Short Rant on Stupid Biases Against Faith
Here's a little rant for you all. It was triggered by a New York Times column showing how Bush's crazy faith and fundamentalism will be the doom of us all. Really people, if you're gonna talk about faith, could you at least get a basic idea of what it is first? Anyway, here it goes:
Yes! This article is absolutely right: religious people hate facts, are anti-intellectuals and can't wait to find a chance to impose our oppressive and backward beliefs on reasonable, progressive people. Too bad they won't leave their biased shells and looked at reality for a bit. Can't they realize that modern reason overrides and contradicts their ridiculous faith?
Ah yes, modern reason, that beautiful muse which brought us such fruits as the wisdom of Derrida (who pointed out to us that nothing really means anything), the coherence of Nietzsche (who emancipated us with his great motto of "Why not live a lie?"... and really, why not?), or the compassion of Professor Peter Singer from Princeton University (who revealed that infanticide, and I mean that as "disposing" of already-born babies, is perfectly OK and should be legalized). Really, who could ask for more?
Never mind that Christianity provided the moral, intellectual, cultural and artistic backbone of Western Civilization... Mere trifles. Now we know better. Now columnists in the New York Times can free us from the delusions of Pascal, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, Kirkegaard, Tolstoy, Etienne Gilson, G.K. Chesterton, Mother Theresa, C.S. Lewis, a host of modern physicists (i.e., Paul Davies, Henry F. Schaefer), millions upon millions of believers, and other imbeciles of their sort. Be glad world! Ron Suskind of the Times will set you free. Free from that ignorant cage of Christ.
And yet from my cage I wonder... Why do I feel so free?
Apocalypse NOW?!?!
It seems like the end of the world is getting dangerously close. I give a lot of credence to Peter Kreeft, who in an interview at Boston College stated the following:
I'm working on a novel that really isn't a novel, but a fictional set of documents that give you an angel's eye view of the connection between Jesus Christ, dead Vikings, the St. Michael statue in Gasson Hall, hopelessly Victorian romantics, (...)and the end of the world. I hope to get it done before that last item happens. Every September, I speed up if the Red Sox have any chance to get into the World Series, because that would be the apocalypse.
Things are getting darn scary with this Red Sox winning streak.
Please Pray For Terry and Margaret
Their lives are in grave danger as you read this. One is in a
hospital in Florida and the other is held by terrorists in Iraq. Please pray that God will be with them and their families in these difficult times they are facing. Please pray also for those that are threatening their lives.
Bad Idea?
I realize that the following is probably not a good idea, since the few visitors I have will probably flee from my blog after such a boring post; however, I don't have time to write anything else right now, and you may find it "educational." In any case, the following is a paper I wrote last week for American Diplomatic History describing the way in which Unilateralism was first adopted as a main foreign policy strategy of the United States. Since I haven't gotten it back yet, we can even play a game... just read it and then make bets on what my grade will be. Enjoy!
Unilateralism in the Forge
Within the context of today’s international system, the term “unilateralism” seems to have the ring of a nasty word. In certain circles, the word can call to mind images of imperialism, interventionism, oppression and even abuse. However, as far as concerns the United States, it may be said that it was precisely to avoid such dangers that Unilateralism arose as a foreign policy tradition in the first place. Formally, this particular approach to international relations was established by President Washington (and his co-author, Alexander Hamilton) during his 1796 Farewell Address as an equally idealistic and realistic strategy, which declared that it must be the United States’ “true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world so far as we are now at liberty to do it.” Although it is clear that Washington’s pronouncement was neither unanimously accepted nor actually revolutionary, it remains as a point of reference that should be properly comprehended by those who wish to find their way within the country’s international relations roadmap. To develop such an understanding of the Farewell Address, it is necessary to study more closely the foreign policy principles which it champions, as well as the main ideas and events that helped to usher-in its inception. After such an analysis, it will be clear that the tradition of Unilateralism was indeed adopted both on idealistic and realistic grounds.
