Is it fair to criticize a system from which we benefit?

It is clear that those on the left say “no”. When I participated in Baptistlife.com the more “liberal” (read – left leaning) members often mocked the more “conservative (read – classical liberal) members saying “do you send back your Social Security check? your tax credit? your Medicare benefit? then how can you criticize a system from which you choose to benefit?”

It sounds like a good argument. But it isn’t. William Voegeli addresses some of the problems with this common “critics of the safety net depend on it” line in his article “Magic Accounting” at National Review Online.

An American who warns an elected official to keep the government’s hands off a social-insurance program doesn’t misunderstand our welfare state but has grasped its central argument exactly as it has been presented. Social insurance, we have been told (and told and told), is a mechanism through which we insure ourselves against financial vulnerabilities. The benefits are ours because we paid for them in advance.

Although as Voegeli points out, this isn’t entirely true – but it’s how these programs were sold to the American people. What troubles me more however is the cynicism – once again the goal is not to explain why these are good programs that should not be reformed but simply to silence those who would dare suggest reform.

The facts on the ground, as they have been arranged there and then interpreted by liberals, would place the welfare state in a politically unassailable position. First, make sure that every American stands to receive benefits from at least one and preferably several social-welfare programs. Second, stipulate that the only people with the moral standing to criticize the welfare state are those in line for no benefits whatsoever from it. These premises combine to reduce the ranks of opponents liberals deign to recognize to survivalists living off the grid.

Precisely. It is interesting how often arguments from the social-political left ultimately boil down to “shut up”.

Meanwhile George Will has something to say about the bipartisan consensus on federally subsidized college loans.

Taxpayers, most of whom are not college graduates (the unemployment rate for high school graduates with no college education: 7.9 percent), will pay $6 billion a year to make it slightly easier for some fortunate students to acquire college degrees (the unemployment rate for college graduates: 4 percent).

I hesitate to question George Will but some of his numbers don’t sound right. Nevertheless he makes good points about whether continuing to take from the less educated and give to the more educated is good policy.

Eliminating someone who sees and won't forget

Trying to unwind before bed last night called up Netflix and noticed “New Episodes” of Doctor Who. Woohoo! It was the episode about the “Silents” who have been among us for thousands of years but no human can ever remember them. That’s one of their powers.

This is a theme in Doctor Who episodes. There’s some alien or group of aliens up to no good – maybe cannibalize human beings to make themselves immortal – and nobody realizes it. Although often there is a point in the episode when suddenly everyone realizes what’s going on. In fact in many episodes it’s important to the alien/s that no one knows that they’re even there let alone knows what they are doing.

I think the last 3 weeks may have opened my eyes. There is something going on. I guess you could call it a conspiracy. And it’s been going on for a long time. I’ve been vaguely and occasionally aware of it. Again like Doctor Who. “Wait – what was that? Did I see something? Must be my imagination. There’s no aliens who want to suck our brains and enslave us. How silly!” But now I’m pretty sure. Because the ones in on the conspiracy are increasingly out of the shadows and in the open. Why? Because we have reached a point where victory is at hand because no one can stop them. Or because the population is waking up to what’s going on and there’s a real danger they can rise up and resist them and turn the tide. Or both.

What is this conspiracy? And who is on it? And what are they like – the conspirators and their knowing/unknowing agents?

See this is part of why I haven’t really recognized what’s going on. I see one movement over here. A group of people over there. And yet another push somewhere else toward some goal. And there doesn’t appear to be any clear connection between them. And maybe there isn’t. These different people and groups and movements might not be directly related. But I am beginning to recognize that they are connected.

Wright’s First Principle of Epistemology = In any given set of data, the anomalous elements contain the key to understanding the whole.

(In other words, it’s those things that don’t make sense and seem unrelated – they are the key to understanding what’s going on.)

Right now my best effort to describe the conspiracy is the effort to create a socialist utopia. A heaven on earth. Without God.

Let’s rewind a little shall we?

Anomalous element 1 = a podcast by Clark Carlton who is a professor of philosophy at Tennessee Tech University on “Orthodoxy and Progressive Politics”. There’s a lot to summarize but he argues that “progressivism” (around 2:15) is:

The doctrine that humanity is moving ever onward toward some future goal… Ultimately the goal toward which progressivism is moving is equalitarianism… Now this goal of near universal human equality has considerable public policy implications since human beings are quite obviously not equal. This is where the progressive state comes in. Its overriding function is to help make people equal… Even nature herself can be overcome with the right amount of effort and technology.

I define the progressive this way. The progressive believes as a matter of doctrine that humanity is evolving culturally as well as physically. That this progress is an inherent good.    And that the telltale markers of human progress signify our liberation from natural distinctions and limitations. And that given the inherent goodness of progress man is fully justified in using political power to eradicate any and all obstacles blocking his path to utopia.

I think those two paragraphs just might explain the vast majority of what we see happening in the social, cultural, and especially political arenas.

Let me try to summarize the above into a few succinct points:

1. Humanity is progressing toward a goal.
2. That goal is equalitarianism. This means in part no differences or distinctions between human beings – including between male and female.
3. The state will help achieve this goal.
4. Nothing – and I cannot emphasize this point enough – absolutely nothing can be allowed to stand in the way of this goal.

What opened my eyes? What made me connect that shadow with this fleeting image with that strange breeze with this faint sound?

The Health and Human Services mandate to require all businesses and organizations to provide medical insurance plans that include free contraception including abortifacients. And that this applies to religious institutions and organizations for whom paying for contraception especially abortifacients is a violation of their conscience and convictions.

There is nothing else I can think of that the Obama administration has said or done that so openly proclaims what the ultimate goal is. Because this isn’t really about birth control. Birth control just happens to be a key lynch pin in advancing the greater agenda.

More on this anon. I have work to do. And teenagers to pick up from school.

One of my favorite examples of ancient art

This Thursday evening my children and I will fly to upstate New York to spend a week visiting with my mom as well as my sisters and brother and his family who all live in Minnesota. My mom lives on a farm outside a village in rural upstate New York and internet access means driving into town and hanging out at a coffee shop. *ahem means probably not gonna update this for a couple weeks*

Simply put the state of New York has legalized gay marriage. Much more importantly has done this (a) through the legislative process and (b) with a Republican dominated state Senate. To put it bluntly that is how it should be done. Rather than by judicial fiat that often presumes to override the collective will of the citizenry even when they have amended their state constitution. The executive branch does not make law. The judicial branch should not make law although one can understand why some argue in a way it does. That is the job of the legislative branch. As Gay Patriot comments:

Elected state legislatures, I have always contended, are the appropriate fora to decide such issues.

The process was often messy, the rhetoric regularly exaggerated, the understanding of marriage generally at odds with the history of the institution, but at least those who made the final decision were elected by the people of the various jurisdictions of the Empire State and thus answerable to them at the ballot box.

We may not have had (and indeed did not have) the type of civil discussion of the importance and meaning of marriage that would have helped strengthen the institution (and not just in New York), but the branch of government responsible for deciding whether the state should privilege same-sex unions as it has long privileged different-sex monogamous unions resolved the issue.

And Instapundit earlier notes:

I think it’s good that it was passed by the legislature rather than imposed by a court.

