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

I admit not looking forward to hearing/reading the President’s speech at the memorial service in Arizona. Ace of Spades HQ had mixed reactions. My excellent friend Jonathan called it the “best speech of his life”. So grit my teeth and read the transcript.

Here’s how it starts.

To the families of those we’ve lost; to all who called them friends; to the students of this university, the public servants gathered tonight, and the people of Tucson and Arizona:  I have come here tonight as an American who, like all Americans, kneels to pray with you today, and will stand by you tomorrow.

There is nothing I can say that will fill the sudden hole torn in your hearts.  But know this: the hopes of a nation are here tonight.  We mourn with you for the fallen.  We join you in your grief.  And we add our faith to yours that Representative Gabrielle Giffords and the other living victims of this tragedy pull through.

As Scripture tells us:

There is a river whose streams make glad the city of God,
the holy place where the Most High dwells.
God is within her, she will not fall;
God will help her at break of day.

And it only gets stronger.

There is a certain hubris – please note the word – in daring to evaluate critique dissect any speech given at such a solemn occasion. I would like to come back and emphasize certain elements of it – positively – but for now let me simply say thank you sir.

I have criticized this president and his administration quite harshly. For this I do not repent.

But it was reverent. Genuinely reverent in the sense that Paul Woodruff describes in his book Reverence.

Could we sift through it with a fine comb and quibble with this or that? Could we ask cynical questions about who wrote it and whether he will live up to his own rhetoric? Could we critique elements of the memorial service that resembled a political rally?

Yeah.

But I also believe that when there is an opportunity to praise and encourage something that is genuinely good we should seize it.* That among other things is what true reverence is all about.

*In our public schools this is called Positive Behavior Reinforcement. Unfortunately as some of the comments at Ace of Spades HQ and National Review Online indicate some erstwhile conservatives fail to grasp this simple point. If we disagree with 98% of what someone says and does should we not praise that person when he says or does something with which we agree?!?

Health Care Summit

It is with some reluctance I post anything relating to the recent shootings in Tucson Arizona. But will attempt to be as positive as possible.

Let me try to get the negative out of the way first. Yes some very foolish and ghoulish people have quickly been trying to use the incident to score political points in order to shame and silence political opponents. They have been well answered and refuted by many much better writers.

But there have been several – also on the left end of the political spectrum – who have so far done an excellent job of warning against the impulse to exploit the Tucson shootings for political gain.

• President Obama. Well said and well done sir. Thank you.
• Rachel Maddow.
• Jon Stewart.
• Howard Kurtz.
• Barbara Walters.
• The New Republic.
• Jake Schafer.

And many others I am sure.

Let me share something. There are plenty of public and political figures whose views I cannot stand. But the last thing in the world I want is for any harm to come to them.

Why?

Well first of all for the simple reason that they are human beings.

Also because one of the things that makes America great is we debate issues and then vote. Not a single shot was fired when power was transferred from George Bush to Barack Obama or from Nancy Pelosi to John Boehner. That is how political and social change is supposed to happen in the United States. In an orderly and peaceful manner.

There is a third reason. I can probably speak for most if not all classical liberals aka “conservatives” when I say we do not want to see political opponents hurt or killed. What we want is for our ideas to prevail and for their ideas to be defeated and discredited. What we want is for a majority of fellow Americans to think “man President Obama’s vision for remaking America is the pits” and/or “wow the best way to prosperity and security is through limited Constitutional governance”.

Violence against politicians does nothing to help persuade the American people that one way of governance is better than another. We can be more specific. Does any rational person seriously think shooting a member of Congress will help repeal ObamaCare? If anything it turns political opponents into martyrs and creates an environment in which out of respect no one wants to vote against what the dead/injured politician(s) support(s).

At the risk of waxing negative let me address the “heated rhetoric” rhetoric.

When some say the Tucson shootings were caused by “vitriolic rhetoric and hate speech” we need to stop and think for a moment.

On what basis do some describe some political speech as vitriolic/heated/hateful/violent? I submit that the only thing that is truly vitriolic/hateful/heated about the political speech in question is that the person complaining about it simply says so.* Disagreeing strongly with a politician or a political party or the government currently in power is not in and of itself vitriolic or violent or hateful.

*(I am aware that some dear readers will try to bring up examples. I would ask first how hard one has to look to find any examples of genuinely excessive political speech that says “this person is evil / this person needs to die / we need to take arms and overthrow this government”. Strong principled disagreement is not hate.)

Also how is current political speech somehow worse than in previous generations? Remember the 1960′s and early 1970′s?

But that is a secondary point – to say “oh yeah? you did it first and worse!” The primary point is this.

What classical liberals aka “conservatives” want is for their ideas about good governance to prevail – to persuade the voting majority of Americans that individual liberty and limited government are superior to leftist governance and statism. Social chaos and political violence do nothing to advance this goal.

One of the traditions we observe in our family is to watch a movie at the theater on special holidays like Thanksgiving and Christmas. This year we had several internationals in our home on Christmas and saved the movie for December 26 aka Boxing Day.

“Tangled” is based on the traditional tale of Rapunzel – the girl with super long hair who is imprisoned in a room at the top of a tower with no way in or out except a window/balcony. The man who comes to rescue her has to call out “Rapunzel, Rapunzel, let down your sweet hair”.