If one had to briefly sum up the foreign policy principles put forth by Washington and Hamilton, it might be said that they consisted in (1) suspicion of European powers and their manipulative diplomacy, (2) opposition to permanent alliances with other states, (3) respecting but not prolonging existing alliances, and (4) accepting “temporary alliances [only] for extraordinary emergencies.” However, all this can be further summarized in the words of Thomas Jefferson as a call for “no entangling alliances.” As explained by Dr. Walter McDougall in Promised Land, Crusader State, the authors of the Farewell Address hoped that such a policy would allow them to avoid becoming pawns of Europe while upholding liberty at home (McDougall, p. 42). McDougall points out that this was a sensible approach given that:
First, if the United States became enmeshed in war and imperialism on the European model, it would have to raise large armies and navies, tax and conscript its people, and generally compromise domestic freedom, the Republic’s raison d’être. Second, if it became enmeshed in Europe’s conflicts, the United States would be forced to play junior partner in alliances with mighty empires, perhaps losing, or losing sight of, its own national interests, Third, if it became enmeshed in foreign conflicts, the European powers would compete for Americans’ affections, corrupt their politics with propaganda and bribes, and split them into factions. Fourth, if the United States joined in Europe’s rivalries, the arenas of battle would surely include America’s own lands and waters, as they had for over a century (McDougall, p. 42).
Thus, since these policies were not only crafted to respond in an adequate manner to the international relations challenges of the time, but were also aimed at preserving domestic freedom (one of the nation’s key values), it may be logically concluded that Unilateralism was simultaneously an idealistic and realistic tradition.
As must be clear, however, Unilateralism did not arise in an ideological vacuum. Indeed, this foreign policy approach was constructed on the foundation of another American tradition that reaches back to the very foundation of the country and may be considered somewhat of a truism or even a cliché: the idea of American “Exceptionalism,” or as McDougall prefers, Liberty. This broad idea had many different manifestations, but in general all that held it viewed the nascent state as a sort of beacon of freedom that was critically different from the societies of the Old World. “Exceptionalism” viewed the United States as special due to its rich and extensive lands that were separated from Europe by an ocean, to its varied and fertile population “drawn from several nations…and religious denominations,” and to its tradition of self-government (McDougall, p. 16). Furthermore, Americans cherished religious freedom (though understood in a more limited manner than today), civil liberties, free trade and representative government (McDougall, p. 18-21; LaFeber, p. 8-12). How, then, did this idealistic tradition on the domestic level affect the conduct of American foreign policy? The short answer to this is that while at times there were drives to either export these ideals in a crusading manner or apply them to diplomacy through a rejection of power politics, certain events that Americans had to confront led them to the understanding that such efforts would only be self-defeating and that foreign policy should just remain an instrument to ensure that Liberty was preserved within the nation.
During the years leading up to the formulation of Unilateralism as a foreign policy tradition in 1796, several events connected to the French Revolution, convinced Hamilton and Washington, as well as many other Americans, that such as strategy was necessary to prevent foreign intrigues from disturbing the nature of the domestic American system. When revolution broke out in France in 1789, Americans for a while became increasingly enthusiastic about the prospect of having a sister republic working with the hostile Atlantic system of imperial powers. Thus, when republican France declared war on monarchical Europe, many Americans saw it as natural to align themselves with the French against their British enemies. Although no such alignment ever actually occurred, and although most Americans actually favored the policy of strict neutrality put forth by the government, the interesting thing is that the mere desire of some to favor one nation over another had a significant effect within the country’s domestic arena (McDougall, p. 29). In fact, McDougall states that this question engendered “an internal debate so agonizing that it gave birth to the American two-party system” (McDougall, p. 29). He then goes on to point out that, surprisingly enough, the driving force behind this debate was not even actual foreign policy (since very few Americans actually advocated entry into the European war), but rather concern for what a tilt toward France or Britain might mean in terms of domestic policy. Thus, the real problem was that “Democratic Republicans saw the Federalists’ pro-British stance as evidence of their favor for a hierarchical society at home, [while] Federalists saw the Democratic Republicans’ pro-French stance as indicative of their favor for extreme democracy at home” (McDougall, p. 29). The fact that such deep dilemmas could arise from the mere suggestion of aligning policy with a foreign state should be enough to advocate for a policy of unilateralism, but other related events were to make the choice an even clearer one.
