Marriages that expire?!

A (quasi-)prominent political leader in Germany has brought to her platform the idea that marriages should expire after 7 years. (See the rest of the story here). I am, for once, at a complete loss for words in how to respond. The hypocrisy latent within the arguments is just too much for me to take; so I'll open up this issue for discussion.

"Homo politicus" (?!)

Alright, now this is a new one for me. Earlier this morning, I found an article suggesting the idea that one's political views may be hard-wired into the human brain. Here's the primary tag-line (which comes after a bad understanding of Aristotle's meaning):

Dozens of previous studies have established a strong link between political persuasion and certain personality traits. Conservatives tend to crave order and structure in their lives, and are more consistent in the way they make decisions. Liberals, by contrast, show a higher tolerance for ambiguity and complexity, and adapt more easily to unexpected circumstances.

It goes on to suggest that one's political views are generationally inherited. Then, an odd (seemingly unrelated) test was conducted to "prove" the point where Conservatives and Liberals were both asked to perform a series of tasks to see how they would respond to the need to change one's "normal" habits. The Conservatives were found to be less likely to change (presumably because they "crave order and structure") where the Liberals were more flexible to the idea of change (presumably because they "adapt more easily to unexpected circumstances).

What intrigued me the most about this article was that Conservatives were the ones who were criticized for not adapting when faced with the idea that things "should be changed". My question would be: who are the ones calling for the need to change, and/or what are the reasons behind the "oughtness" to the expectation? The wrench that could be tossed into this criticism would be: it might be fair to say that Liberals would be less likely to "change" if the call to do so came from Conservatives.

But honestly, the overall hesitancy seems to be rooted in something much deeper than one's political views--i.e., it's not about Liberal vs. Conservative; it's about (perceived) right vs. wrong or good vs. bad. If a cannibal asked me to change my views about consumption of human flesh, I would stand firm in my belief that such a change would be wrong and/or bad. By the same token: if I asked a devout Mormon to ignore the teachings of the Joseph Smith (or the Mormon Church), they would see my request as utter blasphemy.

The question of "oughtness", however, tends to make matters a bit more difficult. The simplistic beginning point would have to be the governing reason for why a given person should change. If the reason is because person "A" wishes to exercise dominance over person "B", then the reason is unjustified. If the reason is because person "A" is truly seeking the summum bonum for person "B" (not in the Machiavellian sense, of course), then the reason is justified. Or, if the position of person "A" is actually true, then person "B" has no justifiable reason to ignore it. (This obviously calls for "fair play" from both parties).

In the present case: if a Liberal is requiring change from a Conservative simply because the Liberal wishes to appear to be more powerful and/or persuasive, the Conservative has the right to stand strong. (Also, it should be noted: the same applies in the opposite direction). Or, if the Liberal has justifiable reasons and those reasons for change are beneficial for the human race, then the Conservative needs to listen. (Again, the same applies in the opposite direction). Or, if a Liberal argument is actually true,* then the Conservative would not have any solid reason to ignore it. (One last time: this must go the other way as well). However, this article would make it appear as though this idealistic outlook is nothing more than that--i.e., idealistic (or, unrealistic). :-)
___________________________________________
* Some would criticize me as being heretical for even suggesting this idea.

Bush's "Signing Statements" - What Do You Think?

I will admit that I still have a great deal to learn about politics. Still, I try to keep reasonably aware of what is going on in the political realm, primarily because I feel a duty as a Christian and citizen of this country to have a "prophetic voice" in government. By using this term I am not trying to claim to be a prophet; instead, I am asserting my belief that Christians who do not work in government should be cautious about being linked too closely with any governmental party, and instead should work to call all governmental officials to act in moral ways.

I ran across this story a couple months ago, and it disturbed me then. I ran across it again recently, and I'm curious what my readers think. The story discusses President Bush's use of "signing statement" - a proclamation issued by the President when a bill is signed into law. Bush has used these signing statements, it appears, to reinterpret over 750 different laws during his presidency, a record number. By way of comparison, Reagan, Bush Sr, and Clinton issued 347 statements combined, according to Wikipedia (admittedly not always the most reliable source).

