"Finish her!"

Something interesting happened at The Chronicle of Higher Education this week. Naomi Schaefer Riley posted something that upset enough people who protested strongly enough that she was fired.

Schaefer Riley commented on an article in The Chronicle about black studies departments that focused on a group of graduate students and their dissertations. In a nutshell Schaefer Riley thought the dissertations  ”a collection of left-wing victimization claptrap” and questioned the academic legitimacy(?) of black studies programs.

Ah the outrage. At first the editor of The Chronicle defended the piece by Schaefer Riley – its existence not its content – as an opportunity for debate. Several thousand academics signed a petition demanding Schaefer Riley be fired. The editor changed her tune and gave in to the mob. The four main charges were (1) her article was racist (2) she had not read – in their entirety – the dissertations in question (3) she does not have a PhD (4) how dare she pick on scholars too young to defend themselves.

To be frank – and I say this with all due respect – Schaefer Riley blew it. I do not know enough about the field to evaluate her points. But to me it seems she was trying to draw too much of a conclusion based on not enough evidence. Charges #3 and #4 have some merit. She does a great job reporting on higher education but until you’ve been through a doctoral program and had to produce a dissertation – let someone else take that on. But it is even more clear to me that the reaction was completely out of proportion to the perceived offense. I had to misfortune to read the response from three of the Northwestern graduate students whose dissertations were mentioned by Schaefer Riley. It is not a reasoned defense or dispassionate rebuttal. It is a vicious attack full of grotesque misrepresentations that only manages to leave the reader wondering if Schaefer Riley was right despite the flaws in her article.

The response plus many of the comments left by readers plus the capitulation by the editor of The Chronicle all illustrate that with regard to public discourse in this nation we are in a very bad place. Many of them boil down to “shut up white girl!”

• One can read the article by Schaefer Riley here.
• Here is the unfortunate response by the Northwestern graduate students.
• Here is the article explaining the decision to fire Schaefer Riley.
• Here is Schaefer Riley’s response to her critics.

Obviously there have been some reactions to all this in the blogosphere. Some are better than others.

• I especially appreciate what Nick Gillespie of Reason has to say.
• Wall Street Journal has an editorial plus commentary by James Taranto and now an opinion piece by Schaefer Riley.
• And finally – in order to demonstrate the hypocritical insincerity of those who were so distressed by Schaefer Riley’s article – some trenchant comments by Within the Black Community in “Black Progressive-Fundamentalist Academia – The Feeder System For The Black Racial Services Machine”. The title says it all.

H/T Legal Insurrection and Instapundit.

I also commend “America and the Value of ‘Earned Success’” by Arthur Brooks at Wall Street Journal Online.

Learned helplessness was what my wife and I observed then, and still do today, in social-democratic Spain. The recession, rigid labor markets, and excessive welfare spending have pushed unemployment to 24.4%, with youth joblessness over 50%. Nearly half of adults under 35 live with their parents. Unable to earn their success, Spaniards fight to keep unearned government benefits.

Meanwhile, their collective happiness—already relatively low—has withered. According to the nonprofit World Values Survey, 20% of Spaniards said they were “very happy” about their lives in 1981. This fell to 14% by 2007, even before the economic downturn.

That trajectory should be a cautionary tale to Americans who are watching the U.S. government careen toward a system that is every bit as socially democratic as Spain’s.

Government spending as a percentage of GDP in America is about 36%—roughly the same as in Spain. The Congressional Budget Office tells us it will reach 50% by 2038. The Tax Foundation reports that almost 70% of Americans take more out of the tax system than they pay into it. Meanwhile, politicians foment social division on the basis of income inequality, instead of attempting to improve mobility and opportunity through education reform, pro-growth policies, and an entrepreneur-friendly economy.

There may or may not be a connection between his description of “learned helplessness” and the first item in this post.

James Taranto in his latest piece at the Wall Street Journal again confirms that is becoming increasingly clear. That a significant factor motivating people to take certain social-political stands is the need to feel superior to others. I think the argument can be made this factor is more predominant on the social-political left. But to be frank “conservatives” are just as capable of falling prey to this mindset.

