When will those yokels at PETA ever learn? Adolf Hitler was the vegetarian, not the other guy.
PETA has a new ad campaign which makes another historical error.
Sunday, May 18, 2003
Blogcritics has all your Matrix-related essays. Me, I'm gonna bone up on my Schopenhauer and try to figure out the ding an sich.
Thursday, May 15, 2003
Rotary Thursday and the Bush "Aircraft Carrier Landing Stunt.".
It was a great Rotary meeting today. My club was honored to have as its speakers the Commandant for the Lemoore Naval Air Station and a squadron commander who had just returned from a tour of duty on the Abraham Lincoln in the Persian Gulf.
During Q and A, someone asked about the Bush visit and whether the sailors resented it, did it delay their shore leave and was it a waste of money. The squadron commander - who shook the President's hand and then led approximately thirty planes back to Lemoore that afternoon - told us that it was a singularly memorable day for him and that he wished all cruises could end that way. He rejected the idea that Bush's visit to the Lincoln was a political stunt. He felt that the President was honestly trying to give something back to the people who had carried out his orders and was sharing his valuable time. Athough re-enlistment rates are now at an all time high, there is some concern about the effect that ten month deployments may have on re-enlistment. Consequently, he felt that the President's visit could give about 5,000 sailors something to think about when it came time to re-enlist. So, how do you figure that moral benefit in critiques based on cost and benefit? The sailors and aviators generally appreciated the fact that the President was commending them for a job well done. As for the charges that money was wasted, his point was that the pilot would have been flying some other mission and so the notion of squandering money was simply "idiotic." [The speaker - being a military officer and, therefore, officially apolitical - didn't use that term to describe critics, but he didn't agree with the description in Q and A either.]
By the way, this is an opportune moment to share some incredibly trivial, but, I think, interesting military history trivia. My father was on the aircraft carrier Valley Forge when it went on an around the world cruise in 1946. According to the cruise book, the visit by the Valley Forge to the Persian Gulf was the first time an American capital ship had been in the Persian Gulf since Teddy Roosevelt's Great White Fleet in 1908. Since I suspect that there were no carriers in operation at that time, I reckon that my father was on the first American carrier to ever enter the Persian Gulf.
It was a great Rotary meeting today. My club was honored to have as its speakers the Commandant for the Lemoore Naval Air Station and a squadron commander who had just returned from a tour of duty on the Abraham Lincoln in the Persian Gulf.
During Q and A, someone asked about the Bush visit and whether the sailors resented it, did it delay their shore leave and was it a waste of money. The squadron commander - who shook the President's hand and then led approximately thirty planes back to Lemoore that afternoon - told us that it was a singularly memorable day for him and that he wished all cruises could end that way. He rejected the idea that Bush's visit to the Lincoln was a political stunt. He felt that the President was honestly trying to give something back to the people who had carried out his orders and was sharing his valuable time. Athough re-enlistment rates are now at an all time high, there is some concern about the effect that ten month deployments may have on re-enlistment. Consequently, he felt that the President's visit could give about 5,000 sailors something to think about when it came time to re-enlist. So, how do you figure that moral benefit in critiques based on cost and benefit? The sailors and aviators generally appreciated the fact that the President was commending them for a job well done. As for the charges that money was wasted, his point was that the pilot would have been flying some other mission and so the notion of squandering money was simply "idiotic." [The speaker - being a military officer and, therefore, officially apolitical - didn't use that term to describe critics, but he didn't agree with the description in Q and A either.]
By the way, this is an opportune moment to share some incredibly trivial, but, I think, interesting military history trivia. My father was on the aircraft carrier Valley Forge when it went on an around the world cruise in 1946. According to the cruise book, the visit by the Valley Forge to the Persian Gulf was the first time an American capital ship had been in the Persian Gulf since Teddy Roosevelt's Great White Fleet in 1908. Since I suspect that there were no carriers in operation at that time, I reckon that my father was on the first American carrier to ever enter the Persian Gulf.
Ah, High School Memories.
Via The OmbudsGod comes high school blogger, The Lone Dissenter solitary campaign against the anti-American group-think at a Bay Area High School. Of course, this is nothing new. I remember several episodes from my late seventies Fresno experience that are not too dissimilar. In one, our AP History teacher pointedly told some Avalon Hill war gaming wonk that the idea of our challenging the Soviet's grip on Eastern Europe in 1945 was impossible and that "you kids have to learn that the United States just can't do everything it wants." The next day the wonk showed up with impressive documentation of the order of battle of the US and Soviet forces, which showed tended to show that the teacher was lacked any factual basis on which to make his claim.
Now, I don't know if the student was right, but certainly he had a better factual grip on the subject than the teacher and the teacher's insight was simply a post-Vietnam a priori belief, not a fact. In other words, we weren't being taught facts, we were supposed to adopt a value-system.
On another occasion, a Government teacher felt that it was necessary to defend the Soviet Union's abysmal record on economics and civil rights with the argument that "I'd like to see how the United States would be faring if another country had invaded up to the Mississippi and destroyed it's infrastructure." It didn't take long for someone to point out that the US had had exactly that experience - we called it the "Civil War" - and, yet, the US seemed to have gotten back on its feet in something less than thirty years.