It should be noted that if such profound divisions arose without the need of external assistance, foreign powers might well be tempted to manipulate so susceptible a population in order to satisfy their interests. Thus, it was not long before Edmond Charles “Citizen” Genêt arrived as minister from the French Republic to the United States with the mission of tipping the balance in favor of his country. Genêt attempted to use the support he initially received from much of the US population to turn public opinion away from a position of neutrality. When this failed, he began to covertly outfit ships to “prey on British merchantmen in American costal waters” and plotted to create anti-British militias throughout several regions of the continent (McDougall, p. 29). Although his designs generally met with failure and Washington soon demanded his recall, other foreign policy issues continued to create internal turmoil throughout this period. Indeed, a rather violent controversy arose when John Jay returned from Britain in 1794 after having negotiated a trade treaty with that country. Democratic Republicans accused Jay and other Federalists of being traitors, and these promptly returned their public insults in like manner. The struggle reached such a point that although Jay had gotten Britain to agree “to abandon its forts on the Great lakes and grant the United States ‘most favored nation’ status” the treaty remained without being ratified until the apparent treason of Edmund Randolph, Jefferson’s successor as Secretary of State, “demoralized the opposition” (McDougall, p. 30). The Randolph incident was yet another case of foreign meddling in domestic affairs. In this case, Randolph allegedly requested French funds in order to support the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania (McDougall, p. 30). Because of all of these disturbances which arose around the issue of aligning the United States with one country or another, it is no wonder that Hamilton and Washington concluded that “[t]he nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave.” Thus, the authors of the “Farewell Address” must have been convinced that Unilateralism was both a realistic policy that protected the state from foreign manipulation and an idealistic approach that preserved the tradition of Liberty in the domestic arena.
It should be clear, therefore, that the foreign policy principles enshrined in Washington’s “Farewell Address,” which outline the strategy of Unilateralism, were constructed on equally idealistic and realistic foundations. As they engaged other countries within the international system, Americans learned that the only manner to preserve the idealistic values on which their nation thrived was to limit the scope of these to the domestic arena. Americans also learned that at the time, it was necessary to conduct diplomacy in a realistic manner that strictly served US interests without making the country an easy target for foreign manipulation. Thus, although the current emphasis on multilateralism and international law tends to give the concept of “unilateralism” negative connotations, one must realize that under certain circumstances this does not have to be the case. The adoption of Unilateralism as a foreign policy tradition during the early history of the United States, which allowed this country to strengthen its republic while deflecting foreign interference, may arguably be seen as a necessary step in the creation of the more liberal international system which exists today and that this nation helped to establish. Students of history and international relations should thus pay close attention to the context within which foreign policies are developed before venturing to make what may turn out to be fallacious generalizations.
Fellowship 9/11
Click
here for Michael Moore's behind-the-scenes look into the latest Middle Earth conspiracy!
Father of Deconstructionism Dies
The following is an excerpt from an article in ScrappleFace.com regarding the death of Jacques Derrida, the 'father' of deconstructionism. I warn, however, that I take no responsibility for any 'misquoting' that might be found within the text. To read the whole article, click
here.
(2004-10-10) -- French President Jacques Chirac announced today that Jacques Derrida, the father of the intellectual movement called deconstructionism, died yesterday of pancreatic cancer, "if indeed 'death' can be said to mean anything beyond the biases of culture, language, religion and philosophy."
"Of course, we can't assert anything positively about Monsieur Derrida's recent failure to exist," said Mr. Chirac, "We can't even state that he ever did exist, since he may have been a mere metaphysical projection of our own prejudices against absolutes. However, in as much as we may categorically claim anything--Mr. Derrida will not likely be showing up for work tomorrow. Although, who is to say?"
(...)In lieu of flowers, friends of Mr. Derrida are urged to devote their lives to convincing at least one young person that there is nothing to which it is worth devoting one's life.
Mythopoeia
(An excerpt from Tolkien's poem about the importance of myths.)
Blessed are the legend-makers with their rhyme
of things not found within record time.
It is not they that have forgot the Night,
or bid us flee to organized delight,
in lotus-isles of economic bliss
forswearing souls to gain a Circe-kiss
(and counterfeit at that, machine-produced,
bogus seduction of the twice-seduced).
To read the whole poem, click
here.
The Big Lie
Professor Robert George over at Princeton University highlights in a short article what is a cruel lie that has been pushed forth by the Kerry campaign. It seems that after all the rhetoric, Kerry doesn't "believe in science" quite enough to actually be clear about the facts. You can find the full article at
NRO.
Every reporter covering the election should, after the second presidential debate in St. Louis, be demanding of Kerry an answer to the following question: Who are the scientists who told you that "we have the option" of curing Parkinson's, diabetes, spinal-cord injuries, or any other disease using embryonic stem cells? If they won't ask him, the Bush campaign should defy him to name the names. He won't be able to do it. No scientists - even those most pro-Kerry and aggressively in favor of the federal funding of embryo-destructive research - ever told Kerry any such thing.