Let me pause for a moment and lay out some of my thoughts on this issue:

I am a traditionalist and am convinced the Bible is the primary authority for Christian teaching and practice. The Bible is pretty clear that (a) marriage is supposed to be between a man and woman and (b) same-sex intercourse – along with a whole bunch of other things – is not compatible with the way of life in Christ. Some Christians who have no objections to same-sex attraction/relations/intercourse openly concede this. One cannot interpret the Bible in such a way to make it somehow endorse or tolerate same-sex intercourse. The only option for Christians who disagree is to say the Bible is just plain wrong on the matter.

Ah but how does that play out in the public square? That is where traditionalist Christians must recognize the issue is more complicated. There are many things that are not compatible with the way of life in Christ. But are we arguing that all of things should be prohibited by the government and said prohibitions enforced by the power of the state?

I have a great deal of respect for The Other McCain and by extension those they quote. But I cannot agree with the blanket statement that marriage is a religious institution and therefore our only options are (i) recognizing it even the point of amending the United States Constitution or (ii) have it removed from the government entirely because of church-state separation and have the government then enforce legal contracts between two or more adults.

Is marriage a religious institution? You betcha. But so is the church no? So what does the government have to do with that?

My undergraduate and graduate studies focused mostly on the history and culture and languages and literature of Ancient West Asia aka the Ancient Near East. I have some familiarity with how marriage worked in the Ancient East Mediterranean around 3200-400 B.C.E. They had it. I have read some marriage contracts in the original languages. Even plaster casts of the original cuneiform tablets. They were not Christians. Most of them were not Hebrews/Israelites/Jews. (Strictly speaking one should not use the terms Jewish or Judaism until after the Babylonian Exile.) Most of them were not trying to follow the teachings of God in the Bible. The point is that marriage is a very widespread very ancient legal-social institution that does not appear to be linked to any one specific religion. Marriage was not so much divinely ordained committed relationship between man and woman as it was a legal contract. This is not to say that is all it was. That there was never love or affection or any sense that this was somehow endorsed by the gods. We have interesting examples of how husbands and wives in the ancient world were bound together by love and affection.

Now I will confess that ancient marriage is not my area of expertise. I know what I have seen read and studied. There may be scholars who focus on this that have more to say on the subject. Particularly with regard to marriage as religious not just legal. Indeed one might argue that religious versus legal is an artificial distinction when talking about ancient societies. But I have reason to believe that most ancient societies did not necessarily regard social-legal institutions as expressions of relationship with the gods. Consider the distinctive character of the Book of the Covenant in the book of Exodus 21-24.

Where is all the above going? That we have the remarkable situation in the United States (and elsewhere) where clergy (of whatever religion) act as agents of the government when they perform marriages. If I perform a wedding and sign the certificate then those two people are legally married even if they never appear before a judge or justice of the peace. I have to say – well maybe I don’t but I say it anyway – “with the authority I have as a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ and from the state of Louisiana“. Do you see that? I have the power to enact(?) a significant legal contract/relationship between two people that must be recognized by the state.

My tentative point of view at this time is that the issue of gay marriage is so sticky partly because the Christian church along with other religious communities have allowed marriage as a religious institution to become confused and entangled with marriage as a social-legal institution.

I vaguely recall a couple years ago when Gay Patriot – along with others – argued that perhaps the Christian church needs to pull out of the legal marriage business. Allow marriage to be a social-legal institution. License then civil ceremony then certificate and so on. And then there can be a religious ceremony that enacts this new relationship as a recognized institution within that religious community. I could be wrong. But that is where I lean right now.

This may help clarify some of the controversy surrounding so-called gay marriage. And clarify some of the true motives of those who advocate or oppose gay marriage. So many Christians object to it. Therefore they think it should not be allowed by the state. Do you see the leap/jump there?

Now that does not mean there is no reason for that leap/jump. Some might reason “God – revealing himself and his will through Scripture – would have marriage be between a man and woman for life (except for certain unusual/extreme circumstances). God – ditto – would also warn us to eschew same-sex relations/intercourse. We understand that this is not (necessarily) a Christian society. We understand not everyone is Christian. Therefore why should we expect everyone to obey what we are convinced reflects the revealed purposes of God for humanity? Well there are plenty of other things God endorses or condemns that are allowed/permitted in our society. Nobody complains about those laws we already have that happen to agree with biblical law. Nobody complains well the Bible says do not steal so we can’t have any laws against theft. Nobody says well the Bible tells us to show compassion to the poor so we better stop that because separate of church and state ya know. So the revealed purposes of God alert us to what leads to a peaceful just society and those things that lead to disorder and injustice. That being so we may be able to articulate we these things are good for society and those things are not in ways that people of other religions or not religion can understand and support. One is reminded of the less well known but vitally important Socratic dialogue Euthyphro. Perhaps we can say these things are not good not just because God says they aren’t. God says these things are not good because they aren’t. Or in the language of Socrates that which is holy is loved by the gods because it is holy (Euthyphro 12). And thus so-called secular society for its own good reasons may decide that there should be such a legal institution called marriage and that these are its limits and requirements. Because that is what so-called secular society regards as the best most stable most healthy way to order and structure itself. In other words no to gay marriage – not because of God allegedly says but because we just don’t think it’s a good idea. How many examples of gay marriage do we find in the ancient world? Why did ancient societies – most of whom were not Christian/Jewish – do marriage this way and not that way?”

Oh dear I may have neatly refuted myself. Well maybe not. But you get the idea. In a nutshell those who oppose gay marriage for religious reasons might want to find ways to articular their case that do not depend solely or primarily on divine revelation. And we might need to separate marriage as legal institution from marriage as religious institution. I could be wrong. Neither is a hill for me to die on. I am not firmly convinced of either. But this is where I stand tentatively at this time.

And if any of those excellent friends at Gay Patriot stop by (c) they have articulated reasonable and principled arguments in favor of committed same-sex marriage and (d) the above paragraphs imply the possibility of non-religious arguments in favor of same-sex marriage do they not?

Our excellent friend Opinionated Catholic does however express grave concerns about the religious exemption language in the New York State law. This should not be overlooked. Because what good is it to say “okay hey separation of church and state and all that so let’s separate marriage as religious from marriage as legal institution” – perhaps in order to disarm and neutralize people who object chiefly on religious grounds – and then turn around and force religious communities to endorse/celebrate/tolerate/enact gay marriage because of the law? That’s a neat trick. Rather like how this administration disarms Americans by saying “it’s not a tax” and then argues “this is a tax” before federal courts. “It’s not a religious matter” in order to get gay marriage and then the government turns around and makes it a religious matter.

By the way in 16(?) years of ordained ministry not once have I preached a sermon about same-sex relations or abortion or stem-cell research. On only a few occasions have I expressed my views on these subjects in private conversation/correspondence. So who really focuses on these issues hmm?

And also by the way would commend to you an excellent post “Stray Thoughts on Gay Marriage” at Ace of Spades HQ. Which outlines how to a large extent gay marriage has been achieved by dishonest (and inconsistent even contradictory) arguments. That’s not to say Ace has any particular beef with gay rights as such. But like Ace I happen to believe that the means to a just end must also be just. I don’t like it when people deceive and manipulate to get what they want. Even if I happen to agree with that goal.

Back to New York because this is really the main point I would like to make.