The amazing thing about both exchanges was how phenomenally ignorant the teachers were. There attitudes and positions may have been correct, but it sure looked like ideology was being substituted for analysis.
This experience would seem to go back even further than the 1970s.. In Robert Heinlein's 1963 book, Glory Road, the story's hero, Oscar Gordon, relates that after being conditioned against patriotism in school, he was not overjoyed when he received his draft notice. [For what is obviously a stint in the Vietnam war.] So, if we accept this oblique references, patriotic high school students were dealing with their wise and cynical teachers as far back as the 1950s.
Via The OmbudsGod comes high school blogger, The Lone Dissenter solitary campaign against the anti-American group-think at a Bay Area High School. Of course, this is nothing new. I remember several episodes from my late seventies Fresno experience that are not too dissimilar. In one, our AP History teacher pointedly told some Avalon Hill war gaming wonk that the idea of our challenging the Soviet's grip on Eastern Europe in 1945 was impossible and that "you kids have to learn that the United States just can't do everything it wants." The next day the wonk showed up with impressive documentation of the order of battle of the US and Soviet forces, which showed tended to show that the teacher was lacked any factual basis on which to make his claim.
Now, I don't know if the student was right, but certainly he had a better factual grip on the subject than the teacher and the teacher's insight was simply a post-Vietnam a priori belief, not a fact. In other words, we weren't being taught facts, we were supposed to adopt a value-system.
On another occasion, a Government teacher felt that it was necessary to defend the Soviet Union's abysmal record on economics and civil rights with the argument that "I'd like to see how the United States would be faring if another country had invaded up to the Mississippi and destroyed it's infrastructure." It didn't take long for someone to point out that the US had had exactly that experience - we called it the "Civil War" - and, yet, the US seemed to have gotten back on its feet in something less than thirty years.
The amazing thing about both exchanges was how phenomenally ignorant the teachers were. There attitudes and positions may have been correct, but it sure looked like ideology was being substituted for analysis.
This experience would seem to go back even further than the 1970s.. In Robert Heinlein's 1963 book, Glory Road, the story's hero, Oscar Gordon, relates that after being conditioned against patriotism in school, he was not overjoyed when he received his draft notice. [For what is obviously a stint in the Vietnam war.] So, if we accept this oblique references, patriotic high school students were dealing with their wise and cynical teachers as far back as the 1950s.
Wednesday, May 14, 2003
This makes sense. This column at The Ottawa Citizen issues a warning concerning the Iraq blog "Where is Raed?". The precis of the column is that the mysterious blogger, Salam Pax, is probably the scion of the Baathist class and that a corresponding skepticism concerning the blog's output is appropriate.
Here's an interesting insight from the column:
One has to keep in mind the nature of totalitarian regimes to corrupt everyone. Totalitarian dictators exploit complicity. One of Saddam's first acts as dictator was to have the survivors of his purge execute the victims. No one gets out untainted.
Here's an interesting insight from the column:
Salam Pax" is the crème de la crème. He drops brilliantly casual asides. For instance, one of his insightful tips to the Western journalists was that "ordinary" Iraqis despise all these exiles who have parachuted in with the U.S. military, and who have "appropriated" such private property as the old Mansour Social Club, and Iraqi Hunting Club -- which were Baathist social preserves (clubs in which Salam would likely have had memberships). He falsely suggests that these properties were obtained through "looting." (They were assigned to the exiles by the U.S. military.)
Now, Salam would never have known any "ordinary" Iraqis, unless he was interrogating one privately. He does know that Ahmed Chalabi and Kanan Makiya, the politicians coming down from free Kurdish territory, and the other exiles returning to Iraq, are the class that are trying to replace his class. They were the people who were fighting the good fight against Mr. Saddam abroad, and committed their lives irretrievably to a democratic future for the country -- when people such as Salam were making their profitable accommodations with the regime.
One has to keep in mind the nature of totalitarian regimes to corrupt everyone. Totalitarian dictators exploit complicity. One of Saddam's first acts as dictator was to have the survivors of his purge execute the victims. No one gets out untainted.
Tuesday, May 13, 2003
Purgatory will be a near eternity of "Chick-flicks."
As you can see, I took a few days off from the blogosphere this weekend. Let's get back into action with something that's a little bit religious and a little bit pop culture.
I am fairly convinced that my stay in Purgatory will be rather short as such things are measured in eternity.
Catechism of the Catholic Church para. 1473 notes:
Me, as the father of three daughters, I'm serving my penance here on Earth. A case in point is the two hours I invested recently in The Lizzie McGuire Movie with my daughters. For those who aren't knowledgeable of the intricacies of the Disney Channel ouvre, the TV show chronicles the trials and tribulations that the show's namesake faces in negotiating the Darwinian struggle for survival which is Jr. High School Lizzie is an obviously attractive, personable blonde who, for reasons which are entirely unclear, is depicted as a social outcast, perhaps to reassure the self image of the 98% of adolescent girls who are social outcasts, that they are as attractive, fashion conscious and misunderstood as Lizzie. The movie starts with Lizzie's graduation from Jr. High school, which she fouls up in such an epic manner as to be worthy of CNN coverage. Lizzie then goes on a class trip to Rome, where she meets up with the fabulous Paulo, a seventeen year old pop singer who sweeps Lizzie off her feet with his attentions.
