wait
Category: DevotionDate: April 24, 2015 (just barely)
Message: You should show gratitude to God by telling others about what He has done.
Ultimately, what this blog post has said has completely escaped my mind most times. Instead, what I remember about it is that I forgot to write it until I was just about to go to bed on Friday night. You know, when it was supposed to have been published on Friday Morning. Yeah, sot that's not the most shining moment of this blog, and this here post will forever be memorialized as the one that just couldn't stay on time.
Most Likely to Step on Toes
Category: Ethics
Date: April 13, 2015
Message: Homosexual lusts are one result of the Lord leaving man to their own uncleanness.
So, I wasn't expecting this blog post to ever surface, but then in April, it did. Though he mistakenly states that homosexuality was first mentioned in this blog only a week prior, this post still gives this blog its first detailed analysis of such a controversial issue in our day. Additionally, it highlights a biblical response to the issue that not all churches have exemplified.
Category: Ethics
Date: February 2, 2015 (Groundhog Day) February 2, 2015 (Groundhog Day) February 2, 2015...
Message: Public altar calls are more emotional manipulation than offering an opportunity to respond to the Holy Spirit.
Motivated by events seen within very close parameters of this post, he made a stand against the idea of a public altar call. Having no mind for the fact that his wonderful Cedarville colleagues may have found the instances of these invitations to be refreshing, he took solace in the hope that people usually don't read his blog anyway. But now he is really stepping on toes as it is republished within this list for all his friends to see!
Date: February 2, 2015 (Groundhog Day) February 2, 2015 (Groundhog Day) February 2, 2015...
Message: Public altar calls are more emotional manipulation than offering an opportunity to respond to the Holy Spirit.
Motivated by events seen within very close parameters of this post, he made a stand against the idea of a public altar call. Having no mind for the fact that his wonderful Cedarville colleagues may have found the instances of these invitations to be refreshing, he took solace in the hope that people usually don't read his blog anyway. But now he is really stepping on toes as it is republished within this list for all his friends to see!
Most Likely to Succeed
Category: Ethics
Date: August 18, 2014
Message: It doesn't take ignorance to be used of God.
This blog post has all the ingredients necessary for success, which he will inform you is the one single ingredient of submission to the Lord. At the end of the day, there is an implicit conclusion in most Christian rhetoric that states that God uses the unintelligent exclusively because that's how He can be glorified. That of course, is incredibly limiting of God. Simply, this post reminds us that submission, and not ignorance is what is required to please God. Further, it doesn't matter if that submission comes from an intelligent man or an ignorant one, God will still be glorified through it.
Most Popular
Category: Politics
Date: November 18, 2013
Message: Christians have a duty to stay informed as to the current political landscape.
The easiest decision for this yearbook committee of one. Entering as one of the very first posts, this articles has never ceased from being the most popular entry. With 421 pageviews, this post is more popular than the next 7 most popular posts on this blog combined!
The reason for such popularity is unknown. Perhaps it is because the message resonates with those in the Christian community. More likely, the quotation from an amazing sci-fi television series was probably something often googled because what in the world is Clara talking about when she says that ignorance is Carlisle? (The answer is in the blog, if you want to know. ;))
Date: November 18, 2013
Message: Christians have a duty to stay informed as to the current political landscape.
The easiest decision for this yearbook committee of one. Entering as one of the very first posts, this articles has never ceased from being the most popular entry. With 421 pageviews, this post is more popular than the next 7 most popular posts on this blog combined!
The reason for such popularity is unknown. Perhaps it is because the message resonates with those in the Christian community. More likely, the quotation from an amazing sci-fi television series was probably something often googled because what in the world is Clara talking about when she says that ignorance is Carlisle? (The answer is in the blog, if you want to know. ;))
News Tracker
Category: Politics
Date: April 6, 2015
Message: The Indiana Religious Freedom law does not discriminate against homosexuals; it only supports religious freedom exactly as the federal RFRA does currently.
At a time, when all anyone wanted to talk about was that of homosexual discrimination inherent in the proposed Indiana law, all this post wanted to express was that this law provided no opportunity for discrimination, as it simply gave rights to businesses, exactly as federal law already did.
Category: Politics
Date: December 23, 2013
Message: A&E has as much right as Phil Robertson to exercise their civil rights.