James Taranto makes some particularly brilliant points in his recently piece “Dire Straits”. He reminds us that one year ago New York State became the last state to enact no fault divorce. Think about that. And then think about what gay marriage advocates think they just won. But this is not really or primarily about gay marriage. Therein lies his brilliant point.

Deroy Murdock made a good point some years back when he observed, in a column posted at NRO, that “social conservatives who blow their stacks over homosexual matrimony’s supposed threat to traditional marriage tomorrow should focus on the far greater damage that heterosexuals are wreaking on that venerable institution today.”

Murdock should have written “have wreaked for decades,” because the developments we note all long predate any serious consideration of the idea of same-sex marriage. …

Thus for the foreseeable future, civil marriage is likely to retain its character as little more than a financial arrangement. To be sure, many individual marriages are deeply committed relationships. But under a regime that permits either spouse to opt out of the commitment at will, the legal recognition of marriage is mere symbolism.

Boom. It’s like getting upset that water is getting into your house when for decades you haven’t done anything to maintain the roof and walls. People are upset about gay marriage when they should have been paying more attention to marriage.

What is marriage? Why bother getting married instead of living together? And – this is where many Christian friends will disagree with me – it’s not enough to say “this is what God ordained”. One would like to think even God ordains things for a good reason. Can we articulate those reasons? And articulate those reasons in ways that both people within and people outside our religious communities can understand and appreciate? We/some/they say gay marriage is such a terrible thing that will result in the collapse of healthy stable social order. Well maybe. But have we explained why we should have marriage to begin with?

Christians have not failed to make the case against gay marriage. They failed to make the case for marriage.

An old friend/classmate from Great Britain posted a link to a recent article by Jonathan Dudley entitled “My Take: Bible condemns a lot, so why focus on homosexuality?”.

I thought “ho hum another article/piece/post on the subject” and made the mistake of reading it.

My friend should put on his English teacher hat and evaluate the article as a piece of writing. Can one identify a thesis? crux? clear conclusion? What exactly is the position Dudley is attempting to defend? Do his arguments support his conclusion insofar as one can identify it? What other conclusions would his arguments support? How relevant is the evidence he brings to bear on the discussion? Even if you agree with him this is not a very good article.

Let me put it this way. Let us assume for the sake of argument that same-sex relations are entirely compatible with the Christian way of life. If so the piece by Dudley is a poor attempt to defend that conclusion.

An aside. Did a search to see who has rebutted and/or responded to Dudley. Surprisingly the only people who take note of his work are those who already agree with him. And it’s not like there’s a shortage of more traditional Christian scholars who are afraid to take on the position(s) he takes. This suggests (a) that this recent piece simply has not attracted much attention yet and/or (b) that those who normally would respond do not think this piece is worth their while.

Also found it odd that Dudley is often described as a Bible expert or scholar. Compared to the average American sure. But compared to thousands of people who would disagree with him and who have studied and taught and published more? In fairness to Dudley he is probably not running around touting himself as a Bible expert/scholar as much as those who wish to use his writing to bolster their own views.

He’s been to seminary and apparently did very well. Meaning no disrespect at all to his real accomplishments as a student and a writer so what? Been there done bought the t-shirt.

One of harsher criticisms of his article is the reductionism. He only focuses on explicit condemnations of same-sex relations. In one place – Romans 1. And characterizes the nature of Paul’s argument in the most simplistic terms. “Argument from nature”. That’s it? No attempt to delve into the entire biblical and theological background to Romans 1? No attempt to analyze possible differences between (his characterization of) Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 11? To what extent does Dudley engage the small libraries of scholarship on (1) Romans (2) sexual ethics in the New Testament (3) the issue of same-sex relations in the Bible and in Christian tradition let alone (4) the theological-anthropological framework in which Christian tradition addresses same-sex relations? To what extent has Dudley attempted to wrestle with the work of scholars like Robert Gagnon?

In fairness to Jonathan Dudley perhaps he has done so at length elsewhere. Just not here. Often when one writes an article/post there are time and space limitations. “I wrote a 50 page paper refuting 12 books on the subject. But I’ve got an anatomy exam next week and this article can’t be more than 500 words so this’ll have to do”.

(Added 2011/06/22 - Found another couple pieces/interviews and unfortunately so far it looks like variations of the “shellfish argument”. The Bible condemns x and it also condemns eating crawfish. No one worries about eating crawfish so why should we worry about x? A bright 7 year old might point out that x includes such things as bestiality or incest or defrauding the poor of their wages and so on and so on. This is why the title of the recent piece “The Bible condemns a lot of things why focus on?” is amazingly stupid. In fairness someone else such as an editor almost certainly assigned that title.)

One thing that strikes me as just a bit odd is how he conflates the issue of same-sex relations with the issue of gay marriage. I know that plenty of people do that but one must be careful to distinguish issues that are related but distinct. I dare suggest that one can favor gay marriage and think same-sex relations are incompatible with the Christian way of life. And one can oppose gay marriage and have no problem with same-sex relations. One must distinguish between how is a disciple of Jesus Christ the son of God supposed to live? and what kinds of family structures should society – which includes people who are not Christian – permit or encourage? In case dear readers are curious I lean towards the former position. There are plenty of things that are not compatible with the Christian way of life that perhaps society and government should not attempt to regulate.

Okay so the Christian church has had varying attitudes toward marriage and celibacy during its first 1500 years. What does that have to do with the specific issue at hand today? Was the Christian church against marriage during that time? No? So how is that piece of evidence (which we will take at face value for the moment) relevant to the issue at hand? This is another serious flaw with Dudley’s argumentation. Not “that is wrong” but “even if that’s correct so what?”

Let us also assume that modern evangelical Christians take many stances that would have been considered heresy a few hundred years ago.

Yale New Testament professor Dale B. Martin has noted that today’s “pro-family” activism, despite its pretense to be representing traditional Christian values, would have been considered “heresy” for most of the church’s history.

Dare we ask how well so-called progressive Christianity would have been regarded for most of the church’s history? Is Dudley arguing that what evangelical Christians promote is just as much “heresy” as what modern liberal-progressive Christians promote? If x is flawed how does that help y?

I think Dudley reveals his larger agenda when he brings in abortion. Wait a second. Are we talking about same-sex relations? and/or same-sex marriage? and/or abortion?

Again Dudley muddles the issue. He argues that the church has not historically and traditionally supported the idea that life begins at conception. Okay. Without doing further research am inclined to agree with that. I mean gee whiz how long have we known about conception? But that’s not the same as saying the church has always thought elective abortion is just fine. The church historically and traditionally has opposed elective abortion – am unaware of any evidence to the contrary – but not because of some particular view about human conception. So Augustine had some doubts about when the body has a soul. Does that mean he favored terminating pregnancies? Evidence x does not lead to conclusion y.

(Added 2011/06/22 - Have often noticed that progressive/liberal Christians group these stances together. Let me put it this way. My views on same-sex relations and abortion are pretty traditional. But I have no problems with evolutionary theory and many evangelicals would be horrified by my views on hell or the “security of the believer” or atonement theory. Am not “all or nothing” when it comes to these issues. And yet nearly every time I see progressive/liberal Christians defend elective abortion in the same breath as same-sex-relations-are-just-fine. As if they go together. Indeed are inseparable. Still struggling to understand quite why this is so. Can anyone anywhere point to an example of someone who says “elective abortion is unjust but same-sex relations are perfectly fine for Christians”?)