In all, as the father of pre-adolescent girls, and therefore as a man who is now coaching the other side, I have to say that the movie promotes positive social values. Paulo turns out to be a creep who gets his come-uppance, thereby teaching the eternal truth, which I want to brand on my oldest daughter's soul before puberty, that men are manipulative and can not be trusted. Again, I say as a father of daughters, the only plot device that could have made me happier was having Paulo and Lizzie struck blind by an avenging angel after they shared an innocent kiss. Further, Lizzie does share a kiss with Gordo - a plot development that I did not approve of - who is kind of a nerdy loyal friend of Lizzie's. So, perhaps the implicit message is that girls should look for friendship with the nerds, which is probably a good father-of-daughter's default position since, and again I speak as a father of daughters, nerds can be easily intimidated. In sum, there were good positive messages in the move all around.
Anti-male cracks notwithstanding, Instapundit had a link to a good post on the socially acceptable practice of male-bashing. With very little reflection it should be easy to establish that male-bashing is a real phenomenon and that the message it communicates about male violence and irresponsibility has real effects. I know as a man who fought for the custody of a two and a three year old daughters how the planted assumptions in those stereotypes can have pernicious consequences. I also know that many men have given up their custody rights for a host of reasons, which may stem from some belief in their own incapacity to act as parents. The article's suggestion that male-bashing be fought at the grassroots is one that I second.
As you can see, I took a few days off from the blogosphere this weekend. Let's get back into action with something that's a little bit religious and a little bit pop culture.
I am fairly convinced that my stay in Purgatory will be rather short as such things are measured in eternity.
Catechism of the Catholic Church para. 1473 notes:
The forgiveness of sin and restoration of communion with God entail the remission of the eternal punishment of sin, but temporal punishment of sin remains. While patiently bearing sufferings and trials of all kinds and, when the day comes, serenely facing death, the Christian must strive to accept this temporal punishment of sin as a grace. He should strive by works of mercy and charity, as well as by prayer and the various practices of penance, to put off completely the "old man" and to put on the "new man."
Me, as the father of three daughters, I'm serving my penance here on Earth. A case in point is the two hours I invested recently in The Lizzie McGuire Movie with my daughters. For those who aren't knowledgeable of the intricacies of the Disney Channel ouvre, the TV show chronicles the trials and tribulations that the show's namesake faces in negotiating the Darwinian struggle for survival which is Jr. High School Lizzie is an obviously attractive, personable blonde who, for reasons which are entirely unclear, is depicted as a social outcast, perhaps to reassure the self image of the 98% of adolescent girls who are social outcasts, that they are as attractive, fashion conscious and misunderstood as Lizzie. The movie starts with Lizzie's graduation from Jr. High school, which she fouls up in such an epic manner as to be worthy of CNN coverage. Lizzie then goes on a class trip to Rome, where she meets up with the fabulous Paulo, a seventeen year old pop singer who sweeps Lizzie off her feet with his attentions.
In all, as the father of pre-adolescent girls, and therefore as a man who is now coaching the other side, I have to say that the movie promotes positive social values. Paulo turns out to be a creep who gets his come-uppance, thereby teaching the eternal truth, which I want to brand on my oldest daughter's soul before puberty, that men are manipulative and can not be trusted. Again, I say as a father of daughters, the only plot device that could have made me happier was having Paulo and Lizzie struck blind by an avenging angel after they shared an innocent kiss. Further, Lizzie does share a kiss with Gordo - a plot development that I did not approve of - who is kind of a nerdy loyal friend of Lizzie's. So, perhaps the implicit message is that girls should look for friendship with the nerds, which is probably a good father-of-daughter's default position since, and again I speak as a father of daughters, nerds can be easily intimidated. In sum, there were good positive messages in the move all around.
Anti-male cracks notwithstanding, Instapundit had a link to a good post on the socially acceptable practice of male-bashing. With very little reflection it should be easy to establish that male-bashing is a real phenomenon and that the message it communicates about male violence and irresponsibility has real effects. I know as a man who fought for the custody of a two and a three year old daughters how the planted assumptions in those stereotypes can have pernicious consequences. I also know that many men have given up their custody rights for a host of reasons, which may stem from some belief in their own incapacity to act as parents. The article's suggestion that male-bashing be fought at the grassroots is one that I second.
Friday, May 09, 2003
I thought this was interesting. Bill Cork has a link to an article wherein an academic stumbles on to the fact that books by the great Catholic intellectuals are apparently not being read by students at a Catholic university. I wonder if this isn't simply part of the "closing of the American mind" phenomenon that has been noticed in other contexts. Is this is a bad thing? After all what is the relevance of a "dead white male" to the issues facing a modern college student? Every generation has to come up with its own answer.
Thursday, May 08, 2003
For future reference, HobbsOnline A.M. puts paid to the urban legend that Bush was AWOL during his National Guard duty. This is useful since I had "kinda, sorta" believed the veiled insinuations.