This traditional tale is still here but transformed and expanded. The man who rescues(?) her is a rogue. And in some ways it is she who rescues him.

The movie is very enjoyable. A few songs. Some tense moments. Plenty of humor. I strongly recommend it for adults and children alike.

I am going to step out on a limb and hypothesize that it is also shockingly political – although not everyone will pick up on it.

It first hit me during the “Mother Knows Best” song/scene. When Rapunzel asks why on earth she can’t go anywhere why she has to stay in that room at the top of the tower all the time. And the enchantress Mother Gothel – who has fooled Rapunzel into believing she is her mother – sings a song to explain and convince her why she must never leave or even ask to leave.

It’s a dangerous world out there. You can’t handle all the situations you will face. I love you. I’m trying to protect you. Trust me. Mother knows best. That’s why you have to stay. Why you can’t ever leave. And why you need to stop nagging me about this. (paraphrased)

Dear readers are probably starting to get it.

Rapunzel wants to be free. The enchantress does not want Rapunzel to be free – and the reason why is also telling. Moreover the enchantress casts everything in terms of I only want what’s best for you… I’m just trying to protect you… Trust me… I know best.

Rapunzel represents free people. The enchantress represents Statism aka Big Government.

(Warning – spoiler alert! You have been warned.)

The enchantress needs Rapunzel to stay put because the enchantress needs Rapunzel in order to live – her magical hair. Hair = taxes/money/productivity/allegiance?

And notice what Rapunzel does at the end in order finally to be free of the enchantress.

So if the movie is largely an allegory about freedom/government – what else fits this interpretation? what does not fit?

The other two rogues = Big Business/Corporations? Remember that capitalism is not the same thing as free market economics. Capitalism – properly understood – is a tight relationship between large businesses/corporations and the government. We pass laws and make policies and regulations that mean more profit for you. And in turn you support us in our efforts to take more and more control over the lives of the people.

General Electric anyone? Just to pick one example.

The other two rogues work with the enchantress. You help me get the citizen. I help you get the crown back. Although strangely enough even when they have the crown it’s not enough. They want the other guy Flynn Rider. The entrepreneur/small business owner? And Big Mother will help us take him down.

My interpretation still needs some work. The king and queen? The kingdom? What do they represent? The soldiers who try to catch Flynn the whole time?

Consider the Pub Thugs. Rapunzel asks “don’t you have dreams?” Turns out they do. Nearly every dream is a form of going into business for yourself. Remarkable.

Several times on this website I have written about the importance of the urban-rural divide in our nation. That in my opinion our country is becoming more divided along urban/rural lines than along racial/ethnic lines. It just so happens – although it is not just so and deserves consideration – that the urban poor are predominantly people of color.

Cities as place of life and culture or fear and despair

Ross Douthat – It’s about class and urban versus rural

Once again urban versus rural

Growing urban-rural tension

This morning noticed a couple posts at Afroconservative that introduce and explain a new movement within classic liberalism aka conservatism called urban conservatism.

These conservatives reside in and/or work in the inner cities and apply conservative solutions towards inner city problems (e.g. inmate re-entry and educational reform). They acknowledge liberal policy failures and are making pragmatic attempts to reduce government waste and redistribute public funds in a way that leads to less government dependency. Urban conservatism is not synonymous with ‘black’ conservatism. The inner cities are a melting pot of different races and cultures; therefore, the urban conservative movement is color-neutral. While many of them are ‘black’, there are Hispanic and White ‘urban’ conservatives who are diligently working within the liberal framework. Urban conservatism also has a counterculture component. These counterculture initiatives include discouraging unwed and single-parenthood, promoting marriage, and encouraging self-employment/entrepreneurship (silver rights)- all as a means to reduce poverty.

But urban conservatives – as well as black conservatives – also challenge other conservatives in some ways:

As of late, urban conservatives have been at odds with other conservatives as a result of certain platform positions that are center-right in nature. Urban conservatives argue that the public-private balance in urban America unfortunately tilts heavily towards the public sector, therefore, having a ‘pull the rug approach’ is unrealistic.

One can see this particularly in another satirical post entitled Urban Conservative vs Nelvin Ziplock:

I said, “Look, bro, wait-sorry, look man, I’m not angry with you. I think you’ve been confusing race-consciousness with ‘urban conservatism’. Urban conservatism, like conservatism, is about policy and the individual—not color—we just have an inner city focus.  We believe in state’s rights and local centralized planning as opposed to calling on out of touch bureaucrats to help with the social maladies in some communities– just like you!  The difference between us and you is that we don’t believe in the whole one-size-fits-all policy approach.  Look, we’re all in this together.  It’s cool to criticize liberals in regards to their policy failures, and the same talking points that you say all the time sound cool too, but conservatives need to step their game up and present viable, solution-oriented policy alternatives. (emphasis added)

That last sentence is important. Yes leftist/statist aka liberal policies instead of helping cities and/or the poor and/or people of color have helped create and encourage many of the social problems we see in our cities.

But so what? What will classic liberals aka conservatives offer instead? Will they engage or abandon our cities?

Urban conservatism. A movement worth noting. And encouraging.