Taranto takes on a recent article at the New York Times by Sabrina Tavernise about how “race is still a factor four years later” in the presidential election. When I first read the piece I thought “oh for crying out loud another lame ‘anyone who disagrees with President Obama is racist’ piece”. And maybe it is. But if one reads it carefully it is more complicated than that. In any case Taranto compares the New York Times article to the current kerfuffle surrounding Elizabeth Warren and her status as a “minority” because she is – maybe? probably? certainly? – 1/32 Cherokee Native American.

That’s what affirmative action actually affirms: the goodness of the “good people”–the kind of people who read a story like Tavernise’s and pat themselves on the back for being more enlightened than those bigoted whites from Appalachia. White guilt these days is primarily directed outward. It is a means by which privileged whites assert their superiority over unprivileged ones.

I am on record as being open to some forms of “affirmative action”. That if I have two candidates and one of them comes from a disadvantaged background then the disadvantaged background should count as an extra qualification. Where it gets messy is how exactly do we define “disadvantaged background”? and whether hiring the less qualified candidate counts as a form on unlawful discrimination. It might.

But getting back to the point – that “white guilt is a means by which privileged whites assert their superiority”. Human beings need a sense of value and worth. And where do they go and what do they do to find this? Some choose the path of “I thank thee Lord that I am not like that {redneck Southern home-schooled racist Hee-Haw utopian over there}”. The best path is very simple. “Lord have mercy on me”. But don’t feel good about it.

Regional bigotry.

I am a proud child of Massachusetts. Spent most of my life in the northeast. Grew up in Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut – as well as Great Britain. Perhaps because of my background I have become increasingly aware of what I call regional bigotry. Which is the curious habit of (a) northerners especially (a2) northeasterners even more especially (a3) urban northeasterners to look down upon (b) southern states. There is a related and similar pattern of (c) southerners who live in urban settings to look down upon (d) other southerners who do not.

I find it quite offensive and have little patience for it.

Came across some great examples of it when following a link to an article about “Best/Worst States for Business”. According to this article which states are the best for business? Texas, Florida, North Carolina, Tennessee, Indiana, Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, Utah, and Arizona.

Notice a pattern? Most of them – most which is itself significant – are in the south/southeast.

Which states are worst for business? Hawaii, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, New Jersey, Michigan, Massachusetts, Illinois, New York, California.

Notice a pattern? Most of them – most – are in the north.

Obviously both ends of the political spectrum – which is nonsense because the spectrum has two if not three axes but you get the idea – try to use this list to make political points. The most obvious being states that have lower taxes, are “right to work”, and have lower costs of government (which includes the cost of state workers and their retirement benefits) are doing better right now economically. And “blue” states with high taxes, more regulation, and more expensive state governments (including high state retirement debt) are losing people and businesses.

A couple people try to offer what appear to be somewhat intelligent rejoinders. The primary one being that sure these ten states attract businesses, but these are lower wage jobs with less benefits because these states have less skilled and less educated citizens. Whether that is true is debatable. At the very least it seems to concede the larger point that states with lower taxes that don’t force people to join unions and pay union dues are doing better economically. You can complain about what kind of jobs with what kinds of benefits for what kinds of people all you like. But the fact remains that about half of all jobs created in the United States during the last few years have been not in California or New York but in Texas.

Now why is that?

Walter Russell Mead has written several essays over the past year examining the collapse of the “blue” social model. Even Rhode Island is beginning to acknowledge reality. The “blue” social model is simply not sustainable. What cannot continue forever won’t. It’s all very well for critics of the “Best/Worst States for Business” list to complain about which approach is best. But theory has a bad habit of losing to reality. It sure would be nice for everyone to have PhDs, super high paying jobs, with complete health care coverage, and retire after 20-30 years in the state government with pensions that each year are worth more than what I have had to save on my own so far.

Oh yes – regional bigotry.

We can debate those who appear to offer cogent arguments. Why – or rather whether – “red” states tend to receive and use more federal funds than “blue” states. But what is more revealing is those who articulate sneering condescension toward states that are “best” for business. Some examples:

“The top 10 is not surprising – States where it’s easy to exploit workers and avoid paying taxes to schools and healthcare. Eight of the ten are former slave states; ironic.”

Got that?

“What’s odd is that the jobs are mostly minimum-wage, lacking benefits and focused on illegal aliens. Where should these people go for healthcare if their employers won’t provide it? And should their children become home-schooled evangelical zombies? Your Hee-Haw utopia frightens me.”

So much regional bigotry in one comment.