Wednesday, May 07, 2003
I am posting this link to Country Store simply because I like the sarky tone of the posts over there.
Tuesday, May 06, 2003
Communio Circle Discussion - Genesis 22 and the Immorality of God
At last week's Communio Circle, the discussion turned from whether the practice of reading great literature was intrinsically valuable or whether that practice was a snobbish tic and no more worthwhile than going to tractor pulls. Somehow the conversation turned to the old chestnut of whether something is deemed morally “good” because there is an absolute and transcendent “good” or simply because God deems the thing good. [The turn in the conversation may have been caused in some small way by the fact that I am listening to the Leaning Company’s Philosophy of Religion series by Professor James Hall (which, by the way, I am enjoying.)] Since I was arguing for the non-relativistic value of literature, I decided that consistency required that I advocate for a transcendental essence of goodness.
This pitch was immediately, and I mean immediately, eviscerated by Mike, who pointed out that God had commanded that a father (Abraham) murder his own son (Isaac.) (See e.g., Abraham and Isaac in Genesis 22.) Certainly, argued Mike, if that didn’t show that goodness was goodness only relative to God’s commands, then nothing did. Mike’s point was completely apposite. Proving the universal value of literature, Norman Podhoretz’s new book, The Prophets, explicitly observes that with respect to Socrates question about whether something was good because it was good in itself or because it was deemed good by the gods, the Jews come down on the side of the second position, citing the Abraham and Isaac story.
To me, this story and the conclusion to which it leads are unsettling. The conventional definition of God is that He is all powerful, all knowing and all loving. According to Prof. Hall’s definition of ethical monotheism, God is the only One deserving of worship because of his infinite capacity for those three attributes. Commanding the death of a child in order to “test” the faith of the father seems more akin to Saddam than to God, as so defined.
According to Dori, the Abraham/Isaac story plays a pivotal role in the recent movie The Believer, where a “clever Yeshiva student” repudiates Judaism and becomes a neo-Nazi skinhead because of the ethical conundrum in God’s order that Abraham kill his son.
Genesis 22 and Predestination.
Jeff, though, made what I thought was an interesting observation. What does it mean to have God “test” Abraham. Presumably God knows what Abraham will do. What kind of a test is it where God already knows the answer? Dori’s response was that all teachers know the answers to the tests they give. But, as I pointed out, teachers do not know the answer to the question of what the student knows, which is why they give the test. If a teacher knew what grade to give to a student in the first place, why would they give the test? So, I sided with Jeff on this point.
The problem is that this leads to predestination, a conclusions that apparently is even less appealing than child sacrifice. Both Dori and Mike argued for the position that Abraham had the free will to obey or not obey. The analogy here is with Mary whose choice - “I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. "may it be to me as you have said." - is a substantial basis on which she is so esteemed. Mike and Dori’s argument may have been that God did not know the outcome of Abraham’s choice before it was made, although squaring that with the idea of God’s omniscience is something for further development.
Mike’s further development of his observation about the “non-test” in Genesis 22 was that there was a “test” and it was a “test” for Abraham. Now, interestingly, that is Norman Podhoretz’s view also. Podhoretz believes that the mission of the Prophets was to end idolatry and that the “test” in Genesis 22 proved to Abraham that he must trust the true God and not the false, nonexistent gods of idolatry.
Did God premeditate the death of Isaac?
The moral difficulty suggested in Genesis 22 is based on the idea that Isaac’s life was threatened by God. The story takes the reader detail by detail through the sacrificial ritual - wood is gathered, Isaac is bound, the knife is raised - and then Isaac is miraculously saved. In the nick of time, it would seem. These details, however, are nothing more than a cheesy - but effective - literary device like the annoying background music which is played in horror movies designed to heighten anxiety, because Isaac was never in any danger.
If we accept the proposition of Abraham’s free will, then there were only two outcomes and under either outcome, Isaac would live. Either Abraham would obey God and God would stay Abraham’s hand or Abraham would disobey God and Isaac would live. In either case, God is not complicit in the murder of Isaac and, in fact, clearly intended that Isaac would not die. [I will leave it to others to discuss the moral implications of causing Abraham to premeditate the murder of Isaac, which I understand under both Jewish and Christian tradition is tantamount to murder.]
Which leaves us where we started: is there an absolute good such that child sacrifice is wrong or is it the case that things are good only in relation to God’s commands?
[A last, telling point was made by Mike. In essence, who are we to talk to God about the morality of a son being sacrificed by a father? The core of Christianity, after all, is premised upon a Son who is a sacrifice in accordance with the will of His Father.]
Further Reflections: If you're interested, and who wouldn't be?, here's the relevant passage from Norman Podhoretz's The Prophets: Who They Were, What They Are:
(Id. at p. 24 -25.)
From this perspective, Genesis 22 seems to offer an implicit theodicy. The evil that Abraham experienced - his pain and suffering in being forced to make this cruel choice - is not really evil. It is a good because of the pedagogic benefits that flow from Abraham's experience of the test. Is this explanation sufficient to explain all instances of suffering, or is all suffering a test? I doubt it, and as Podhoretz notes, this easy approach to Genesis 22 is probably not entirely satisfying since the story has "tormented" believers for generations. As I observed above, I have been told that the recent movie, < ‘Believer,’ plays on this torment as the device which kicks off the movie's plot.
