About Me

Name: James Frank Solís
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Roll

 

God-sanctioned double standard?


As many people have noted, many Muslims have a rather self-centered notion of fairness. For example, when they take territory it is legitimately theirs; when they lose territory it was stolen from them. (Then there are those for whom the mere presence of ‘infidel’ militaries constitutes an ‘occupation.’)

It is irritating—to put it mildly—to compare the hand-wringing on the part of many Americans for the land we ‘stole’ from the American Indian or from Mexico, with the lack thereof on the part of Muslims over the lands they stole from Christians in what is now called the Middle East (like, e.g., Iraq and Syria, just to name two).

I was put in mind of all this by the Pope’s visit to the Hagia Sophia. What used to be the most beautiful church in the (once-Christian) Middle East is now a museum, and that after having been a mosque. This museum-and-former-mosque which was once a church is situated in a city once called Constantinople. Now it’s Istanbul.

Why did Constantinople get the works? Nobody’s business but the Turks. (Sorry. Couldn’t resist.)

Being out of the loop last week, I was unable to blog this. The title of the article says enough:
“Islam gets concessions; infidels get conquered” From the final paragraph:

“And [h]erein is [a] final lesson. Muslims' zeal for their holy places and lands is not intrinsically blameworthy. Indeed, there's something to be said about being passionate and protective of one's own. Here the secular West — Christendom's prodigal son and true usurper — can learn something from Islam. For whenever and wherever the West concedes ideologically, politically and especially spiritually, Islam will be sure to conquer. If might does not make right, zeal apparently does” (emphasis mine).
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Case for Faith (1)

 
[Headnote: This posting is a reply to this piece in Newsweek, 13 November 2006, by Sam Harris. I’d meant to do this sooner, but I’ve been busy.]

When someone attempts to criticize (note that I did not say critique) the Christian worldview by referring to “scientific insights” which supposedly defeat any Christian claim inarguably, as Harris does, I am prepared not to take him seriously. This notion of “scientific insights” is the product of a view of reality—a view which, as a Christian theist, I do not hold—which is itself being critiqued by the so-called postmoderns. It is a view of reality which is presupposed, not proven—or even provable.

Ask yourself how “scientific insights” ought to be received if the following assertions hold (see Betty Jean Craige, Reconnection: Dualism to Holism in Literary Study; location unknown: these are from my reading notes and I neglected to note the page number):

1. Things and events do not have intrinsic meaning. There is no inherent objectivity, only continuous interpretation of the world.
2. Continuous examination of the world requires a contextual examination of things. The persons doing the examining are part of that context.
3. Language (including, as far as I’m concerned, “scientific” language) is not neutral but is relative and value-laden. It is the medium through which we do our thinking.
4. Language and discourse (even “scientific” language and discourse, on my view) convey ideology, and a society’s intellectual discourse rests on political values and effects society in political ways.

The implications of postmodernism for scientific thought are unpleasant, to say the least. For one thing, the knower has no access to reality; all he has is language, interpretation. Sadly, the postmodern critique, if true, means that language does not ‘label’ real categories of meaning, categories which exist independently of language. The knower, in our case the scientist, ‘creates’ the universe he studies by creating the categories which he subsequently ‘labels’.

Behind the “scientific insights” to which Harris alludes is a decision, a pre-logical decision. And it is this: that for all practical purposes (to give the formulation its softer form) God does not exist. The decision is a decision made at the outset to know in accordance with epistemic norms (i.e., rules of
inductive inference) which begin by denying the very things which Harris believes the application of these norms have falsified!

Then there’s David Hume. He’s important to the discussion because much of scientific thought and discourse employs causal inference reasoning. A certain event E1 precedes a subsequent event E2. We observe that for as long as the two events have been observed E1 always (or at least more often than not) precedes E2: it has rarely, if ever, been observed that E1 occurs without E2 occurring afterward; and E2 is rarely, if ever, observed but that E1 occurs prior to the observation of E2.