Dudley points out that evangelical Christians take stances against same-sex marriage and elective abortion – claiming that the Bible supports them in this – but can be pretty loose about other issues that the Bible clearly addresses such as divorce.

Okay. Fair enough. The church is arguably inconsistent. Although it is odd that when discussing divorces Dudley focuses on what Jesus teaches and ignores what Paul says. Whereas when discussing same-sex relations focuses solely on Paul. There is an apparent inconsistency in his methodology.

But this is where Dudley’s conclusion? position? thesis? is clearest and strongest. If there is any worthwhile value to be found in his writing it is this:

Evangelical Christians need to come to terms with two problems with positions they commonly take on moral-social issues. First – they claim that the position they take is “traditional/historical” when it might not be. [Rw - Okay this one is weaker and more debatable.] Second – they oppose these things that they think the Bible condemns but they are very tolerant of those things that others claim the Bible also condemns.

Evangelical Christians need (1) to improve how they understand and articulate the positions they take and (2) to be more consistent(?) with regard to what issues they care about.

Now this is not to get into the issue of just whether they are truly inconsistent or not. It depends on how one interprets Scripture does it not? Oh man there’s that common liberal refrain. Progressive/liberal Christians would say “you are wrong with regard to what the Bible says about sex and marriage and abortion and wrong with regard to what the Bible says about money and war and justice”. Dudley accuses evangelicals of explaining away Scriptures that deal with divorce. Dare we ask if progressives/liberals explain away Scriptures that deal with sex and procreation and marriage?

I would say yup. See my critique of Wright Knust:

These two examples illustrate what may be a problem with Wright Knust’s methodology. Which is what I call Heads I win, Tales you lose. Yes the Bible is often ambiguous and not entirely consistent. But what we see is when the text is ambiguous Wright Knust consistently chooses the reading that most undermines traditional Christian teaching on sexuality and marriage. If there is the remotest chance that a text could be read in such a way as to endorse something other than sexual-relations-within-heterosexual-marriage then that is how we choose to read it. And if there is a remote chance that a text can be read in such as way that it does not warn against sexual-relations-outside-heterosexual-marriage then that is how we choose to read it. Clear texts are no longer clear. And ambiguous texts are no longer ambiguous.

Dudley raises a good point about consistency and hermeneutics. But that point cuts both ways.

Gee whiz maybe evangelical Christians should heed Dudley and start opposing liberalization of divorce.

By the way this raises the question of exactly what Dudley is attempting to accomplish. Okay let us assume that evangelical Christians are inconsistent. They oppose x y and z but are lenient on p d and q which the Bible also condemns. What then? Is the goal to help the Christian church be more consistent? more faithful to what the Bible teaches? What exactly does Dudley want Christians to do? It would seem consistency and better understanding of tradition/history are not his true or ultimate concerns. Speaking of charades and honesty.

One last thing. Jonathan Dudley needs a mirror.

Whether the topic is hair length, celibacy, when life begins, or divorce, time and again, the leaders most opposed to gay marriage have demonstrated an incredible willingness to consider nuances and complicating considerations when their own interests are at stake.

See he actually makes a good point. How often are we just advancing our interests rather than what the Bible and/or Christian faith and tradition really teach? We need to ask ourselves that question. But what about progressive/liberal Christians?

Let me wax harsh for a moment. This was the part that struck me as downright offensive.

On the other hand, it’s not at all difficult for a community of Christian leaders, who are almost exclusively white, heterosexual men, to advocate interpretations that can be very impractical for a historically oppressed minority to which they do not belong – homosexuals.

Where to start? Dudley ignores and dismisses how many Christians who are neither white nor male? And he better not respond “yeah but those women and non-white Christians are just repeating what others tell them” which to be perfectly blunt is sexist and racist. As if women are not capable of forming their own opinions regardless of what men tell them. As if Christians of color are not capable. (That last sentence is exactly what many liberal Episcopalians often argue. I have seen it and have had people say it to my face.)

But let us think about this for a moment. It is somehow in the interest of white male heterosexuals to interpret Scripture and Christian tradition this way. Really? How? I have yet to hear a persuasive explanation. How exactly does a white male heterosexual benefit if he says “the Bible says no same-sex relations”? or for that matter “the Bible says no sleeping around with gorgeous women you are not married to”? or for that matter “no destroying an unborn child because you do not want her to be born”? or for that matter a host of other things?

Probably Dudley and/or others would offer some deconstructionist/theory-based scholarship or the like to demonstrate that yeah somehow such people do benefit. But I do not see it. Never have. Would it not be easier to say “well heck have sex with whomever or whatever you want”? Would it not be easier to say “child with Down’s Syndrome? abort it and don’t feel any guilt about it”?

If I embraced the whole progressive/liberal Christian panoply in many ways life would be easier. If nothing else would receive more approval and praise from the surrounding culture. The opposite of 1 Peter. But so far as I can tell the ones who truly benefit(?!?) are those who say “no no no the Bible and Christian tradition do not really restrain us so much from doing whatever we feel like doing”.

Dudley talks about “own interests” (see below). But how are more restrictive interpretations in our “own interests”? The opposite – that progressive/liberal Christians have their own desires in mind – appears more likely to be the case.

Dudley concludes his piece:

The [evangelical] community gave me many fond memories and sound values but it also taught me to take the very human perspectives of its leaders and attribute them to God.

So let’s stop the charade and be honest.

Opponents of gay marriage aren’t defending the Bible’s values. They’re using the Bible to defend their own.

He makes a leap here in these last paragraphs. I don’t think he has truly proven that opposition to same-sex relations or gay marriage or abortion are the very human perspectives of its leaders or not the Bible’s values. He might be right. But he has not really proven this. All he has done so far is raise good questions – good and fair questions – about tradition and consistency.

Set that aside for the moment. Dare we ask about the very human perspectives of the leaders of progressive-liberal Christianity? Do they never attribute those to God? Do they never engage in charade? Are they always honest with themselves and others? Are they always defending the Bible’s values? Do they never use the Bible to defend their own?

Based on a quick and dirty internet search Jonathan Dudley is a fine young man who is now studying medicine and already doing some wonderful things for people with regard to medical care. Glory to God for this. (And of course evangelical Christians do many of the exact same things and more.) I would respectfully ask the good doctor(-in-training) to examine himself as well.

Addendum:

Where are Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christianity in this discussion? It’s all very well to pick on evangelical Christians and their flaws. But traditional Christianity is much more than evangelical Christians in America. How might Roman Catholic or Orthodox Christians contribute to this discussion? Dare we find out?

Update 2011/06/22 - Our excellent friend Opinionated Catholic kindly links here but more importantly offers a few excellent points of his own. Note especially the problems with how Dudley deals with history/tradition particularly with regard to the Jovian controversy. Hate to say it but it looks like Dudley just mangles if not downright misrepresents the historical record. This is a serious problem that forces me to re-evaluate my estimation of Dudley as a student/scholar/writer. I often disagree with what someone writes but can respect the quality of their thinking/scholarship. But poor scholarship is just not acceptable even in defense of a position with which one happens to agree.