So if a state is doing well economically, seeing job growth, people and businesses moving here – it’s because most jobs are minimum-wage, with no benefits, given to illegal aliens {wth?!? I thought “illegal aliens” was now a verboten expression} no healthcare, the people are less skilled, less educated, home-schooled, evangelical zombies, living in a Hee-Haw utopia?

Glad you feel so good about yourself up there in wherever – California, Illinois, New York? How’s business by the way? Too bad arrogant pride doesn’t pay the bills or balance the budget.

Such comments – “yeah but you inbred redneck morons in your filthy backwards southern former slave state” – are revealing. I am convinced that a lot of “red-blue, liberal-conservative, Republican-Democrat” discussions are really about the desperate need to feel good about oneself. How? By establishing your superiority over others. We care! We are better educated! We aren’t a former slave state! {Given how difficult it is to change history one wonders what a former slave state is supposed to do about that and whether it makes the slightest bit of difference in the present.} We are better people!

“We are better than you.”

I am convinced that attitude is what drives more than half of all social-political debates and decision making. The need to believe “I am good!” by proving we are better than others. And I rather doubt that only the social-political left suffers from this.

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.

I might have to take a page from the Red Stick Rant book and put this website into temporary(?) hibernation. The last 2 weeks have been working 10-12 hours/day which is fine. Hard work is part of congregational ministry. But has not left me with much extra time or mental/spiritual energy for posting. As for politics the situation is so bad what more is there to say? The health of this nation – by which I mean liberty opportunity responsibility prosperity security and charity – will not improve until the political-cultural left is removed from power by legitimate democratic means.

And now I have been offered the chance to teach Intermediate (Biblical) Hebrew at Louisiana State University as an adjunct starting this semester. Which is fantastic. But also means less than 5 weeks to prepare! So in addition to (1) full time congregational ministry which has become more demanding as our new co-pastors provide new direction and leadership and (2) part time computer/network support – which lately has been unusually time consuming because of the issues involved with getting two Mac computers to play nice with our Small Business Server 2003 network environment – add (3) teaching one course at the university which means both class time and extensive preparation.

Maybe I could just get in one or two posts a week. But cannot promise that.

Before turning off the light – hopefully temporarily – let me list some of the things I was hoping to address. Just so you know what I have been thinking and reading about.

Review of New York Metropolitan Opera performance of “Die Walkuere” by Richard Wagner. Quick summary = One does not normally expect to enjoy 5 1/2 hours of Wagnerian opera! But truly this performance/production will go down in history as one of the great triumphs in the history of opera.

Review of New York Metropolitan Opera performance of “Madame Butterfly” by Gioachino Rossini. Quick summary = Fascinating and excellent performance. An utterly heartbreaking and tragic story that raises cross-cultural issues as well as the (past?) problem of American colonialism.

Review of “Super 8″. Quick summary = Loved it so much paid to see it twice.

Review of “X-Man First Class”. Quick summary = Awesome.

Review of “The University in a Single Atom” by the Dalai Lama. Which I read primarily because it was a gift from my sister. Quick summary = Excellent and illuminating. Christians who are interested in (a) the relationship between science and religion and/or (b) understanding Buddhism do well to read this.

The Southern Baptist Convention’s recent resolutions on immigration and ministry to (illegal) immigrants. Quick summary = Rather surprising and leaves many people in the odd situation of regarding those Southern Baptists as too liberal!

Allen West versus Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Quick summary = There are more effective ways to rebuke the political-cultural left.

Modest proposal for how English language Bibles should translate Hebrew tsdaqa(h) and Greek dikaiosyne.

Terence Fretheim on the book of Exodus and to what extent scholars and pastors and teachers may misunderstand and even misrepresent biblical law and covenant theology.

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.

When enough media outlets pound us enough with the message that someone is odious or venal or stupid one starts to believe the propaganda. “Oh man sure hope Michele Bachmann does not become the Republican presidential candidate because she’s crazy and dumb too”. Enter Stanley Kurtz at National Review Online who boils it down for us in “Bachmann Smart, Media Dumb”:

Seems like only yesterday when Michele Bachmann was supposed to be dumb… [L]ate last year, when I heard her speak at David Horowitz’s Restoration Weekend. I was sitting at a table full of professor types. We kept turning to each other and saying, “This woman is sharp, not at all the dunce she’s been portrayed as.”