While this sort of thinking does seem to make sense, Hume wants us to slow down and really think about it.

“When we look about us towards external objects, and consider the operation of causes, we are never able…to discover any…necessary connexion…which binds the effect to the cause, and renders the one an infallible consequence of the other. We only find, that the one does…follow the other. The impulse of one billiard-ball is attended with motion in the second. This is the whole that appears to the…senses. The mind feels no sentiment of inward impression from this succession of objects: Consequently, there is not, in any single, particular instance of cause and effect, any thing which can suggest [a]…necessary connexion” (An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, sec. 7, para. 7, emphasis mine).

When you translate that into everyday language what Hume is saying is that although you see E1 precede E2 every time you observe the two, what you don’t see is that “quality” (or thing) which “binds” E1 and E2 together in such a way that E1 can be known to be the cause of E2.

If you are thinking something like, “Well it just makes sense to conceive of the whole matter in this way,” then you are doing just what the postmodernist says you are doing: creating categories of meaning, in this case, ‘causality’. You are creating the universe you study because you don’t really know that there really is such a thing or quality as ‘causality’.

Of course, you could say, “Well, it can’t just be a coincidence that E1 always precedes E2.” Perhaps you are right, but the postmodernist will have the same response: you are creating categories of meaning. Besides, you don’t really know that the two can’t be coincidental. (Well, you can on a Judeo-Christian view of the world, but since Harris denies that view it doesn’t really matter.)

But even if we just wanted to dismiss the postmodern critique as easily as Harris wishes to dismiss the Christian worldview, there is another matter. Science is supposed to be an empirical matter, free (or so we are told) of philosophical (and hence unprovable) speculation. The whole notion of causality is a philosophical notion, not a scientific one; causality certainly is not a matter of empirical observation. You may infer that E1 causes E2, but only if ‘causality’ exists. And whether ‘causality’ exists is not a scientific question. (You see? Philosophy really does precede science!) And, in a nice bit of irony, since ‘causality’ is not empirically subject either to falsification or probabilification, it is a matter of faith.

It’s almost humorous to see the same people who demand empirical probabilification for everything, take on faith the very notion (i.e., ‘causality’) that makes possible this probabilification. Let’s say, just for purposes of argument, that there is no ‘causality’. These “scientific insights” that Harris speaks of are no insights at all. They simply comprise portions of a non-theistic myth.

There is a range of philosophical matters behind the “scientific insights”; and they make science problematical. Harris ignores them; or he doesn’t know about them. Given that he studied philosophy as an undergrad, at Stanford no less, I doubt that he doesn’t know about them. So he ignores them.

This is relevant to his overall criticism of religious belief. As he writes in the seventh, and final, paragraph of his
article: “Religion is the one area of our discourse in which people are systematically protected from the demand to give good evidence and valid arguments in defense of their strongly held beliefs. And yet these beliefs regularly determine what they live for, what they will die for and—all too often—what they will kill for.”

With this posting as a sort of background, I’ll deal with this issue of evidence and argument presently.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The minimum wage (2)

I have posted the second part of my "mini-series" on minimum wage issues, here.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

They hate us. Big deal

 

I have heard yet another liberal caller to a talk show, whine about how the world, especially the Muslim world, is coming to hate us.

One of the things I don’t like about the left is that they seem to be those who’ve never really suffered any real hardships in life. The way they worry about how much the world hates us leads me to believe that when they were children their parents saw to it that they lived in a world in which everyone loved them, or had the good sense to pretend to do. I know several liberals very personally (I won’t say in what capacity, of course); and when they were young a crisis was something like finding out you were moving to a different school district and weren't’t going to be able to try out for cheerleader. I’m not kidding.