This raises the issue of why are progressives/liberals promoting this young man’s work when it does not hold up well to scrutiny? The question almost answers itself. “Look! A Christian and Bible scholar who agrees with us!” One is reminded of 1 Kings 22.

Update 07/12/2011:

I chose not to respond any further to the comments offered because (a) my policy has always been there is a point at which one needs to just let people have their say otherwise the back-and-forth will continue forever and (b) although some decent points were raised (seriously) they were buried in so much {could not think of a diplomatic way to say it} I decided they did not merit any further response.

Therefore I commend both the post and the replies-to-objections made by Josh Gelatt. He clearly has more familiarity with (a) history of philosophy and theology and (b) some of the biblical/textual issues than I and his response to Dudley (and his would-be defenders) is much better than the poor offering above. Which recommendation calls into question the rhetorically clever but empty claim that my post is “best but still bad”.

Where Gelatt writes from a Reformed Baptist point of view let me also mention “A Critique of Jonathan Dudley’s ‘Take’” by Joe Hargrave at Non Nobis. He writes from a firmly Catholic point of view. Like the Opinionated Catholic – who *ahem* is not a Louisiana Tech undergraduate – he also suggests that the article by Dudley (along with Protestant replies thereto) demonstrates a serious problem with Protestantism and its emphasis on sola scriptura. In other words the debate over same-sex relations is a very Protestant debate. I am inclined to agree. Although I would argue that one does not have to be a Roman Catholic to see problems with the piece by Dudley.

Another Protestant response is “A Response to Jonathan Dudley” at Know It’s True.

Update 2011/08/21:

Despite (1) let people have their say and (2) some comments might not merit response – I was curious about the comment that Robert Gagnon recognizes the problem of argument from nature in Romans 1 regarding same-sex relations but regarding long hair for women in 1 Corinthians 11. Not exactly. Yes Gagnon recognizes the similarity between Paul’s argumentation in both pericopes (the relevant pages are 373-384) but does not conclude it represents a problem the way Jonathan Dudley presents. One can disagree with Gagnon’s analysis and conclusions but it is not accurate to imply Gagnon agrees with Dudley on this point.

Even if we disagree with an idea – even find it repellent – we must try to understand it on its own terms. In other words understand it as the person who holds that idea understands it. Otherwise we are engaging in not much more than a kind of solipsism. Reality is not much more than a projection of our own minds.

There is a lot of solipsism going on right now.

Victory Davis Hanson offers his usual perceptive and insightful brilliance in his recent article “The American Soviet”.

We are living in another Soviet, a 21st-century sort in which we nod to official pieties and mouth politically correct banalities while in our private lives, for our safety, well-being — and sanity — we conduct ourselves according to altogether different premises.

…

In the American Soviet, only two questions remain. Do these double lives of ours make a sort of sense: Is it that the official utopian rhetoric about love among the masses offers psychological compensation for our private self-interested skepticism about the nature of man? Or is the daily lie a modern Western rather than an enduring human phenomenon — our 21st-century leisure and affluence infecting us with intellectual and moral boredom, in which we long ago outsourced our collective morality to our bureaucratic overseers as we busied ourselves with far more enjoyable private indulgences?

Much is being made lately of high gas prices. And we need to keep in mind that while the Obama administration is not (solely) responsible for this it has done nothing to improve the situation. And this administration and its defenders are engaging in rank demagoguery.

*(For the record the price of gas began to drop from a high of about $4.00 in mid-2008 during the Bush administration and continued to drop after Barack Obama was elected president. It began to climb again pretty much right at the beginning of 2009. It remained steady in the $2.40-2.80 range for a while. And then began to spike in early 2011. Take a look.)

Check out “Are Sky-High Gas Prices Good?” again by Victor Davis Hanson.

And “The Media Don’t Get Economics” by Conrad Black:

The Treasury and Federal Reserve are playing with dynamite, running unheard-of deficits like this. All decent people hope it works, but anyone who has proceeded determinedly and with sure step from Grade 2 to Grade 3 arithmetic can see the risk. Even the existing measurements, which assume that these trillions of dollars of new debt will somehow be retired, confirm a 20 percent rise in the money supply — but the media, which are rarely slow to unload on public personalities in tight corners, have given this wild monetary rise a relatively free pass, to the enhanced peril of almost everyone in the world.

And “Why Isn’t Obama Celebrating High Oil Prices?” by David Harsanyi:

The administration, of course, isn’t at fault when oil prices spike; it just seems to make matters worse. Or better, if you happen to be an environmentalist. So why isn’t it celebrating? Though the left may be wary of the political consequences, it has been pining for high fuel costs for decades. So here they are. Let’s see how the economy responds.

And when some would demonize petroleum companies Larry Kudlow brings the noise in “The Left Hates Oil Companies”:

I read somewhere that either Exxon or the whole oil industry pays more in taxes than the bottom 50 percent of the whole income-tax system. So while president Obama is out there ragging on oil companies to remove so-called tax subsidies, it’s odd that he doesn’t mention how much in taxes the energy firms actually pay to Uncle Sam.

And so on. Dear readers will recall my views on energy and the environment. I support wholeheartedly(?) efforts to find alternative renewable sources of energy. But (a) we need to be honest and realistic about some of these alternatives currently being promoted and (b) a ruined economy – which is where we are heading – is unlikely to develop any of these.

Oh and speaking of solipsism and understanding the motivation for something repellent I decided not to go there in this post. Too dangerous.

Aw shucks let’s go there. But others will do the talking for me.

H/T Ace of Spades HQ

I was impressed by the astute observations Andrew Malcolm of the Los Angeles Times makes in his recent article “The increasingly odd political optics of Barack Obama”.

The former state senator may, in fact, be slaving away on 18-hour policy days. But much of that is closed out of sight. So the public is left to focus on Obama’s frequent vacations, golf outings, celebrity gatherings and proclivity to give a speech at the first whiff of trouble.

With no real opposition, Chicago’s Democrat pols care little about how insensitive things look.

Any one of these apparent missteps is inconsequential. However, accumulated over his 118 weeks in office, they create the impression of carelessness at best or, worse, arrogance.

Read the whole thing especially the series of “it’s one thing… it’s another” paragraphs.

Although Malcolm appears to be criticizing President Obama in a small way he is defending him. In that his observations could be interpreted to mean “Look actually President Obama is working hard and doing a great job. But for some bizarre reason whoever is in charge of managing his public image is making him look like a lazy self-centered arrogant twit”.

One would think it is all about him and not the United States of America. To which I respond ding ding ding.

What I struggle to understand is how some people continue to defend this president. Are we looking at the same reality here?

H/T Ace of Spades HQ

And once again Veronica De Rugy of both George Mason University and Reason magazine lays down some reality for those more inclined to believe demagogy in her recent piece “The truth about taxes and redistribution: Do the rich pay their fair share?”

The four myths she tackles with truth are:

Myth 1: The wealthy aren’t paying their fair share.
Fact 1: The wealthy disproportionately fund the United States federal government.

Myth 2:  Top earners in the United States are millionaires.
Fact 2: Only 2% of the top 10% of earners are millionaires.

Myth 3:  All Americans pay income taxes.
Fact 3:  An estimated 45% of Americans will pay no federal income taxes this year.