Related to the previous blog post, this post sends a similar message, but this time to the Christians who argued that A&E stepped upon Phil Robertson's civil rights by suspending him from Duck Dynasty. Remembering that businesses have rights, and that governments alone can violate civil rights, this blog post energetically asked that we "let our principles stand no matter what supports our agenda."
Disagree with any of my nominations? Like to add another Yearbook award? Voice your opinion in the comments section below.
Monday, June 8, 2015
Labels!
Balling NBA Finals are ongoing. And I know absolutely nothing about it. Which is awesome place for me. I know the cavs are playing, but um... who are they playing against again. Allow me time to go Google that. Warriors. Where are they from again? Oh, Golden State. Right, there's totally a state that is entirely golden (I guess the gold rush is a thing).
I guess that just goes to show you how pitiful labels are. Sort of. I don't know. It's the segway that came to my mind. And I'm the writer, so I decide everything. Ok, fine, everything that pertains to the blog that I am writing.
So labels are kinda useless and crazy. But yet we all gravitate toward them. Rand Paul is libertarian, we view that as either good or bad. Obama is a progressive and we view that as either good or bad.
Of course, we acknowledge that labels are not perfect ways to categorize what people believe, but we live by the labels that people fold against us rather than actually finding a comprehensive system of beliefs and actually coming to a conclusion based on the facts.
For us conservatives, this means that we deny all things that we can apply the label government intervention because that means progressive, and that's just a tad short of communist! This happens regardless of the merits of any individual government policy.
This means that due purely to the labels, we lack a solid reason to actually stand where we stand, which also means that we never know why we are correct and are going to be much more easily swayed into opposing viewpoints. The labelism is thus bad for our own development.
But of course, out emphasis on labels is also bad in that we will never be able to influence others with our ideas because those who disagree with us will not be persuaded by our appeals to labels.
This all provides ample reason to examine policy a little bit more strongly than just applying that it falls under some arbitrary label.
Now excuse me, it's time to put labels on this blog, so that it's easier to find things that might interest you...
Monday, May 25, 2015
Decoration Day
Good morning on this memorial day, where we celebrate those who risked their lives (and some gave their lives) so that we could enjoy freedom, and thus I could do silly things like write a blog post twice a week.
But today I would like to show appreciation for the more long-term sacrifice that is involved through military efforts. Yes, there are many who struggle even today with issues like PTSD, but that's not all I refer to.
What about all of those Vietnam veterans who were exposed to Agent Orange and have been met with long-term health effects due to this chemical agent used as part of the United States chemical warfare in Vietnam?
According to the US Department of Veterans Affairs, Vietnam veterans exposed to Agent Orange are eligible for benefits if they contract diseases such as AL Amyloidosis, Diabetes Mellitus Type 2, Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma, Parkinson's Disease, Prostrate Cancer, Respiratory Cancers, and so on.
And of course, that is not the only chemical that can cause lasting effects. All this is to say our soldiers definitely deserve to be memorialized. Even those who survive may not be able to thrive in our world either psychologically or in terms of physical health. That is a huge sacrifice to make.
But today I would like to show appreciation for the more long-term sacrifice that is involved through military efforts. Yes, there are many who struggle even today with issues like PTSD, but that's not all I refer to.
What about all of those Vietnam veterans who were exposed to Agent Orange and have been met with long-term health effects due to this chemical agent used as part of the United States chemical warfare in Vietnam?
According to the US Department of Veterans Affairs, Vietnam veterans exposed to Agent Orange are eligible for benefits if they contract diseases such as AL Amyloidosis, Diabetes Mellitus Type 2, Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma, Parkinson's Disease, Prostrate Cancer, Respiratory Cancers, and so on.
And of course, that is not the only chemical that can cause lasting effects. All this is to say our soldiers definitely deserve to be memorialized. Even those who survive may not be able to thrive in our world either psychologically or in terms of physical health. That is a huge sacrifice to make.
Monday, May 18, 2015
Marxist Political Thought
Karl Marx. He is certainly not the greatest political philosopher in the world. But I daresay he is not quite as bad as many would claim. His critiques of capitalism are worth noting and will probably be discussed in this blog within the near future. But today we're going to deal more with his view of history and his dialectic.
A dialectic is a form of revisionist history, where you believe that one system will come up against an antithesis, which then forms a synthesis, which of course starts the process all over again. Quite unrealistically, this dialectic is almost always supposed to be consistently moving upwards until it eventually results in a utopia. YAY!