There is another possibility. When I was a child there was always an “in” crowd. And they spent their time doing nothing more, really, than trying to impress each other. Of course, in doing this they had decided not to bother about impressing the “out” crowd. Now, in impressing each other the “in” crowd had to meet or exceed some strange standard, which always mystified me (even after I succeeded in getting “in”). The number one concern was what “people” will think. Looking back (as I have had hundreds of occasions to do in the 23 years since I graduated high school) it occurs to me that, in worrying about what “people” would think, we had decided that the “out” crowd were not people, at least not in any sense that mattered to us. And—this is important—the distinction between the “in” and the “out” was completely arbitrary, as was the standard used to judge between the two. It was, therefore, a meaningless distinction which was treated, nevertheless, as if it were a rosetta stone.

As is common with people who either have never been hated (or did not know that they were) or who are accustomed to meeting the expectations of “people,” the left is ill-equipped to cope with America being hated. When aware that we are hated they want to know, “What did we do to make them hate us?” It’s easy to understand why. When they were in school and “people” hated them it was because they had failed to meet that mysterious standard of “in-ness.” Perhaps the cause of the odium would elude them until they got home and realized (darn it!) they had worn Levis to school instead of Jordache. Or perhaps they missed the In Crowd Memo which clearly stipulated that Izod shirts were now “out” and Ocean Pacific was “in.” Horrors! In that world, “in” people hate you for a reason; and it’s always a good one.

After high school, these people went into another relatively safe world; and it, too, is a world with two crowds, the “in” and the “out.” I mean, of course, the university. (I went into the Army, something I had wanted to do since I was a little boy.) And then, after university, these people went into those things that seem to attract more liberals than conservatives, journalism and the arts. In the news business and in the movie business we have, again, those who are “in” and those who are “out.” And if someone hates you, you can know that it’s because you failed to meet some standard imposed by those who are “in” (ask Bernard Goldberg).

Sadly, this safe, little biosphere, with its controlled conditions, does not prepare its inhabitants for a fact of life in the world of hard-knocks. Sometimes people don’t like you, for no good reason; and there’s nothing you can do about it.

I remember well, a conversation with my dad about this, back when I was still in high school. I had finally (O, happy day!) made it into the “in” crowd, only to discover that one of the bigger fish didn't’t particularly care for me. I was certain I could remedy this, if only I could figure out why this person hated me. But, after weeks of investigation, I could not discover the reason. Whatever it was, it was a mystery to all. The only thing that anyone knew was that he hated me; no one knew why.

My dad, being quite the discerning guy, asked me one day what I was so preoccupied with. When I explained the problem to him, he told me what I think is one of the most important things he ever did tell me. “Son, you’re going to find as you get on in life, that you are going to meet people who just don’t like you. For some reason—maybe they don’t even know what it is—they just don’t like you. Sometimes, people just rub each other the wrong way. And there’s nothing you can do about it. Do the things that you need to do, and try to do them morally. That’s all you can do; it’s all you have control over. And you will probably have to ignore those who don’t like you. Some of them may actually change their minds about you. Most probably won’t. Forget about them, otherwise they will control you to your own harm. Do what you need to do. And, as much as you can, try to make sure it’s the right thing.”

In a lot of ways, liberals are a lot like high school students. They’ve identified the “in” crowd and want so much to be in it, or to remain in it. To be hated—no matter what the reason, if there really is one—is the worst thing in the world. (Unless, of course, we’re talking about being hated by the “out” crowd.) To be hated requires hand-wringing, and pacing back-and-forth, trying to discover the reason why they hate us so we can change whatever is amiss.

The Muslim world hates us. It must be something we did to them, stealing their oil, invading Iraq, whatever. What it cannot be is just that, by the standards of the Muslim world, we’re just decadent, the cesspool of decadence compared to the freshly cleaned toilet bowl of Muslim decadence. It cannot be that the Muslim world looks at us and sees what liberals see when they look at conservatives: evil incarnate. And this, not because of anything we’ve ever done to the Muslim world, but just because we are, by virtue of not being Muslim, evil incarnate, a cesspool of iniquity. Frankly, I don’t understand the hand-wringing about the fact that the Muslim world hates us. They hate us, so they blow up stuff; and we have to wonder why they hate us. A few wacky pro-life activists blow up a few abortion clinics. Any hand-wringing there? I didn't’t see any.