Myth 4: The key to our deficit problems rests in our ability to increasing the top marginal tax rates leads to increased tax revenues
Fact 4: From 1930 to 2010, tax revenue collection in the United States has never topped 20.9 percent, averaging 16.5 percent of GDP over these 80 years – despite drastic fluctuations in the rate of taxes on the wealthiest Americans.

With all respect to Professor de Rugy I wonder if anyone is attempting to claim “all Americans pay income taxes”. But the point is still well taken.

By the way that last Myth/Fact is important. When protesters in Wisconsin shout “tax the rich!” and when President Obama says the wealthy need to “pay their fair share” (fair?!?!? I do not think that word means what you think it means) they speak from a space-time continuum in which Hauser’s Law does not apply.

“Left alone [Melkor/Morgoth] could only have gone raging on till all was levelled again into a formless chaos” – J. R. R. Tolkien (Morgoth’s Ring, 396)

“The spirit in revolt consequently acquires a hatred of being, a frenzy to destroy, a thirst for an impossible nothingness” -Vladimir Lossky (Orthodox Theology, 82)

“Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned” – Romans 5:12 (Revised Standard Version)

The apostle Paul says it simply and clearly. How did death enter the world? Through sin. And how did sin enter the world? Through Adam.

(Not Eve. Which is interesting. And sheds some light on how Paul uses the Old Testament.)

So is death punishment from God for sin? In my opinion no. Although death puts a limit on human rebellion. It is one thing to have a free personal being in revolt against God. It is entirely another if that free personal being in revolt against God is immortal and/or indestructible. Consider Balor from the Space:1999 episode “End of Eternity”.

Rather the first human beings in Genesis 2-3 were not immortal. At least not yet. Perhaps if Adam and Eve had chosen for God and not against they would have been permitted to eat of the tree of life.

Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever” — 23 therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken. (RSV)

It is only after the man knows good and evil – has arrogated unto himself the authority to decide what is good and evil? – that God decides it is necessary to send the human beings out of the garden so that they cannot eat from the tree of life and live for ever. Death is a response/consequence of the revolt.

There is another way to look at this. Consider the psychology of evil. If God is the source of life and we choose against God there is a sense in which we have chosen death. Sin is inherently a movement toward death. Again not so much in terms of punishment. But (a) result/consequence and (b) direction away from God who is the source of life.

Why is this important? Because lately I have begun to notice more clearly the relationship between sin and death. By which I mean how much of what we recognize as sin somehow a movement toward death? How much of what we recognize as sin is destructive or self-destructive or even both? I am beginning to wonder if we can discern a pattern.

Now here is where I might step on some toes. Including my own. Because I would rather not discuss Christian theology and politics together in the same post.

I have been struggling to understand why generally speaking certain social-political-cultural views and practices seem to cluster. For example why people who reject the Christian faith – notice how I phrased that not merely faithful members of other religions – are so obsessed with sex. By which I mean it seems to terribly important that people not constrain or restrain themselves in any way. Do it when you want with whom you want. And while they are at it who needs that oppressive institution known as marriage?

(Most of my undergraduate and graduate studies focused on ancient West Asian aka Near/Middle Eastern civilizations such as the Sumerians Akkadians Egyptians Hebrews and so on. I have read and/or collated dozens of ancient marriage contracts. My point being that for thousands of years people who were not Christian or Jewish have thought the legal-cultural institution known as marriage is a great thing.)

And on top of that sex without producing children. So everybody needs to use contraception. And when contraception fails – or was never used – legal elective abortion.

Now do not misunderstand me. I acknowledge that some Christians support and some atheists oppose legal elective abortion. And many Christians have no problems with birth control. And I am not saying anything for or against either of these – neither am I judging anyone who supports or has done either of these. But the hard cold biological fact is that the primary function of sexual intercourse is reproduction – or if you will the creation of new life.

So one the one hand we have people who adamantly oppose any – or at least most surely they would draw the line somewhere – restraints on sexual behavior. On an activity whose original primary function is (a) to create new life and/or (b) to overcome death. (On the latter aspect see Orthodox Theology by Vladimir Lossky p ???.)

And on the other hand they want to make sure that this activity never – or rarely – results in the creation of new life. Either by prevention the creation of new life – contraception. Or by destroying the preborn life that this activity creates – elective abortion.

(For the record there is a reason my wife and I have two children. Without going into detail yes we have used different methods of birth control.)

What prompted me to make this mental connection(?) is something Tony Rossi wrote recently about the movie and more importantly the novel Children of Men by P D James:

Recalling the evolution of the infertility problem, Theo says, “We thought that we knew the reasons — that the fall was deliberate, a result of more liberal attitudes to birth control and abortion, the postponement of pregnancy by professional women, the wish of families for a higher standard of living . . . Most of us thought the fall was desirable, even necessary. We were polluting the planet with our numbers . . . When Omega came it came with dramatic suddenness and was received with incredulity.”

Described in these terms, the story seems like an all too plausible scenario. In a society that has largely divorced sex from procreation, no one ever followed that attitude about reproductive choice to its logical if unlikely conclusion. Now, Omega has arrived and the despair is overwhelming.

There is a marked increase in suicides by middle-aged people who would “bear the brunt of an ageing and decaying society’s humiliating but insistent needs.” Also, every reminder of children (schools, toys, playgrounds) has been removed from the public landscape “except for the dolls, which have become for some half-demented women a substitute for children.”

People’s attitudes toward sex have also changed in an unexpected way. Theo says, “Sex has become among the least important of man’s sensory pleasures. One might have imagined that with the fear of pregnancy permanently removed, and the unerotic paraphernalia of pills, rubber and ovulation arithmetic no longer necessary, sex would be freed for new and imaginative delights. The opposite has happened. Even those men and women who would normally have no wish to breed apparently need the assurance that they could have a child if they wished. Sex totally divorced from procreation has become almost meaninglessly acrobatic.” (emphasis added)

According to P D James in The Children of Men what is the logical conclusion of unrestrained sex without procreation? Death. And despair.

Drugs and other addictions. Consider the misery and destruction caused by people who grow/make and sell drugs. Consider the self-destructive nature of drug use and alcohol addiction. Is that significant aspect of modern life largely an attempt to achieve non-existence?

Violence and oppression. What is Moammar Gadaffi doing right now if not attempting to destroy those he cannot control? Communism – in the Soviet Union in China in Cambodia and elsewhere – has killed more human beings that any religion.

And this is where I might really cross a line or two.

Why does the political-cultural left seem to ally itself with radical Islam? Could it be the movement toward death is something they share in common?

The recent turmoil in Wisconsin. Which of course is only an opening skirmish in the period of soft civil war which the United States may be entering. I understand not wanting to lose money and benefits. Been there done that myself and members of my family. But what we have is an entirely unsustainable trend. Spending/committing more and more money we simply do not and will not have. So why not tax the rich? Well first of all if we appropriate every dollar made by the rich – defined how exactly? – we still would not have enough for the obligations facing us. Second many of the rich would change their behavior and make it more difficult to take their money. Third of all eventually we would run out of money period. Total economic collapse. Anarchy. Chaos. Greece anyone?

There is a sense in which one group that lives off another group – fairly or unfairly or both – may eventually kill its host. Even our current political and economic policies are – when you scratch beneath the surface – taking us inevitably toward death.