The issue, and I've heard this argued several times now, is that Bush seems to be making a concerted effort to expand the powers of the executive branch in a way that nullifies many of the checks & balances put in place when this country was founded. Those checks and balances are important, because they keep any one branch from having too much power. Since when does the President have the right to selectively interpret laws and decide which ones he is going to follow? Some examples of his signing statements can be found here - many are disturbing due to their complete lack of regard for Congress' intent in passing the bill (note, for example, the statement on torture). I think the controversy over Attorney General Gonzalez' firing of U.S. attorneys, presumably for political reasons, and the Bush administration's absolute refusal to provide information is another example of this overextension of executive power.

However, as I stated above, I admit that I'm relatively new to politics. So I'm curious what you all think. Am I over-reacting here? If so, why do you think so?

The First Lady Goes to Mali

During First Lady Laura Bush's trip to Africa in late June, she visited a school in Mali. The Washington Post's article on her visit can be found here. While the Post notes her praise of the U.S. education efforts there, an NPR correspondent gave a different perspective on the First Lady's visit. As reported in NPR's "Foreign Dispatch" podcast on 7/6/07 (at roughly 14:15 into the report), the school went through "weeks of work" in preparation for the First Lady's arrival. This included the installation of electrical outlets and fans in one of the classrooms (all run by a mobile generator, as the school does not have electricity). It also included the purchase and laying down of gravel over the usual mud courtyard (only over the parts the First Lady would see), the transportation of water to the site over a period of weeks to make the trees and bushes green, the tearing out of some of the water spouts used by the children so that they would not block Mrs. Bush's path from her limo to the school, and the painting of the entrance door (and only the entrance door). Additionally, the students whose classroom the First Lady would visit spent the four days leading up-to the visit learning a 6-line song they would sing for Mrs. Bush. It took 4 days to learn because the song is in French, the official language of the country (and not one the children speak). The First Lady's visit was over in a few hours. The electric outlets, fans, generator, and furniture were torn out of the refurbished classroom the same afternoon of the visit. Said a teacher at the school, "Mali is a poor country . . . but despite the poverty level, we still want to impress the West, which, to me, is pointless. If I am poor and sleeping on the dirt and you are coming to visit me, let's hang out on the dirt. And maybe I'll have a better chance to get some help from you." I couldn't have said it better.

mixed messages(?)

To be quite honest, I really have no idea why I am even attempting to comment on matters of legality. This post would be better handled by another writer of this blog--i.e., the Learned Hand. I will, however, offer my thoughts and inquiries on this particular issue and open it up for discussion.

In a story, posted by Yahoo News, an Army Pfc was sentenced to (get this) 110-years for taking part in the raping of an Iraqi teenage girl and then murdering her and her family. What caught me off guard was the little side-note immediately following this pronouncement: Pfc Spielman would be up for parole in (get this) 10 years. Three other soldiers took part in this heinous act, and they were sentenced to anywhere from 5-100 years in prison; but nothing was said about the possibility of parole for them.

My uneasiness with this is multi-layered. Here are the two main ones:

1. There is the issue that Pfc Spielman is sentenced to 110-years with the possibility of parole in 10 years. This, according to the article, was part of the plea-deal "regardless of the jury's recommendation". The jury did offer life with parole; but, (again) according to the article, this would have caused Pfc Spielman "to wait longer for the possibility of freedom."
   
2. The other soldiers, who apparently took a more active role in this crime, got a lesser sentence. (The article even states that Pfc Spielman "received the longest sentence of the four soldiers"). Granted, they were still charged with a number of crimes and convicted of such crimes; yet, the duration of their punishment was not as long Spielman's. (But the bottom-end of the range [i.e., 5-years] seems to contradict this statement).
   

What strikes me about the first point is that the jury is under the impression that justice will be served--according to the recommendation they provide. Yet, unbeknownst to them, an alternate line of justice was already established. There is also the issue of: why issue a sentence 110-years if it is already known that a) it will never be humanly fulfilled--no one lives that long any more; b) had the jury given life without parole, the sentence would have been overturned; and c) parole hearings would commence within the first 10 years?

What strikes me about the second point is that Pfc. Spielman is charged more severely for--per the testimony given--standing guard, acting "as a lookout". I understand that there is a moral and ethical imperative that says: if something wrong is taking place, and it is within your power to stop it, then do what you can to stop it. Now, in this case, Spielman ignored this imperative and he should be charged accordingly; but to charge him more seems to suggest that his actions were more severe than what he watched.