Such is the case with Karl Marx who has a dialectic of economic systems. As history has advanced, we have been developing better and better economic systems via this dialectic. In Marx's mind, these systems from the past and future include: from family/tribal, we moved to primitive communism (which involves a bit of social organization with just a tad of division of labor, then to a feudal economy, which leads to capitalism. Inevitably, capitalism collapses, resulting in communism, which easily transitions into an anarchist communist utopia.
This dialectic is driven by a material element. Specifically, Marx believed that all of history was ultimately about class struggles, or a conflict over the means of production.
In the Capitalist phase, we find ourselves in today, Marx believes that the main problem is that the bourgeoisie (to Marx, this means the class that owns most of society's wealth and means of production) exploit the proletariat (working) class.
A primary reason for this concern had to do with the labor theory of value. The labor theory of value indicated that every object must be worth as much only as the amount of time and labor invested to make it. Thus, subjective value is lost for the sake of purely the amount of time it takes to make a product.
But since the only value is in the amount of time the proletariat puts into manufacture of the product, it is unfair for the bourgeoisie to even make any money off of the work of the proletariat, seeing as how the bourgeoisie put in no effort to make that product.
Further, Marx believes that the fact that the worker never truly gets to see the final outcome of his work, the worker becomes alienated from himself. He comes to work everyday as part of his everyday routine, but he doesn't see what impact that work is making on the world. It's simply a way he spends his time.
Inevitably, for Marx, this alienation will cause the proletariat to revolt. Without the proletariat to create the products necessary for capitalism to prosper, capitalism will collapse. A communist dictatorship will then take its place.
From here, Marx's view of human nature takes over. As he believes that man is influenced by society, and indeed is basically good, but corrupted by society. Marx believes that as we change the society,, we change the man. This then makes man perfectible and allows for the "inevitable" dissolution of government, and the anarchist communist utopia.
Of course, it doesn't take that close of a look at history to know that Marx's economic determinism hasn't exactly happened as he would have thought. The proletariat did revolt, but capitalism survived. And it isn't about to go away anytime soon. Sorry, Mr. Marx. Sorry.
A dialectic is a form of revisionist history, where you believe that one system will come up against an antithesis, which then forms a synthesis, which of course starts the process all over again. Quite unrealistically, this dialectic is almost always supposed to be consistently moving upwards until it eventually results in a utopia. YAY!
Such is the case with Karl Marx who has a dialectic of economic systems. As history has advanced, we have been developing better and better economic systems via this dialectic. In Marx's mind, these systems from the past and future include: from family/tribal, we moved to primitive communism (which involves a bit of social organization with just a tad of division of labor, then to a feudal economy, which leads to capitalism. Inevitably, capitalism collapses, resulting in communism, which easily transitions into an anarchist communist utopia.
This dialectic is driven by a material element. Specifically, Marx believed that all of history was ultimately about class struggles, or a conflict over the means of production.
In the Capitalist phase, we find ourselves in today, Marx believes that the main problem is that the bourgeoisie (to Marx, this means the class that owns most of society's wealth and means of production) exploit the proletariat (working) class.
A primary reason for this concern had to do with the labor theory of value. The labor theory of value indicated that every object must be worth as much only as the amount of time and labor invested to make it. Thus, subjective value is lost for the sake of purely the amount of time it takes to make a product.
But since the only value is in the amount of time the proletariat puts into manufacture of the product, it is unfair for the bourgeoisie to even make any money off of the work of the proletariat, seeing as how the bourgeoisie put in no effort to make that product.
Further, Marx believes that the fact that the worker never truly gets to see the final outcome of his work, the worker becomes alienated from himself. He comes to work everyday as part of his everyday routine, but he doesn't see what impact that work is making on the world. It's simply a way he spends his time.
Inevitably, for Marx, this alienation will cause the proletariat to revolt. Without the proletariat to create the products necessary for capitalism to prosper, capitalism will collapse. A communist dictatorship will then take its place.
From here, Marx's view of human nature takes over. As he believes that man is influenced by society, and indeed is basically good, but corrupted by society. Marx believes that as we change the society,, we change the man. This then makes man perfectible and allows for the "inevitable" dissolution of government, and the anarchist communist utopia.