What Kerry has done here is told the big lie about embryonic stem cells. The claim that "we have the option" of curing Parkinson's disease, diabetes, etc. with embryonic stem cells is outrageous.
(...)For months now, the Kerry campaign and its surrogates, such as Ron Reagan Jr., have cruelly led suffering people to believe that cures for their diseases are just around the corner. All we have to do is replace Bush with Kerry, open the federal funding spigot, and presto! The blind see and the lame walk! The Kerry campaign's hyping of embryo-destructive research for political gain is the cruelest and most shameful episode in the story of the 2004 election.
What Elizabeth Long (the woman who asked Kerry the stem-cell question) said is true: "Thousands of people have already been cured or treated by the use of adult stem cells or umbilical-cord stem cells. However, no one has been cured by using embryonic stem cells. Wouldn't it be wise to use stem cells obtained without the destruction of an embryo?"
Kerry answered with a lie. A lie that will falsely inflate the hopes of countless people who would dearly love to believe that "we have the option" of curing them.
- Robert P. George is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and director of the James Madison Program at Princeton University.
There ARE non-problematic alternatives to embryonic stem-cell research. There are even techniques being developed to give adult stem-cells the characteristics of embryonic ones. Any reasonable person should be able to admit that this is at least a truly contentious moral issue, why not use means that are ethically sound?
Invitation to a Model-UN Party at Penn
(I got this yesterday on an email from the International Affairs Association at Penn. This just proves our status as geeks beyond the shadow of a doubt!)
George: Hey John, what are you doing tonight after I kick your ass in the debate?
John: Well, dubya, I'm gonna need something to alleviate the pain of sound defeat... something being great music, dance, drinks, and the IAA
(Crowd goes wild)
George: I concur. We'll go together in a bipartisan venture. Let's invade Vinayak's house, "search for weapons of mass destruction" and get 'blasted'.
John: What about the wives?
George: Whatever.
John: Theresa's gonna be really angry.
George: Dude...
John: Okay. I'll vote in favor of your decision, like I always do.
George: Great, then I can show you how to drink, Johnny boy.
John: I'm sure you will. I'm sure you will.
That's right. After the debate tonight, come to 3922 Sansom for the IAA party!!!! Starting at 10:30, Iota Alpha Alpha brings you our first party of the year!
See you all there!
Cheers
Mat
An Unusual Storyteller
I was walking towards my room today after barely surviving the attack of an Econ Midterm (vicious creatures, they are), when I heard the voice of a storyteller calling out to me. She offered me a seat, and asked me to pay close attention. I must admit that I was a little startled at first, but her voice was soothing. Tired and sick as I was, I promptly accepted. I sat down and stared at her with curiosity, as she faced the other way. It was then that she began her story.
She told me of a happy time, a time of mirth, and clearly a time of love. Two people were dancing, making beautiful shapes over the earth. The mere rumor of their names brought warmth to the soul.
But as the great ball went on, something happened. Something, no one really knows what, drew the two dancers apart. And so a great search began, sad and desperate, but desperately hopeful. It went on for hours, days, ages. It had a purpose, but it had no end.
Or so it seemed. For in the frenzied sadness of this search, two hands suddenly clasped, and recognized each other all at once. The dance began anew! Only this time it was more glorious and joyous than ever, and continued throughout the night under the watch of the moon.
The storyteller's voice went silent, and only then did I realize that she had used no words at all.
"That was beautiful. Why have I never met you before?" I asked. And she said I was simply not paying attention.
"What is your name then?" I demanded.
"Classical Music," she said.
At this point, the two girls playing the piano and the violin turned around and saw me watching them. Feeling a little awkward, I quickly stepped out of the room.
Survivors of a World-Wide War
You must have heard about the war by now. Or haven't you? It's killing millions every year. No one it targets seems to stand a chance. After all, how could they? And yet, some have actually lived to tell the tale. The tale of
surviving abortion, that is.
In 1978, Tina Huffman was a pregnant, unwed 17-year-old from a broken, dysfunctional home. Her mom and dad, as well as her boyfriend’s parents, adamantly insisted she had only one option: abortion. Tina yielded to their demands and had a suction abortion. But the abortionist "missed" Baby Heidi, even though he took most of the placenta and amniotic fluid. Heidi was delivered by C-section several months later.
Heidi says something that really struck me:
"I believe that all young people are survivors of abortion, just like I am, because they too could have been killed under the current policy of our government, which declared us "non-persons" when we were in the womb."
I had never thought about it that way. Thanks Mom, for choosing life!