The Europeans hate us. So what? I’m inclined not care. There just are some people whose hatred of you should make you proud to be you. There are some people whose hatred of you demands an answer to the question, “Am I willing to do what would be necessary to change their minds about me?” I will be concerned that the French don’t like us, when Jacque Chirac goes on French TV and weeps to the French that I, James Frank Solís, do not particularly care for him. It is particularly galling to me to listen to Europeans lecture us—us!—about our imperialism. These are nations whose behavior in their own imperialist and colonial days make us look like the kid that got picked on by the bully, instead of the bully. And world opinion was a bit easier to manage in their day, because in their day their opinion was world opinion. Well may they lecture us on imperialism: they know all about it.

The left wring their hands and moan about the fact that no one likes us. They have no greater purpose in life than to dissociate themselves, as Shelby Steele would put it, from our supposed imperialist and militarist past. And, apparently, if we are destroyed in the process of this great dissociation, that’s okay: better we should perish than that people, whose opinions we care about for reasons that still elude me, think that we are just being imperialist and militaristic. Just like back in high school: better to wear those girlie-looking Jordache jeans, no matter how much more comfortable the Levis are, than to suffer the derision of the “in” crowd.

That’s the problem with the left. The world they grew up in just did not prepare them for the world as it is. In their world, someone who hates you can always be appeased. It’s just a matter of wearing the right clothes, going to the right parties, liking the right movies, having the right friends, kissing the right—never mind. Their world did not prepare them for a world in which that person who hates you cannot be bought, cannot be appeased, because the only thing that will make him happy with you is attending your funeral.

The left needs to believe that America is the problem, because the alternative is unthinkable. The alternative is to acknowledge that the world really, really is just that bad, that people really, really are so bad that they will hate you for no other reason than that it pleases them to do so. Just like their caricature of the fundamentalist Christian, shutting himself off to science because it conflicts with the tenets of his faith, the left deny the world as it is because it conflicts with the tenets of their own faith. This is not the world they were taught to believe in. Like the fundamentalists’ attacks on “science,” the left’s attacks assault both the truth of the message and those who offer the only rational response to that message.

The message is: I hate you, and I will kill you. The only rational response is: Not if I kill you first. An adolescent response—the liberal response—is: What can I do to make you like me?

In the big scheme of world affairs, the left is still in high school. They still believe that the world is really like that. They haven’t noticed that Harris and Klebold have entered the school building, armed. They are still worrying about being accepted by the “in”crowd, while Harris and Klebold are preparing to take them out.

The only thing for us to do is take my dad’s advice and do what we need to do. The world may hate us, but perhaps not always. The world may never acknowledge what we’ve done, or thank us for it. But it’s the right thing to do. Whether they hate us or not.

Perhaps we should start talking to the left the way our parents talked to us when we were teenagers: If the world told us to go jump off a cliff should we do so?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (6) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Lord o' the Blogs

 

I am taking a brief time out from working on the second part of my attempt to explain minimum wage issues to the minimally numerate (of course, you minimally numerate people probably don’t know who you are)* in order to make my own humble contribution to the Blogger’s Middle Earth, 2006 Edition. Sheepdog and Matthew Maynard have made some excellent suggestions. Here are mine:

Bilbo – Froggy Ruminations: It all started with him--for me, anyway. Hewitt should really go here, I think; but he took himself out of the running—not very sporting. He started all this didn’t he? Sort of? The other, but eligible, runner-up in this category was the Istapundit, but I have a better role for him.