I leave these two points up to those who know more about this sort of thing, and I earnestly seek counsel in this regard. My concern is that (at least) these two points imply a mixed message about justice and how it is upheld.


A brief side-note:

The sister of Pfc Spielman, after the sentence was given, cried out: "I hate the government. You people put him [in Iraq] and now, this happened." What intrigues me about this twofold comment is the shear lunacy of it--the second part more than the first.

The government did not necessarily put her brother in Iraq; he put himself in Iraq. When he enlisted in the Army, he agreed to protect the freedom and livelihood of this nation if it was being attacked. If that attack was taking place in Iraq, then he must fight in Iraq; if that attack was taking place in Siberia, then he must fight in Siberia. Granted, he may not want to fight in such places; but he must fulfill his duty as a soldier in the US Army.

She then blamed the government for putting her brother in jail. (I would feel safe in assuming that she was also blaming the government for her brother's actions--i.e., because they put Pfc. Spielman in Iraq, they caused him to commit such actions). She failed to see/hear that Pfc. Spielman admitted his culpability in what happened and that he accepted the weight of his punishment. But she would probably retort with: "He admitted to it because they made him admit to it".

Christians United for Israel

Biblical scholar Ben Witherington posted recently on his blog about this disturbing video.  The video contains footage of a recent conference put on by Christians United for Israel, a political lobbyist group founded by John Hagee, a Christian televangelist who is well-known for his dispensational premillenialist interpretation of the "end times."  I tend to think that people will believe what they're going to believe about Revelation and the end times, and while I have my own views that I'm more than willing to discuss, I do not think it is a salvation issue, and therefore is not something I emphasize greatly.  I think it has become far too divisive an issue in many instances.

Having said that, I think that Hagee's particular brand of end times belief is dangerous.  Many of the comments in the video disturb me greatly, although in fairness it should be noted that the video is obviously assembled by someone who strongly dislikes the organization.  Witherington gives the following "top five" things about the video that he finds problematic:

1.  The Anti-Christ will be a person who will seek to make peace between the Arabs/Palestinians and the Jews;

2.  Armaggedon is something to look forward to, when we will have 'the cleansing of the earth';

3.  U.S. support for Israel should be unconditional, regardless of how they treat Palestinian Christians;

4.  If we want to participate in the second coming of Jesus, then we have to unconditionally support Israel from now until then, regardless of their policies or behaviors, otherwise we miss out on the parousia blessing;

5.  It's a Biblical idea to have a pre-emptive strike on Iran before they cause more trouble for Israel.

I really don't want to step on anyone's toes here.  At the same time, these ideas have very real ramifications in today's world that need to be addressed.  Christians United for Israel actively lobbies Congress for a) increased territory for Israel, and b) a unilateral, pre-emptive strike on Iran, based on the fear that they will cause problems for Israel.  I'll state unequivocally that I find this to be an immoral proposition.  Even within the Christian "just-war" tradition, there is little to no leeway in the idea of a "pre-emptive strike."  To suggest such a strike because of the fear they will cause problems for Israel, knowing that any war will inevitably lead to the death of many innocent civilians, not to mention soldiers, shows shockingly little regard for life, especially Muslim life (for the record, I also don't agree, as people in the video state, that Muslims are our "enemies" - our enemies are "not of flesh and blood" [Eph 6:12]).  From a Christian perspective, however, all life is valuable--Israeli life should not be considered more worth protecting than Arab life.

I do believe that these ideas are based on shaky theology.  Paul seems clear that the church is the "new Israel."  While I fully believe that the modern-day Israel has every right to exist, it no longer fulfills the role of God's "chosen people" - the Church universal, made up of both Jews and Gentiles, has assumed that role.  Again, I strongly believe that end times theology is not a salvation issue and therefore people should have great freedom in what they believe.  However, when that freedom leads to such potentially dire consequences for so many people, I think it is important to speak up.  And I'm frightened that so many Christians can so easily call for war on Iran, with the unavoidable loss of life that would accompany it.

Selling Weapons (again)--for what purpose?

I'm not exactly sure how I feel about the Bush administration's decision to hold a weapons yard sale. (The gist of this story can be found here and here). I admit that my initial response is not overly supportive. This type of move seems reminiscent of decisions made over the past two decades. Weapons were (then) given to Iraq, Iran, and Afghani freedom fighters--many of which wound up being used against the US in some way.