I appreciate any comments you have. I intend to take the comments back to my Communio Circle for discussion and reflection.
Further Update: David Heddle has been kind enough to respond to my request to provide the Reformed perspective on Genesis 22, the issue of predestination and an answer to Socrates' question. Check it out. I also find interesting the theodicy implied in the post. I think I understand some portion of that theodicy to go as follows: It seems that the problem of evil is explained by man's fallen state. Man is a sinner and deserves whatever ill falls his way. Because of his natural state, whatever man suffers is better than he deserves or can expect, absent God's grace. Although my initial reaction to the perspective is negative, one has to be honest and acknowledge that my orthodox faith is willing to consign non-believers to eternal damnation, which is altogether more severe than the trials and tribulations of the natural world.
Comments, points of clarifications?
At last week's Communio Circle, the discussion turned from whether the practice of reading great literature was intrinsically valuable or whether that practice was a snobbish tic and no more worthwhile than going to tractor pulls. Somehow the conversation turned to the old chestnut of whether something is deemed morally “good” because there is an absolute and transcendent “good” or simply because God deems the thing good. [The turn in the conversation may have been caused in some small way by the fact that I am listening to the Leaning Company’s Philosophy of Religion series by Professor James Hall (which, by the way, I am enjoying.)] Since I was arguing for the non-relativistic value of literature, I decided that consistency required that I advocate for a transcendental essence of goodness.
This pitch was immediately, and I mean immediately, eviscerated by Mike, who pointed out that God had commanded that a father (Abraham) murder his own son (Isaac.) (See e.g., Abraham and Isaac in Genesis 22.) Certainly, argued Mike, if that didn’t show that goodness was goodness only relative to God’s commands, then nothing did. Mike’s point was completely apposite. Proving the universal value of literature, Norman Podhoretz’s new book, The Prophets, explicitly observes that with respect to Socrates question about whether something was good because it was good in itself or because it was deemed good by the gods, the Jews come down on the side of the second position, citing the Abraham and Isaac story.
To me, this story and the conclusion to which it leads are unsettling. The conventional definition of God is that He is all powerful, all knowing and all loving. According to Prof. Hall’s definition of ethical monotheism, God is the only One deserving of worship because of his infinite capacity for those three attributes. Commanding the death of a child in order to “test” the faith of the father seems more akin to Saddam than to God, as so defined.
According to Dori, the Abraham/Isaac story plays a pivotal role in the recent movie The Believer, where a “clever Yeshiva student” repudiates Judaism and becomes a neo-Nazi skinhead because of the ethical conundrum in God’s order that Abraham kill his son.
Genesis 22 and Predestination.
Jeff, though, made what I thought was an interesting observation. What does it mean to have God “test” Abraham. Presumably God knows what Abraham will do. What kind of a test is it where God already knows the answer? Dori’s response was that all teachers know the answers to the tests they give. But, as I pointed out, teachers do not know the answer to the question of what the student knows, which is why they give the test. If a teacher knew what grade to give to a student in the first place, why would they give the test? So, I sided with Jeff on this point.
The problem is that this leads to predestination, a conclusions that apparently is even less appealing than child sacrifice. Both Dori and Mike argued for the position that Abraham had the free will to obey or not obey. The analogy here is with Mary whose choice - “I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. "may it be to me as you have said." - is a substantial basis on which she is so esteemed. Mike and Dori’s argument may have been that God did not know the outcome of Abraham’s choice before it was made, although squaring that with the idea of God’s omniscience is something for further development.
Mike’s further development of his observation about the “non-test” in Genesis 22 was that there was a “test” and it was a “test” for Abraham. Now, interestingly, that is Norman Podhoretz’s view also. Podhoretz believes that the mission of the Prophets was to end idolatry and that the “test” in Genesis 22 proved to Abraham that he must trust the true God and not the false, nonexistent gods of idolatry.
Did God premeditate the death of Isaac?
The moral difficulty suggested in Genesis 22 is based on the idea that Isaac’s life was threatened by God. The story takes the reader detail by detail through the sacrificial ritual - wood is gathered, Isaac is bound, the knife is raised - and then Isaac is miraculously saved. In the nick of time, it would seem. These details, however, are nothing more than a cheesy - but effective - literary device like the annoying background music which is played in horror movies designed to heighten anxiety, because Isaac was never in any danger.
If we accept the proposition of Abraham’s free will, then there were only two outcomes and under either outcome, Isaac would live. Either Abraham would obey God and God would stay Abraham’s hand or Abraham would disobey God and Isaac would live. In either case, God is not complicit in the murder of Isaac and, in fact, clearly intended that Isaac would not die. [I will leave it to others to discuss the moral implications of causing Abraham to premeditate the murder of Isaac, which I understand under both Jewish and Christian tradition is tantamount to murder.]