Frodo – Michael Yon: In short, I just find myself agreeing with Sheepdog’s judgment on this one. The difficulty here is that we really needed a reluctant hero type, in a country that, thankfully, is full of them. For whatever it may be worth, Mudville Gazette was a runner up.

Sam -- Yoni the Blogger: Strong, silent type. Amiable enough, but do not, under any circumstances, mess with him.

Merry & Pippin -- Fraters Libertas: “Fight? Us? Well, okay. But first, a pipe and a pint or five.” Need I say more?

Gollum -- Daily Kos: They’ll mercilessly kill one of their own (e.g., Joe Lieberman) for the sake of their “precious” Progressiveness.  You find yourself thinking, "I'm not going to miss them when they're gone."

Sauron -- John Kerry’s Blog: Yeah, it’s a stretch, but I needed someone who’s been defeated once already and refuses to accept it. And, to my knowledge, Al Gore doesn’t blog. Runners up included former presidents Carter and Clinton.

Gandalf -- Victor Davis Hanson: The scholar I shall strive to be, whose forgotten more about Greek, the Greco-Roman world, and military history than I will ever know. I so want to be him when I finish growing up, which will be awhile because, generally speaking, I don’t much care for grown-ups.

Saruman -- Arriana Huffington: Used to be one of us, sort of. But was lured and trapped into the enemy’s service by playing around with his palantir.  But is she really a blogger?  I guess it depends upon what your definition of is is.

Wormtongue -- Andrew Sullivan: Pretty-sounding words and turns of phrase, but, ultimately,  still the enemy.

Arwen -- Gotta go with Michelle Malkin: Stunning beauty? Elven powers? (That made it tempting to nominate myself for Aragorn, but I don’t think the fetching Señora Solís would care that this is just make-believe.) Runners-up in this category included Carol Platt Liebau.

Elrond -- Instapundit: No better ally: with his powers he can make or break a blogger with a single link, or the hundreds of absences thereof—as the case may be.

Legolas -- Mark Steyn: For this one I needed someone sober, with keen senses, including a sense of humor, and outstanding aim. Yoni the Blogger was a runner-up but he’s too serious, virtually no discernible sense of humor. (It was tempting to nominate myself, being, like the actor who portrayed him, a bit of a heart-throb myself (for women between the ages of 35 and 50), but that seemed too obvious.)

Gimli -- The Tanker Brothers: “Extreme danger? Little chance of success?  Hooah!!! Last one through the gate gets [blanked] with Gandalf’s staff!” Good in a fight, and you will so want to party with them.  Tankers lead the way!

Aragorn -- Captain’s Quarters: From humble beginnings, but destined to be king.

Eomer -- Eject!Eject!Eject!

Theoden -- Powerline: Already a king.

Faramir – Red Sky Brothers: Likeable, but you definitely want to be on their good side.

Boromir -- Lileks: An acquired taste. I like that. It reminds me of me.

Eowyn -- Carol Platt Liebau: Beauty? Brains? Taking up arms and filling in for Hugh Hewitt? Hooah!!! (I’m a former soldier. I get to say that.) Ann Coulter was a runner-up in this category, but is a little too much, at times, even for my “Klingon” taste in women.

*Hint: If you think that Congress’ setting a minimum wage is ever a good idea, you may be minimally numerate. And you probably know less about economics than I do—if that’s even possible.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Kerry's outrageous knowledge claim

People who have read The Chronicles of Narnia, are familiar with Aslan's oft repeated warning that no one is ever told what would have happened.  Apparently, if John Kerry were a character in the series he would be the one who would not even need to ask Aslan what would have happened.

On the homepage here at Townhall, the Poll Position poll question is:

John Kerry said, "If I was president, this wouldn't have happened," in reference to the Middle East conflict. If he WAS president, which of the following is most likely to have happened?

(I answered, "Cut & Run" is called "Kerry Doctrine," by the way.)

As someone trained to think by analytical philosophers, I find Kerry's assertion just more than a little amusing.  It would be nice to go into a discussion of counterfactual conditionals, but I don't have the time.