The difficulty with this type of situation is that it is impossible to know (for certain) how the recipients of this sale will use these weapons. I am sure that when the previous (similar) sales took place, fear of the weapons being used against the US was not a controlling variable. The same is apparently the case here. The motivation for the sale does seem to be genuine:

The officials said the arms deal aimed to bolster the militaries of the Sunni Arab states as part of a strategy to counter what it sees as a growing threat posed by Iran in the region (BBC quote)

If this is indeed the case, and the Bush administration is seeking to offer additional support for such a purpose, then my hesitancy is (somewhat) lessened. As allies, it is completely logical to provide whatever (acceptable) assistance is needed. (Luke 6.31 would be appropriate here). However, the reason I remain somewhat reluctant to stand behind this choice--even if it is innocent--is due to the fact that it is all too easy for the weapons to wind up in the wrong hands. I could be wrong. Only time will tell.

The Dangers of Torture and Denying Human Rights to Terrorists

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . .

-The Declaration of Independence

What is interesting to note about this statement is where it claims human rights originate. It says that the rights we enjoy come from our Creator and that those rights are "unalienable." It is therefore disturbing when people, both Christian and non-Christian alike, say that it is okay to torture terrorists or to deny them other human rights because they are enemies of America and / or not American citizens. Here is the danger in such thinking: it makes one believe that our rights come by virtue of being American and not by virtue of our Creator endowing us with them. In fact, it was the very argument that these rights do not originate from one's government that made the founding fathers feel justified in rebelling against the sovereign of England. Putting aside, for now, the question of whether, in fact, our Creator has endowed us with certain unalienable Rights or whether the revolutionary war was Biblically justified, if as Americans we stand behind this document and the reasoning behind its arguments, then it is impossible for us to also claim that those captured outside this country should not enjoy the same rights to fair justice as we do. Saying that our rights come by virtue of our Citizenship places the origins and foundations of our rights in the hands of government. If a government can grant rights, it can also take them away. Such a thought is antithetical with the Declaration of Independence. Our justification for setting up our own country is that our rights originate not from the government, but from our Creator. When we begin to lose sight of this understanding, we open the doors to allowing our freedom to be stripped from us, even under the guise of security.

Bush, Freedom and Theology

Today I ran across this interesting post on Christianity Today's blog.  It's worth reading the actual post, but basically its about a backlash Bush has experienced lately regarding a recent comment he made about freedom.  Here's the quote:

The other debate is whether or not it is a hopeless venture to encourage the spread of liberty. Most of you all around this table are much better historians than I am. And people have said, you know, this is Wilsonian, it's hopelessly idealistic. One, it is idealistic, to this extent: It's idealistic to believe people long to be free. And nothing will change my belief. I come at it many different ways. Really not primarily from a political science perspective, frankly; it's more of a theological perspective. I do believe there is an Almighty, and I believe a gift of that Almighty to all is freedom. And I will tell you that is a principle that no one can convince me that doesn't exist.

A number of prominent bloggers have taken issue with this statement (Rich Lowry from National Review Online, Rod Dreher from Beliefnet, and Andrew Sullivan and Ross Douthat from the Atlantic Online).  While I might quibble with individual points in their arguments, I also am quite disturbed by the quote.  Some people don't think that a politician's religious beliefs should affect their policy decisions--I'm not one of those people.  My religious beliefs inform every decision I make, and I'm not sure why it should be different for politicians.  Unless one was to compartmentalize their beliefs as something separate from other areas of their life, I'm not sure how they could keep their religious beliefs from influencing their decisions.  With that said, I think there is a fine line to be walked--in a democracy and a pluralistic society, there are necessarily other voices besides the Christian voice that need to be heard.  Still, I believe that the Christian voice needs to be heard.

But I digress.  While I believe a politician's religious beliefs will inevitably influence their decisions, I find Bush's statement above highly suspect from a theological perspective.  Bush's claim seems to be that, because the gift of God to all is "freedom," this means that America should export its particular brand of freedom to the rest of the world.  The implication is that western democracy is somehow a part of the "freedom" which is God's gift.  And you simply cannot defend that position from the biblical text.  The "freedom" associated with being a Christian is freedom from slavery to sin--it is emphatically not political freedom.  If it was, Jesus would surely have worked for the overthrow of the Roman empire--instead, he tried to defuse Jewish nationalistic fervor which was focused on revolt against Rome.