I am greatly distressed by the apparent movement toward mob rule in Wisconsin. Do these protesters stop and wonder what would happen if everyone behaved the way they do and took that behavior and rhetoric to their logical conclusions? Can you imagine? Can they imagine?

Well we should care about the poor right? Yes indeed. And keep transferring money to them right? Perhaps it matters how we do that. Because consider the circumstances in which millions of poor African-Americans – and others – live in many of our cities. Are they not surrounded by the threat the fear the reality of death?

Let me conclude with a few qualifying remarks.

First this is a work in progress. I could be wrong. I could be very wrong about some or much or all of the above. But I am attempting to figure out the pattern that unites things I observe that otherwise do not seem to make sense.

Wright’s First Rule of Epistemology.

In any given set of data the anomalous elements are the key to understanding the whole.

Second I want to be careful about how this applies to the conscious motivations of real people. I am sure most people are not consciously trying to destroy themselves or other people. What I suggest is that even when we do not consciously realize it sinful behavior might at some level be an attempt to embrace death/deny life.

Which leads to third I am sure many people who (a) are not Christians and/or (b) are atheists are consciously(?) trying to embrace and nurture life. I am sure many people who are doctors who research new medicines who develop new technologies – or who just plain work to pay the bills and take care of their families you know? – as far as they are aware are trying to live and preserve life.

H/T The Anchoress for the Children of Men article

President Obama’s proposed 2011 budget. Wow.

There are at least ten ways one can criticize it for its irresponsibility and its calculated cynicism. Let me focus on one – which is the effort to portray Republicans as cruel and heartless for attempting to cut some federal programs.

A parable

Once upon a time there was a family in Louisiana. They make $100,000 a year because that is a nice round number. Husband wife and two children. The children go to private school. Because of this they are not quite making ends meet. So the husband takes out a loan for $50,000.

Wife: Dear husband – we need to live within our means. We can’t keep increasing out debt. We already pay a nice chunk of our family income on the interest payments for our mortgage and car loans. Maybe we need to take the kids out of private school. Maybe we need to get rid of some monthly expenses like cable television and health club memberships. Maybe you need to take lunch to work more and eat out less often. Maybe you need to stop buying expensive suits.

Husband: It may sound strange but we need to do this. It will help us in the long run. The suits and lunches? That’s part of rounding up business for my company. The kids get a better education and will get into a better college and graduate and have good paying jobs – they can help pay off some of these loans. By going to the health club we stay in good shape and don’t spend money on doctors and prescriptions. Some of the loan will be for me to work on my business degree at night school. And some of it will be to make our home more energy efficient. Better windows. Solar panels. Better insulation. So in the long run it will save us money. In fact we will be making more money and can afford to do more and buy more – you just need to give it some time.

Wife: Well okay. I don’t like it. But maybe we need to borrow some now to save more later. I’ll trust  you on this.

One year later

Wife: I’ve been going over our household finances dear and I have some concerns. I noticed that your business didn’t make any more money this year than last year – and that’s with all the power lunches and the new car and nice suits. We also didn’t go to the doctor any less. We spent just as much on prescriptions. The solar panels don’t work but we can’t get our money back. We sent the check to the window people but they still haven’t come buy to install them. I don’t see how the business classes are helping your company do any better. And the kids are getting the same offers from colleges that their friends in public schools are getting. Plus we have doubled the amount we have to shell out each year on interest payments – we do have to pay the bank back for this last loan you know. So if anything our finances are worse and we have less to spend on regular things like food and gas.

Husband: No – actually we saved tens of thousands of dollars in business and medical expenses. Because if we hadn’t spent all that money on clients and friends we would have lost a whole bunch of orders and sales. If we hadn’t been going to the health club we would have spent even more on medicine. The new car doesn’t require as much maintenance. And it just takes time for the business classes to start showing an effect. They’re making a difference right now but you can’t measure that for at least another year or two.

Wife: Are you serious? How on earth can you measure what would have happened if it didn’t actually happen? All we can measure is what did happen. And what did happen is that true we didn’t spend any more but we sure didn’t make any more and all our expenses look the same. As far as I can tell some of these potential customers got a bunch of free lunches and you don’t have anything to show for it.  And some of these house improvements – it was like flushing money down the toilet.

Husband: Not according to my spreadsheet. See? We would have been down here but instead we’re up here.

Wife: Rubbish. But right now that’s beside the point. Right now we have to figure out our budget for the new year.

Husband: I’ve already drawn it up. We need to borrow another $50,000.

Wife: What?!? When are we ever going to get our expenses under control?

Husband: These aren’t expenses. They are investments. And they will pay off in about 3 years. We’ll be saving money in some areas. And we’ll be making a whole lot more so that we’ll have no problem paying off the loans. Hey one thing we can look forward to is the kids helping us out when they start getting jobs.

Wife: I completely disagree. This is insane.  I understand that when we first got married we had to take out some students loans so you could finish your degree. I even supported you when you wanted to take out that business loan to get your company started. But when is it going to end? And now our kids are going to be paying us back on top of trying to support themselves. I have to do something to save money somewhere if you insist on spending more than we make. Let’s see. I know. We’ll have to spend less eating out. Less on new clothes for the kids. We can run the air conditioning less this summer – turn the thermostat up. And right now we can turn the thermostat down – run the heat no so much. And the kids will have to take their lunch to school from now on. Six bucks a day for the two of them starts to add up. We can cut that in half.

Kids: You’re mean. Dad – mommy’s cruel. She doesn’t care about us.

Husband: Well some of these cuts are things I believe in. I want you to have decent lunches. I don’t want you to get sick because it’s so cold in here during the winter. But we have to do it.

Wife: Kids – if you think I’m the mean one why don’t you ask your father why he spent so much last year taking his customers to lunch? Eating out? Buying new suits? The new car? If he hadn’t spent so much last year that we can’t afford maybe this year we wouldn’t have to cancel our cable television or your school trip to London next year.

Husband’s sister (who happens to be visiting): Well I think this shows what you really care about. And don’t care about. You don’t care about your kids.

Wife: Who do you think you are? Why don’t you talk to your brother and ask him why he doesn’t cut back on some of his own expenses? Maybe he doesn’t need to send flowers every month to his mother in Florida. Maybe he needs to take classes at the community college instead of the university. And maybe – just maybe – he shouldn’t have blown so much money last year. And then maybe we wouldn’t be having to cut back so much this year. You say I’m mean and stingy? I wouldn’t have to do these things if my husband wasn’t so totally irresponsible and spends money like it grows on trees! And if your brother cares so much – if you care so much – about our children then ask why he spends far more on himself and his friends and his customers than he spends on our children!

End parable

I was listening to National Public Radio a few evenings ago (yeah yeah I know – change of pace) and heard the report about some of the cuts being proposed by the Republicans in Congress and/or by President Obama. One of them – and I just cannot find the correct broadcast/transcript on their website sorry – was how community block grants to help poor people are being cut in half. They said these grants help about 10 million poor Americans every year. Keep that number in mind.

For the record I believe in the concept of the safety net. Heating assistance for poor families caught off guard by unusually cold winters? Yeah okay. Block grants to help people learn new job skills and find work? Probably a good thing to do. Yes we can debate whether and to what extent these programs to “help the poor / help reduce poverty” actually help. Is that money well spent? Are there better ways to assist those who are struggling financially for whatever reason? Set that aside for the moment.