It's funny, when you think about it.  He knows what would have happened if he were President.  Golly gee, if only he had been President on 6 December 1941, or 10 September 2001.  For a guy who knows what would have happened he did a convincing job of running for President as if he thought he was actually going to make it!  (Oh, wait.  If he had been President in 1941 he'd have brought the Italians, Germans and the Japanese to the table, and Pearl Harbor wouldn't ever have happened.  The same for 2001, I guess.)
 
Of course, the reason that John Kerry thinks he knows what would have happened is that he thinks (he must!) that he's semi-divine.  He has powers denied to mortal men.  He can speak softly to terrorists and they, weeping, will lay down their arms and embrace their Jewish brothers.  He would have kept his eye on the Osama Ball and Osama would have surrendered in fear--no, the conviction--that it was only  a matter of time before the almost-all-knowing divine John Kerry found him.
 
Think of the hubris involved in saying, "If I were Such-and-such, then this would not have happened."  Let me see if I can do it.  Ahem.  "If I had been the one facing Wellington at Waterloo, the French would not have lost."
 
Wow.  That's pretty easy.  You should give it a shot.
 
NOTE:  Nothing in this post should be taken to mean that I wish the French success in anything.  Not even a soccer tournament.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The minimum wage

 

I have a rather lengthy essay on the minimum wage problem posted on my other blog.  The purpose of the essay is to identify some questions which Congress and others really ought to answer before we accept the mantra, repeated iteratively, that the minimum wage must be set by Congress.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Reader "Jane Doe" writes:

 

Hello,

…I have tried talking to other conservative bloggers, but all they do is try to make me look like an idiot and refuse to answer my questions.

First off, I'm a teenage Christian and I have liberal views, unlike most Christians I guess. However, I am strongly against abortion and gay marriage, and I believe in a stricter justice system (but not capital punishment, because I think it’s still murder). So I think of myself as being more center than you, who call yourself a right of center Christian democrat.

It seems to me that you're completely supportive of Bush, but also pro life like me. So, what’s the difference between killing a baby, and killing a whole generation of Iraqi people?

How can you possiblye see a difference? Don’t you think that in God's eyes, murder is murder, and no matter who you kill it's still a sin. I just don't understand how you can claim to be close to God when you support a war for profit, which is completely against God's Word. Jesus was a pacifist, wasn’t he? Why should Christians be exempt from the duty of pacifism? We won’t solve the problem of terrorism by having more wars and death and violence.

Secondly, Jesus taught us to help the poor and needy. Conservative values are all about helping themselves. They don’t care about the poor. They seem to be saying, "Who cares about the poor! They should get a job anyway!" Conservatives believe in lower taxes, which in turn lowers social programs that help people at the bottom rung of the ladder. How can you possibly say that it is moral to prevent children from going to school and getting the proper healthcare just because they can't pay for it? You people tell a single mother of two to get a job, but who will take care of her kids? How can Christians be conservative and adopt the selfish and greedy values of making more money, getting more power, helping only yourself when it's obvious that God wants everyone to have a chance at living a happy, healthy life.

The reason I'm strongly religious is because I believe in God. We were put on this Earth to do good. I can't say that I know the Bible by heart, nor can I quote many scriptures, but I know that we show our true love to God when we are good people and we help others, rather than one-up them either by bombing their countries or by keeping the necessities of life all to ourselves and not sharing it with the needy. If that’s true, how can you be so conservative? It doesn’t make sense.

 

Dear Jane,

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to correct your understanding of conservatism, economics, theology, and Scripture—just to keep the list short. I’ll just take each of your points, or questions, in turn.