Of course, it doesn't take that close of a look at history to know that Marx's economic determinism hasn't exactly happened as he would have thought. The proletariat did revolt, but capitalism survived. And it isn't about to go away anytime soon. Sorry, Mr. Marx. Sorry.
Monday, May 4, 2015
Speculate! Speculate! Speculate!
So much rampant speculation. So any conclusions jumped to. So much talking, so little knowledge to back it up. But whoever notices.
Today, as I was having difficulty deciding on what to write about and thought about how easy it would be to choose a topic if I decided that it didn't matter if I knew anything about it. And I honestly wonder now if other writers on the internet even care, especially blogs.
So you know, I have a commitment to truth, and I would rather not lead people astray by not accurately checking information. Admittedly I am a busy college student, whose opinions are not entirely set in stone, so I can't guarantee everything.
But I do wonder (and given the nature of this post may I emphasize that word a little bit more) just what other sources do. It seems enough of a warrant (especially given the other possibilities of misinformation) to maybe not just trust all the information that you read all the time.
So some examples of speculation from the mundane to the serious that might just make you think.
Stana Katic hasn't signed a contract for the next season of Castle, so she and Nathan Fillion are obviously not getting along on set...
Jeb Bush was the frontrunner of the Republican candidacy, so he obviously was going to win the nomination. That certainly looks so certain now. right?
Or just think about any time that a crisis occurs, school shooting, terror attack, or anything else, there is so much talk about what we don't know, and before long, we're talking about the causes of an incident we don't even need.
Today, as I was having difficulty deciding on what to write about and thought about how easy it would be to choose a topic if I decided that it didn't matter if I knew anything about it. And I honestly wonder now if other writers on the internet even care, especially blogs.
So you know, I have a commitment to truth, and I would rather not lead people astray by not accurately checking information. Admittedly I am a busy college student, whose opinions are not entirely set in stone, so I can't guarantee everything.
But I do wonder (and given the nature of this post may I emphasize that word a little bit more) just what other sources do. It seems enough of a warrant (especially given the other possibilities of misinformation) to maybe not just trust all the information that you read all the time.
So some examples of speculation from the mundane to the serious that might just make you think.
Stana Katic hasn't signed a contract for the next season of Castle, so she and Nathan Fillion are obviously not getting along on set...
Jeb Bush was the frontrunner of the Republican candidacy, so he obviously was going to win the nomination. That certainly looks so certain now. right?
Or just think about any time that a crisis occurs, school shooting, terror attack, or anything else, there is so much talk about what we don't know, and before long, we're talking about the causes of an incident we don't even need.
Monday, April 20, 2015
Not a Question of Ought
When it comes to the economic policies of the government, the way we tend to treat governmental policies are that the government can or cannot do certain things based on some sort of moral authority.
While the state is certainly bound to moral restrictions, it seems quite possible to me that many governmental economic policies need to be evaluated on the basis of effectiveness rather than the basis of morality.
Most governmental policies are ultimately amoral in nature. The government is morally allowed to redistribute money around. The entire function and legitimacy of government is involved with taking money from the citizenry and using it to perform its God-given functions.
Within those God-given functions, there is a good amount of amoral space where the government can look to determine how they should operate. It becomes difficult to say that many actions are simply wrong when viewed within these frameworks.
Thus, when evaluating economic policies, it is probably better to answer the question, what would the consequences of this action be, not what is the moral questions. Ultimately, there are few governmental actions that actually fall outside the realm of morals.
While the state is certainly bound to moral restrictions, it seems quite possible to me that many governmental economic policies need to be evaluated on the basis of effectiveness rather than the basis of morality.
Most governmental policies are ultimately amoral in nature. The government is morally allowed to redistribute money around. The entire function and legitimacy of government is involved with taking money from the citizenry and using it to perform its God-given functions.
Within those God-given functions, there is a good amount of amoral space where the government can look to determine how they should operate. It becomes difficult to say that many actions are simply wrong when viewed within these frameworks.
Thus, when evaluating economic policies, it is probably better to answer the question, what would the consequences of this action be, not what is the moral questions. Ultimately, there are few governmental actions that actually fall outside the realm of morals.
Monday, April 6, 2015
It Ain't Discrimination
Easter is over. And just like Christ, the chances of me writing the next blog post on time have resurrected. In the meantime, here's a rather late blog post from the Husbandman that Laboureth.