How much was the deficit last year? I know this number is not entirely correct but let us go with $1.5 trillion. That includes the so-called stimulus spending as well as just spending too much on the regular stuff. And Republicans are cruel heartless and mean because they think we need to reduce some program by a few hundred million dollars. For the record I just might agree that some of these programs are the wrong place to cut – especially cuts that don’t seem to make much of a dent in a budget measured in trillions.

$1.5 trillion. Grants to help 10 million poor people. Hmm. $1.5 trillion divided by 10 million is $150,000. We could have taken that money and just written checks and given 10 million poor Americans $150,000 each.

Not saying we should. But when Nancy Pelosi complains about how Republicans reveal their true values in the cuts they propose we do well to ask and what were your priorities during the last couple years? and what are they now? $58 billion for high speed rail. Compared to how much for programs intended to aid the poor?

Who has benefited from the hundreds of billions we have been spending beyond our means during the last years? The poor? Or the ruling elite and the federal bureaucracy and those corporations favored by the federal government?

There has been some rumblings lately concerning whether there is ideological-political bias in academia. In a nutshell whether academia generally (a) excludes those of a conservative and/or classic liberal persuasion and thereby (b) is dominated by those of a leftist persuasion.

The reality is that 45-50% of academics are Democrats but only 9-16% are Republicans. Party affiliation does not always reflect political persuasion. About 45% describe themselves as liberal about 46% as moderate and only about 9% as conservative. (But see also Gross and Simmons 2007: 26 where 62% describe themselves as extremely to slightly liberal.) [ed - numbers corrected in response to comment.]

My experience at Cornell University was that professors who were Christian and/or classical liberals* were generally in the hard sciences and engineering fields. In the humanities and social sciences they could be counted on one maybe two hands. These were largely concentrated in Near Eastern Studies and Classical Studies departments. One politically liberal aka conservative or openly Christian professor could be found in Government (Political Science) in History in Philosophy and in English departments.

*[Quick excursus about terminology:

I refuse to use the terms liberal and conservative as most modern Americans typically understand them. Conservative is a relative term as Friedrich Hayek explained well. And liberal properly refers to someone who supports individual liberty - hence the need for the expression classic(al) liberal(ism). The term left(ist) is more appropriate to describe so-called liberal(s/ism). I am aware than not all so-called conservatives are classical liberals. And not all so-called liberals would regard themselves as being on the left. There is at least one more axis besides liberty-statism. In my opinion the terms liberal and conservative are generally still useful when discussing religion. My primary point is that the usage we find in current American political discourage - those who favor central/state control over individual liberty are liberal and those who favor liberty are conservative - is unacceptable.]

Many on the left have attempted to answer this charge not by arguing that there is no bias. There there are perfectly good reasons. That when hiring faculty no one asks “who did you vote for in the last election?” All they care about is your academic credentials and your areas of research/teaching specialty.

Megan McArdle at The Atlantic addresses this in her recent article “What Does Bias Look Like?” Many readers on the left took issue with the claim that academia systematically excludes classical liberals aka conservatives:

Those people offered their own alternate theories, which boiled down to:

•Smart people are almost always liberal
•Curiosity and interest in ideas is a liberal trait
•Conservatives are too rigid and authoritarian to maintain the open mind required of a professor
•Education erases false conservative ideas and turns people into liberals
•Conservatives don’t want to be professors because they’re more interested in something else (money, the military)
•Conservatives don’t want to be professors because they’re anti-intellectual
•Conservatives hold false beliefs that make them ineligible to be professors

Uh right. No bias there.

McArdle address many of these points and attempts to explain how bias – individual or institutional – can happen even if there is no explicit rule that excludes members of one group in favor of another group. It is remarkable that leftist academics – often so quick to point out how subtle racial discrimination can be – do not see the obvious parallels. Substitute the word “blacks” or “Jew(s/ish)” for “conservative” in the above theories and see how they sound.

This does not mean every time a classical liberal and/or committed Christian fails to secure a tenure track position it must be because of bias. A few years ago I attended a Veritas forum meeting at Louisiana State University for Christian academics. The scientist leading the discussion pointed out that sometimes the reason a committed Christian does not get the job is simply because s/he is less qualified. His/her research teaching and publishing record is not strong enough to be hired or to be granted tenure.

Ultimately classical liberals and/or Christians need to demonstrate excellence as teachers and scholars just like everyone else.

Which is why I do not support quotas. Rather the solution is to identify and address ways in which classic liberals aka conservatives are excluded from academia for reasons other than their academic qualifications.

I do believe that all factors being equal we would still have more leftists than classical liberals in academia. Although I could be wrong about that.

See also:

Neil Gross and Solon Simmons, “The Social and Political Views of American Professors”

Megan McArdle, “Unbiasing Academia”

H/T The Other McCain and Targuman

The more one thinks about it the more troubling it becomes.

The speech President Obama gave in Tucson Arizone was excellent. But that is not the same as praising the person who gave it.

Conservative reaction to the speech has been mixed. Most of it was positive and complimentary. Some was critical. I thought the critics were being excessively negative. But now?

The problem is context. What happened before and after the speech? And what has President Obama said and done before and after?

Victor Davis Hanson – who has spoken well of the speech – helps me see how this episode has been used in order to strength the president politically:

In logical terms, how are we to use a moment to reexamine political speech when the moment was explicitly declared not to be connected with political speech at all?

How can a president subtly distance himself from the macabre and revolting behavior of his left-wing base while simultaneously editorializing on unhinged invective in general (e.g., without an embarrassing extreme, there is no occasion to call for moderation from others)?

Why did five days of presidential silence follow the shootings (so unlike instant editorializing about the Mutallab and Hasan incidents), when the likes of Paul Krugman, Frank Rich, Andrew Sullivan, Sheriff Dupnik, and the New York Times rushed in to scavenge political capital amid the carnage? All that might have been bridled with a brief word or two from the White House, a brief Sister Souljah moment admonition to the New York Times to cool it for a while. We know that would have worked, because the Times within hours after the successful Obama speech was calling to cool what it had helped arouse, apparently realizing that its demonization and its refutation of demonization hand-in-glove were politically useful.

And why not some therapeutic confessional of past (and in many cases quite recent) presidential culpability?

The president handled the situation in a way much to his political advantage. His poll numbers jumped. Fair enough. But even though she had categorically nothing to do with the shootings those of Sarah Palin – who often criticizes this administration and is potentially a political opponent – fell. Truly amazing.

Once again Barack Obama gave a great speech. But one also must evaluate that speech within the context of everything else this president says and does.

It is understandable that many classic liberals aka conservatives were quick to praise his speech in Tucson. One gets tired of disagreeing with someone most of the time and is glad to seize upon something positive. See? I don’t have this knee-jerk reaction against everything Obama says and does. I’m able and willing to give him credit when due.

But if the president deserves credit for what he said it is only fair that he also bear responsibility for what he failed to say. For five days he said nothing to defend those who were being attacked by the left wing media. How long did it take for President Bush to speak on behalf of Muslims/Islam? Eventually President Obama said:

Let’s remember that it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy – it did not – …
That we can question each other’s ideas without questioning each other’s love of country…

But it was four days too late. The damage had already been done.