Of course, this does not mean that it is necessarily bad to bring western democracy to other nations (although I think we need to be very careful in assuming that everyone else in the world does or should want our political system).  It does mean, however, that the spread of western democracy cannot be justified on the basis of Bush's vague "theology of freedom."  His attempt to do so completely misrepresents the kind of "freedom" Christ died to provide.

Entrenched rhetorical positions

This morning, I came across this article which continues the debate over the issue of "global warming". The overall intent of the article is made abundantly clear with the chosen headline. The rhetorical position of Gore, per the author of the article, is twofold:

1. global warming is radically affecting critical elements of our environment manifesting itself via melting glaciers, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc
2. those who try to argue in the opposite position are nothing more than alarmist claims of "cynical and pseudo-studies known to be false for the purpose of intentionally clouding the public's ability to discern the truth."

The rhetorical position of the article's author (James Taylor) is also twofold, yet it argues in the opposite direction:

1. the so-called effects of global warming are not consistent with recent scientific data
   
2. the claims of Gore (and implicitly those who are associated with him) are themselves alarmist at best, which is made evident by the first point.

One has to wonder, first of all, if Gore would see the sources[1] noted (that supposedly refute his claims) as being a part of the "cynical and pseudo-studies" that he opposes. One also has to wonder of Taylor realizes the "alarmists" tendencies implicit in his own presentation.

The final concern, for me, at least, is whether or not such an implicit polarization of positions is ultimately beneficial. It appears as though more time is spent on defending one's arguments (and subsequently undermining the other's) than on finding the necessary (and crucial) common-ground that could usher in valuable results.
___________________________________________

[1] The sources noted in the article: American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, Nature, United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geophysical Research Letters, New Scientist, Journal of Glaciology, Danish Meteorological Institute, and Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences

Conservapedia

So . . . ummm . . . a friend brought this to my attention. I'm curious what you guys think. I'll go out on a limb here and say what I think too.

Sites like this (and GodTube - I'm sure I could find other examples if I looked) frustrate me a bit . . . mostly for one reason. There seems to be a preoccupation in some Christian circles with creating a Christian subculture that acts as a parallel culture, where Christians can presumably feel safe and be themselves. Unfortunately, what usually occurs is that Christians become comfortable within this parallel culture and prefer to stay there. I'm not sure how this response fits with Jesus' admonition that Christians should be "salt and light" within society (see Matt 5:13-16).

My understanding of why Conservapedia was created comes from this article, in which the author says that wikipedia is "riddled with liberal bias." Therefore he felt the need to start a new version. I would suggest that perhaps a better approach, and one which takes Jesus' admonition into account, would be to work to add another perspective to wikipedia.

I would also, however, question the particular perspective offered by at least some of the articles on Conservapedia, which make claims that frankly would not be allowed on wikipedia (and with good reason). The site purports to be "the trustworthy encyclopedia," and one that "[has] certain principles that we adhere to, and we are up-front about them. Beyond that we welcome the facts." However, some of the articles noted in the news article linked above are disturbing. Here are two examples for those who haven't read the article:

1. Femininity is the quality of being "soft spoken, childlike, gentle, pretty, willowy, submissive."
2. Hillary Clinton may suffer from "a psychological condition that would raise questions about her fitness for office" - "clinical narcissism."

It is worth noting that the creator of the site defends that article as "an objective, bias-free piece from a conservative perspective." I'm not sure what that means - there is nothing objective about those statements. They clearly come from a conservative perspective, and from a dangerous one at that - unsubstantiated claims of that sort could likely be considered slander. However, my main point is not to defend Hillary Clinton - it is to say that there seems to be a severe lack of self-awareness on the part of the site's creator, and the site itself. To claim objectivity for a site that obviously associates itself with a conservative political perspective is a problem - as would be claiming objectivity for a site from a liberal political perspective.

However, this is veering towards politics and that wasn't my intent with this post. My main point, and the question I pose to any readers, is this: Is the creation of this site the best course of action for someone who doesn't like wikipedia? Stated more broadly: Is the creation of a specifically Christian alternative the best response to something in society that does not meet Christian approval? I don't think so - I think the harder road is to work within society and culture to present a truly Christian perspective. The "I'll take my toys and go play in another sandbox" response benefits no one, and does not honor Jesus' admonition to be "salt and light."