Which leaves us where we started: is there an absolute good such that child sacrifice is wrong or is it the case that things are good only in relation to God’s commands?
[A last, telling point was made by Mike. In essence, who are we to talk to God about the morality of a son being sacrificed by a father? The core of Christianity, after all, is premised upon a Son who is a sacrifice in accordance with the will of His Father.]
Further Reflections: If you're interested, and who wouldn't be?, here's the relevant passage from Norman Podhoretz's The Prophets: Who They Were, What They Are:
But among the differences here is that what the idolators do voluntarily in pursuing a goal of benefit to them or theirs, Abraham is ordered by God to do, and for no such purpose or reward. Indeed, none is specified. The point is to put him through the most extreme of all imaginable tests of his readiness to obey. In passing this test, Abraham demonstrates an understanding that acceptance of the one true God who has been revealed to him first and foremost entails submission to His will. (One might say that, to the unresolved conundrum posed by Socrates in Athens many centuries later - "Is that which is holy loved by the gods because it is holy, or is it holy because it is loved by the gods?" - the Hebrew Bible has an unequivocal answer: it is holy because it is loved, or commanded, by God.)
But at the same time, Abraham has discovered that what God wills is radically at odds with what many gods of all the pagan religions are believed to demand. Unlike the pagan gods, He will have nothing to do with child sacrifice, the most horrendous in the Hebrew Bible's eyes of all the many "abominations" closesly associeated with and flowing from idolatry.
Generations after generations of believers have been tormented by this story, asking why it was necessary for God to devise so cruel a test. My own theory is that only by undergoing the experience himself - in is own person, and on his own flesh - can Abraham come to fully realize that idolatrous practices are an ever-present danger even to God's chosen people, and that they can exert their insidious power even through the voice of God Himself.
(Id. at p. 24 -25.)
From this perspective, Genesis 22 seems to offer an implicit theodicy. The evil that Abraham experienced - his pain and suffering in being forced to make this cruel choice - is not really evil. It is a good because of the pedagogic benefits that flow from Abraham's experience of the test. Is this explanation sufficient to explain all instances of suffering, or is all suffering a test? I doubt it, and as Podhoretz notes, this easy approach to Genesis 22 is probably not entirely satisfying since the story has "tormented" believers for generations. As I observed above, I have been told that the recent movie, < ‘Believer,’ plays on this torment as the device which kicks off the movie's plot.
I appreciate any comments you have. I intend to take the comments back to my Communio Circle for discussion and reflection.
Further Update: David Heddle has been kind enough to respond to my request to provide the Reformed perspective on Genesis 22, the issue of predestination and an answer to Socrates' question. Check it out. I also find interesting the theodicy implied in the post. I think I understand some portion of that theodicy to go as follows: It seems that the problem of evil is explained by man's fallen state. Man is a sinner and deserves whatever ill falls his way. Because of his natural state, whatever man suffers is better than he deserves or can expect, absent God's grace. Although my initial reaction to the perspective is negative, one has to be honest and acknowledge that my orthodox faith is willing to consign non-believers to eternal damnation, which is altogether more severe than the trials and tribulations of the natural world.
Comments, points of clarifications?
Monday, May 05, 2003
The Christian Conscience points out that one problem in child-rearing is rebellious and radical personalities of the younger generation.
Quark Soup has pictures of the collapse of the "Old Man of the Mountain." Scratch one symbol of flint-like independence. I'd better get up to Yosemite, I understand there are few cracks appearing on Half Dome.
Re: "There's only one standard of morality in this country - If a conservative does it, he's gone."
I recall one of my college history professors noting that with respect to various Marxist "liberation" movements, that the only remaining Puritans to be found in the Twentieth Century were to be found on the Left. The Bennett flap seems to be a case in point. The hatchet job on Bennett is premised on the notion that gambling is a, gasp, sin and Bennett as a religious, "moralizing" person shouldn't be committing sins.
Well, get over it. Bennett is a Catholic and the Catholic tradition is surprisingly tolerant of vices. Catholics may in good conscience drink, dance, gamble and have rambunctious sex within a sacramental marriage. Mark Shea nails the moral dimension:
I'll concur, with this qualification: I don't get gambling at all. How many times do you have to prove the laws of probability and that house rules favor the house. Bennett's claim, as reported in this article that he has mostly broken even, is nonsense. Based on everyone who who tells me that they "broke even" when they get back from Vegas, I'd have to believe that Las Vegas is about to turn out the lights, if they were being truthful. Now, I can accept the argument that gamblers are purchasing entertainment, but they shouldn't delude themselves that they are doing anything other than pumping money into the casino coffers.
I, therefore, believe that Bennett has a problem. Further, even if his conduct is not per se sinful because he manages to gamble only his excess "entertainment" money, I have to believe that he is not following the course of moderation which is the beating heart of the Aristotelian ethos that is at the core of Christianity. Bennett's moral obligation is not only to avoid sin, but the "near occasion of sin" as well, and I think he probably is pretty shaky on that point. But notice that that critique is a far cry from the asserted absolutistist straw man that the libertine element wants to hold up as the image of orthodox morality.