Liberalism nowadays may be the last great holdout of old-fashioned prejudice. By telling themselves they’re against group hatreds of all kinds, and dismissing their opponents’ arguments as nothing but bigotry in disguise, liberals grant themselves license to despise. They swear, mock, and hate with a clean conscience, never guessing they’re turning liberalism itself into an outpost of bigotry in reverse. The flip side of liberal guilt is this hidden license to hate.

Same thing applies to Sarah Palin. Came across an article about the recent efforts to go through thousands of her emails. Some people leave comments along the lines of “she is still stupid” with no supporting evidence whatsoever. Just naked prejudicial assertion. I frankly am increasingly tired of being told whom we should like.

Walter Russell Mead has made significant contributions to our national social-political conversation with “The Death of the American Dream I” and “The Death of the American Dream II”.

The one thing I do know is that change is on its way — more fundamental, more challenging, and also perhaps more exhilarating than many of us are ready for. The health of the American economy is going to require us to move away from the credit card economics of the consumer republic.  The health of American society and democracy require that we move beyond the life of the last eighty years.  We should be looking at new ideals in which domestic partners are enterprise partners, the home is more frequently a place of business, and education moves away from big box buildings and toward forms of community schooling somewhere between home schooling and charter academies.

One way to summarize the kind of change we need.  During the farm era the focus of American domestic policy was to create the most favorable possible environment for millions of ordinary Americans to launch flourishing small businesses.  Rather that focusing on home ownership, American social policy should probably be looking at small business formation as the key to mass middle class prosperity in the next fifty years.

The American Dream is not in the last analysis a farm or a home and a good job.  It is the dream that through hard work and good choices the average American can be prosperous and independent, and that ordinary people with these life experiences can govern themselves wisely and well without the ‘guidance’ of their ‘betters’.

Even many so-called/self-proclaimed conservatives might not get this. That they confuse “progressivism Lite” with true classical liberalism and the American Dream before the vision of Thomas Jefferson lost out to that of Alexander Hamilton. Mead’s important articles remind me strongly of an important and interesting podcast by Clark Carlton on “My Two Cents on Capitalism”:

Capitalism is a modernist economic system and progressivism is a modernist palliative—not an alternative.

The only real alternative to capitalism is something along the lines of what Jefferson envisioned. This is similar to the vision of the Catholic distributivists, such as Belloc and Chesterton, and to the third way of the Protestant economist Wilhelm Röpke. The foundation of such a system is widespread property ownership and decentralized government.

I should point out here that the Greek word economia means household management.

Originally published in The Window, October 10 2006

Holy Play (or) S-, part I
Richard M. Wright

(The S- is going somewhere. Trust me.)

There is a theme – a theological theme that requires a change in how we live – that has been impressing itself upon my soul/awareness. Play.

Three days in Atlanta for the (apparently well known) Catalyst Conference. The world’s largest pillow fight involving thousands at the Gwinnett Arena on Friday morning. The dodge-ball national championship team – comprised entirely of “youth pastors”, why are we not surprised? – shows up… a dozen from the audience throw official dodge-balls at them which they dodge or catch-and-return-with-force then quickly (d)evolves into thousands throwing their red rubber balls at these masters of a play-ground sport who manage to dodge-or-catch-and-return not a few amidst the red maelstrom.

Yeah the conference was inspiring, informative, challenging and all. But it was also fun.

Which brings me to one of the speakers: Kevil Carroll of Rules of the Red Rubber Ball fame. Worked for years as a “creative catalyst” at Nike.

One of his central points was adults do not play enough. Without play… imagination and creativity shrivel. And perhaps the reverse is also true? That play can be a holy activity. And one that can fuel creativity and imagination and by extension our ability to perform… succeed… innovate… problem-solve… fulfill our mission as individuals and as a church family.

I first learned this lesson from a Baptist campus minister at Cornell University by the name of Armetta Fields. (Interesting first name.) She thought Cornell students were too serious, studious, and stress out. (Oh and arrogant.) So she made us play once or twice a semester.

Crayons and coloring books at Thursday evening “Bible study/prayer” meeting. Taking us to a nearby vocational school at night to spend a couple hours on the playground. Swings and slides and death-by-monkey-bars.

More than therapy but fulfilling (in part) a divine commandment. Care to guess what letter it starts with?

“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

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