Indiana has created a "new" law for their state to protect religious freedom. LGBTQ advocates everywhere are claiming that this law is discriminating against them. But this is silly for two reasons.
First, it only allows private businesses to be able to conduct business in a way that they see fit. Christian businesses have very famously refused to conduct business if that business was directly related to a homosexual wedding.
There is nothing wrong with the Indiana government affirming the businesses' rights to not engage in sinful behavior that is the homosexual weddings.
Second, this big new law that threatens so much discrimination is virtually identical to the federal law Religious Freedom Reformation Act (commonly called RFRA, pronouced rifra).
There has not been a huge backlash against the RFRA law since it was established, and it has only served to protect religious businesses, like Hobby Lobby from funding contraceptives and the like.
It's a champion for the liberty of businesses to be able to conduct themselves in ways that do not conflict with their religious convictions. It is not a discriminatory law.
In fact, it doesn't even allow for discrimination from businesses themselves. If businesses were to refuse business to homosexuals completely, that wouldn't as far as I understand the law, fall into the scope of the law. Instead, it would be labelled as discrimination, and everyone's life would continue.
Indeed, no matter the consequences of this law, everyone's life will continue.
Monday, March 23, 2015
Secession: Not Just for the Civil War
Secessionist movements seem to be spreading throughout the land we call the United States. South Miami wants to create a South Florida because North Florida is preventing them from acting to decrease their climate footprint.
Rural groups in Colorado, Maryland, California, and Oregon want to secede to form the states of North Colorado, West Maryland, and Jefferson (northern California and southern Oregon) because the current state legislatures are out of touch with the rural communities.
And there is always the counties in New York that want to secede and join Pennsylvania because of lax fracking regulations.
So it would seem that there are many movements right now to restructure the way in which our political system is currently organized. How many of them will actually succeed is unknown. Indeed it seems highly unlikely that we will see a 51st state or drastic redrawing of state borders within the near future.
But I agree with Ron Paul that these secessionist movements are an indication that Americans are willing to put in the work to ensure that their voices are heard. When the state legislature (or even the federal government) is not being representative of the people, conservatives and liberals alike will do anything to let their voice be heard. Even secession is an option.
Though I disagree with Ron Paul that this secession will take hold and lead to the collapse of the United States and am much more pessimistic about my outlook of what a US collapse would entail for the US and the world, I think Dr. Paul is correct that these new movements are a step towards better individual representations.
Monday, March 9, 2015
One should Probably Obey Most Unjust Laws
How should a Christian respond to laws that are unjust? Is the mere fact that the law is unjust make it permissible for a Christian to break that law?
Against the backdrop of these verses, it seems hard to argue that we should "resist the ordinance of God" by disobeying a law just because we find it to be unjust. Perhaps this makes us a tad uncomfortable, but I doubt this is the first command in the Bible that makes you feel a tad bit uncomfortable.
It would seem to me that we should obey the governing authorities in everything as long as doing so would not force US to be unjust in our dealings, or to otherwise sin against the commandment of God.
It is of course commonly known from Acts 5:29 (among other places, such as the book of Daniel) that government laws that would cause Christians to violate the law of God, should be ignored and disobeyed by Christians.
But what if there's a law that is unjust but does nothing to cause a Christian to sin? Is it still permissible for the Christian to refuse to obey said law?
Um... Well... I don't see any biblical support for such an exclusion. What we do see is several places where Christians are commanded to obey the government. Here is a sampling:
"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour." ~Romans 13:1-7
"Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king." ~I Peter 2:13-17
"I counsel thee to keep the king's commandment, and that in regard of the oath of God. Be not hasty to go out of his sight: stand not in an evil thing; for he doeth whatsoever pleaseth him. Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou? Whoso keepeth the commandment shall feel no evil thing: and a wise man's heart discerneth both time and judgment." ~Ecclesiastes 8:2-5
Against the backdrop of these verses, it seems hard to argue that we should "resist the ordinance of God" by disobeying a law just because we find it to be unjust. Perhaps this makes us a tad uncomfortable, but I doubt this is the first command in the Bible that makes you feel a tad bit uncomfortable.
It would seem to me that we should obey the governing authorities in everything as long as doing so would not force US to be unjust in our dealings, or to otherwise sin against the commandment of God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)