As for the more cogent political point, I think Jonah Goldberg nails the political point. Like it or not, Bennett's personal behavior is personal until he runs for office. After that, go after him with a righteous fury. As for the implicit Clinton comparison, as an attorney who has made substantial sums off the laws that Bill Clinton's wing of the Democrat Party promoted after the Thomas Hearings, let me point out that sex with subordinates is not a private affair. However consensual the activity may have been, or appeared, at the time, I have seen numerous companies taken to the cleaners when the subordinate - usually female - was cast off and only then realized that she had been coerced into sex. Putting your company at risk of that kind of liability is a firing offense.
Update: Forget the above. Mark Cameron offers a salient reason for publicly vilifying Bennett.
I recall one of my college history professors noting that with respect to various Marxist "liberation" movements, that the only remaining Puritans to be found in the Twentieth Century were to be found on the Left. The Bennett flap seems to be a case in point. The hatchet job on Bennett is premised on the notion that gambling is a, gasp, sin and Bennett as a religious, "moralizing" person shouldn't be committing sins.
Well, get over it. Bennett is a Catholic and the Catholic tradition is surprisingly tolerant of vices. Catholics may in good conscience drink, dance, gamble and have rambunctious sex within a sacramental marriage. Mark Shea nails the moral dimension:
C.S. Lewis once remarked that he didn't offer advice to people about sins to which he himself was not tempted. I try to do the same thing. I've never felt the urge to gamble and I therefore don't know what constitutes too much vs. just enough gambling. It seems to be somehow to be a bigger deal to Puritans than to Catholics and America, being a nation of apostate puritans, has its undies in a bunch over it, especially Democrats, who are the most apostate puritans of all. Me: I don't much care as long as it was his own money and he didn't bankrupt his fambly. Next story, please.
I'll concur, with this qualification: I don't get gambling at all. How many times do you have to prove the laws of probability and that house rules favor the house. Bennett's claim, as reported in this article that he has mostly broken even, is nonsense. Based on everyone who who tells me that they "broke even" when they get back from Vegas, I'd have to believe that Las Vegas is about to turn out the lights, if they were being truthful. Now, I can accept the argument that gamblers are purchasing entertainment, but they shouldn't delude themselves that they are doing anything other than pumping money into the casino coffers.
I, therefore, believe that Bennett has a problem. Further, even if his conduct is not per se sinful because he manages to gamble only his excess "entertainment" money, I have to believe that he is not following the course of moderation which is the beating heart of the Aristotelian ethos that is at the core of Christianity. Bennett's moral obligation is not only to avoid sin, but the "near occasion of sin" as well, and I think he probably is pretty shaky on that point. But notice that that critique is a far cry from the asserted absolutistist straw man that the libertine element wants to hold up as the image of orthodox morality.
As for the more cogent political point, I think Jonah Goldberg nails the political point. Like it or not, Bennett's personal behavior is personal until he runs for office. After that, go after him with a righteous fury. As for the implicit Clinton comparison, as an attorney who has made substantial sums off the laws that Bill Clinton's wing of the Democrat Party promoted after the Thomas Hearings, let me point out that sex with subordinates is not a private affair. However consensual the activity may have been, or appeared, at the time, I have seen numerous companies taken to the cleaners when the subordinate - usually female - was cast off and only then realized that she had been coerced into sex. Putting your company at risk of that kind of liability is a firing offense.
Update: Forget the above. Mark Cameron offers a salient reason for publicly vilifying Bennett.
Saturday, May 03, 2003
Midwest Conservative Journalhas a surprisingly spirited take on the reaction to the Pope's recent encyclical on the Eucharist.
Woohoo!
The Dante's Inferno Test has sent you to Purgatory!
Here is how you matched up against all the levels:
Take the Dante's Inferno Hell Test
The Dante's Inferno Test has sent you to Purgatory!
Here is how you matched up against all the levels:
| Level | Score |
|---|---|
| Purgatory (Repenting Believers) | High |
| Level 1 - Limbo (Virtuous Non-Believers) | High |
| Level 2 (Lustful) | High |
| Level 3 (Gluttonous) | Low |
| Level 4 (Prodigal and Avaricious) | Very Low |
| Level 5 (Wrathful and Gloomy) | Low |
| Level 6 - The City of Dis (Heretics) | Very Low |
| Level 7 (Violent) | Moderate |
| Level 8- the Malebolge (Fraudulent, Malicious, Panderers) | Low |
| Level 9 - Cocytus (Treacherous) | Very Low |
Take the Dante's Inferno Hell Test
Friday, May 02, 2003
Ninomania has some thoughts on the Cross-burning decision and the speech/acts distinction.
KEN LAYNE has a post indicating that the substantial looting from Baghdad's National Museum was maybe 25 pieces. When I first heard the story, I was alarmed and, quite naturally, felt that America might have some responsibility. On further reflection, I tentatively suggested that the evidence wasn't in and that it could well have been the case that it was an inside job by Baathists or Museum employees. It looks like that tentative suggestion might have merit.