I don’t think it very accurate to say that we are killing an entire generation of Iraqis. Those who are being killed fall into two classes: combatants and non-combatants. The combatants are being killed because they are combatants. Babies, to my knowledge, are not combatants. That’s the difference Jane, the difference between killing those who will kill you when they get the opportunity and not killing a baby. And, since we probably won’t kill all of the combatants or all of the non-combatants, I think it’s fair to say we’re not killing any entire generation of Iraqis.

Now, you’re correct when you say that in God’s eyes murder is murder. But I think what you were trying to say is that in God’s eyes all killing is murder. I can assure you that it isn’t. How? Because the same God who said "Thou shalt not murder" also commanded that murderers be put to death. Murder just is not simply taking a life; it has to be taking a life outside of the bounds which God has provided for taking life. Two of those bounds are murderers and combatants in war. Sorry. In this matter you were, as Jesus once told some Sadduccees, "mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures." Furthermore, any support I have for this war is predicated upon my belief that profit making, while it may happen, is not the purpose for the war, as you seem to believe. (The fact that someone is making a profit off of something related to this war doesn’t prove that the war is all about profit. That would be like saying that the purpose of eating is excrement, or that the purpose of the automobile is to produce carbon monoxide.)

I’m afraid that Jesus was not a pacifist. As a Catholic, you no doubt believe in the Trinity, which means that you believe that Jesus is a member of the Godhead (i.e., the second Person of the Trinity). As you read the Scriptures pay attention, in the Old Testament, to all the wars that the Godhead (which includes The Son) commanded. (In the New Testament, in may interest you to know that the Revelation of John depicts Jesus as returning, dressed for battle, to do battle with his enemies.) Now unless you are going to assert that The Son disagreed with the other members of the Trinity about all those wars, you’re just going to have discard the idea that Jesus was a pacifist. (It may interest you to know that neither Jesus, nor any of the Apostles or early Church Fathers, made soldiers leave the military. I mean Jesus healed a Roman centurion’s servant, of all things.)

Yes, Jesus taught us to help the poor and needy. But you are out of line to say that conservative values are "the selfish and greedy values of making more money" and that they don’t care about the poor. As you grow up it will be well if you learn not to attribute evil motives to people who happen not to agree with you about how to solve problems. It will also be helpful if you will learn to summarize positions, rather than caricature them. For example, I could caricature your position by saying that liberals believe that our God-given duty to the poor is fulfilled simply by paying our taxes—like Ebenezer Scrooge.

The fact that conservatives do not believe that the State is an effective charitable institution in no way supports your claim that they do not care about the poor. Many conservatives, like myself, give to charities. Jesus wants you and I to care for the poor. The difference between you and I isn’t that you (a liberal) care more about the poor than I do. The real difference is that your care doesn’t cost you much, if any, of your own money, and my concern costs me twice: once when I pay my taxes and again when I give to the charities I support. Looks like I care more than you do; all you have to do is pay taxes—if you even do that at this point in your life.

You have said that Jesus wants us to care for the poor. Fine. If you want to do charity, Jane, go and do charity. But don’t use the State to take a man’s money to give it to another and call that your charity. Jesus did not command that. Your charity for the poor ought to cost you, not your neighbor. Your neighbor, whether you think he pays too little in taxes or not, may be doing his own charitable acts. But even if he isn’t, Jesus didn’t give you the authority to do your neighbor’s charity for him.

Now, about those taxes. I don’t know who explained taxes to you, but he or she did a poor job. Conservatives don’t believe in lower taxes. We believe in lower tax rates. Lowering tax rates doesn’t lower tax revenues.  (And lowering tax rates doesn't of itself cut program.  Cutting prgrams is a legislative act, not tied to the amount of revenue.) This is because any tax is a tax on economic activity. Because you will get less of what you tax, the higher the rate of taxation the lower the rate of economic growth. Lowering tax rates (i.e., the percentage of a person’s income, which will be taken) increases economic activity, which increases income, which actually produces more tax revenues, even though the percentage is lower.
 