But, really, why was it that we all jump to the conclusion of American culpability? It really was a ridiculous proposition. Bombs were being dropped, for Heaven's sake. Was it really unreasonable to believe that the curators would have, or should have, moved their treasures to a secure location? Didn't the fact that it appeared that they had taken no security measures, according to their account, sound suspicious? I know that when a restaurant burns down in Fresno, I start wondering about whether the restaurant was losing money and if it had insurance.
But we all initially accepted the looting story without exercising our critical facilities. Why is that? Well, to extend extend an observation made by Robert Heinlein in Glory Road, at least four decades of the media, academia and certain prominent Americans beating the drum that America's motives or interests or illegitimate or immoral are bound to have some effect.
But, really, why was it that we all jump to the conclusion of American culpability? It really was a ridiculous proposition. Bombs were being dropped, for Heaven's sake. Was it really unreasonable to believe that the curators would have, or should have, moved their treasures to a secure location? Didn't the fact that it appeared that they had taken no security measures, according to their account, sound suspicious? I know that when a restaurant burns down in Fresno, I start wondering about whether the restaurant was losing money and if it had insurance.
But we all initially accepted the looting story without exercising our critical facilities. Why is that? Well, to extend extend an observation made by Robert Heinlein in Glory Road, at least four decades of the media, academia and certain prominent Americans beating the drum that America's motives or interests or illegitimate or immoral are bound to have some effect.
Thursday, May 01, 2003
Dumbfounded. I am just dumbfounded by this post at Indymedia [via The OmbudsGod] which argues that 9/11 was a hoax. And, yet, I just know that within a year bits and pieces of this is going to be conventional wisdom.
Free Speech Anyone, Part II.
Hollywood Idiots has a post about how Boycott Hollywood was shut down. Because Boycott Hollywood was annoying gauchista SAG members, attorneys for the William Morris Agency wrote a "cease and desist" letter to Boycott Hollywood's website administrator and others. Boycott's domain registrar apparently seized upon the fact that Boycott's proprietors in an attempt to protect their privacy gave bogus contact information to shut Boycott Hollywood down. I would be surprised if such a practice was not entirely common in the paranoid and anonymous world of the internet.
A couple of points. I am not a First Amendment absolutist. Never have been, never will be, because of this kind of hypocrisy. The Left talks a good game about absolute First Amendment protections against both legal and social pressures and then goes silent when the ox that is gored is not a dues paying gauchista.
Second, I would think that the William Morris Agency better watch its own six o'clock. In California there is this tort called "interference with contract." Although the registrar may have had the legal right to terminate Boycott's contract, under California law, although a contract may be terminable at the will of one of the parties to the contract, that is simply not a defense to interference with Boycott's contractual rights. If the contract was interfered with through some "wrongful means," such fraud or defamation, then Boycott may have a viable claim against the William Morris Agency. By the way, threatening criminal prosecution in order to obtain an advantage in a civil action is a per se wrongful act. You can ask any attorney or look it up in Rule of Professional Conduct 5 - 100.
Third, what was it that caused the William Morris Agency to claim that there were potential civil and criminal penalties? It was allegations that certain celebrities opposed the war. So what? Hollywood celebrities are public figures by definition. They have the ability to correct the public record through the marketplace of ideas. Too bad for their sensitivities.
Hollywood Idiots has a post about how Boycott Hollywood was shut down. Because Boycott Hollywood was annoying gauchista SAG members, attorneys for the William Morris Agency wrote a "cease and desist" letter to Boycott Hollywood's website administrator and others. Boycott's domain registrar apparently seized upon the fact that Boycott's proprietors in an attempt to protect their privacy gave bogus contact information to shut Boycott Hollywood down. I would be surprised if such a practice was not entirely common in the paranoid and anonymous world of the internet.
A couple of points. I am not a First Amendment absolutist. Never have been, never will be, because of this kind of hypocrisy. The Left talks a good game about absolute First Amendment protections against both legal and social pressures and then goes silent when the ox that is gored is not a dues paying gauchista.
Second, I would think that the William Morris Agency better watch its own six o'clock. In California there is this tort called "interference with contract." Although the registrar may have had the legal right to terminate Boycott's contract, under California law, although a contract may be terminable at the will of one of the parties to the contract, that is simply not a defense to interference with Boycott's contractual rights. If the contract was interfered with through some "wrongful means," such fraud or defamation, then Boycott may have a viable claim against the William Morris Agency. By the way, threatening criminal prosecution in order to obtain an advantage in a civil action is a per se wrongful act. You can ask any attorney or look it up in Rule of Professional Conduct 5 - 100.
Third, what was it that caused the William Morris Agency to claim that there were potential civil and criminal penalties? It was allegations that certain celebrities opposed the war. So what? Hollywood celebrities are public figures by definition. They have the ability to correct the public record through the marketplace of ideas. Too bad for their sensitivities.
I have never read a more concise description of Penner's coffee.
James Lileks has an aptitude for metaphor unseen since Chandler. Check this out:
James Lileks has an aptitude for metaphor unseen since Chandler. Check this out:
And I do. I’m an all-day coffee man. I have my last cup around eight at night. I grind it so fine it’s weaponized. But I’ll never nuke that last half-inch in the pot; that’s wrong. You might as well just swab a knitting needle with speed and jab it in your soft palate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