Look at it this way: 10-percent is less than 20-percent, right? But would you rather have 10-percent of $10,000.00 or 20-percent of $500.00? It isn’t enough to ask just by what percentage someone’s taxes were decreased. You also have to look at by what percentage his income increased. If his income increased, then, even if his tax rate goes from 20 to 10 percent the amount he actually pays in taxes may go up. And this isn’t guessing, Jane, this is empirically verifiable. I’m not talking about what we conservatives wish would happen to revenues; I’m talking about what really does happen to revenues. More to the point, now that the numbers are in, I’m talking about what is presently happening to tax revenues. (Actually, nothing is empirically verifiable, but this would involve an explanation of the difference between verifiability and falsifiability. Maybe you can ask your science teacher about that.)

Well, I think I have fairly answered your questions. But I have a word of caution for you. When you are confronting a view with which you disagree, you should seek to summarize the view, rather than caricature the view, as you have done in your email.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Underperforming angels?

 

Former Colorado Governor Dick Lamm is in trouble for what Colorado State Representative Terrance Carroll calls “demonizing” a group of people. His “demonizing” consisted of referring to a group of people as “underperforming,” and then offering suggestions about how they might improve their status.

“Demonize” means to make a demon out of, right? Now, as I understand it, a demon is an evil angel—one of those who rebelled with Lucifer. So then a demon is really just an underperforming angel. Gosh, that doesn’t sound so bad.

Why is God sending all those poor underperfoming angels to the pit?

More than likely, Carroll was trying to sound profound when he damned Lamm by giving faint praise to demons. It doesn’t really matter. What he said moved the discussion nowhere—not even backwards. Whatever word you want to use to describe where blacks and hispanics are when compared to other minority groups the questions still remain: What is the best course of action to take in correcting the problem? and Who is directly responsible for taking that course of action? While he was busy uplifting demons (beings, by the way, who intend humans more harm than terrorists intend Westerners), Carroll managed, apparently, to offer no answers to the questions. Unlike Lamm, who probably cares as little about demons as I do.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

That's some puppet!

 

I've spent most of the last couple of days listening to Democrats--and a few Republicans--criticizing Iraq's Prime Minister Maliki for not condemning Hezbullah. To a normal person, this would mean that Democrats have been wrong about Maliki's being our puppet over there. But I suspect it won't be long before we'll hear the likes of Chris Matthews asserting that this failure of the Bush Administration to control its Iraqi Puppet Government is just further testimony to its incompetence.

Incidentally, Hezbullah means "Party of God." How long will it be before it becomes daily fare for Dems to refer to Republicans as something like American's Hezbullah?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Not that it matters...

 

… but I am the blogger formerly known as “Philologous.” At Blogger, I identified myself as a Neo-Calvinist Think Tank of One, Reformational in philosophy, right-of-center Christian-Democratic in politics, Austrian in economics, and believing, with Abraham Kuyper, that, “there is not a square inch...of our...existence over which Christ...does not cry: 'Mine!' ” Though I am no longer “Philologous,” that is still me.

One reason I blogged pseudonymously is that I really love my privacy. Really love my privacy. Actually, I’m pretty fanatical about my privacy. I could explain why that is but, like I said, I love my privacy. I guess I’m just not Oprah-guest material.

Another reason I blogged pseudonymously is that I wanted to see if blogging was something I wanted to commit to doing. If not, I wanted to be able to drop it, walk away and never look back. I’ve been blogging since September 2004. I think it may be safe to say that I like it.

There is no longer a reason to blog under a pseudonymn: too many people know who “Philologous” is. (Someone inadvertantly blew my cover.)

When I first started blogging, I wasn’t really sure what I was on about. What was my “thing”? Everyone seemed to specialize. I have difficulty specializing. I’m into everything; I blog about everything.

Furthermore, I just happen to like my name, which, in proper Iberoamerican style is James Frank Solís Bernard, or in Spanish: Jaime Francisco Solís Bernardo.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »