No Offense Intended

Victims of the Colorado theater shooting are “offended” by the reopening and remembrance ceremonies. Liberals are “offended” by conservative efforts to uphold the 2nd amendment. A female employee is “offended” by a Gaugin print of semi-nude woman in a co-worker’s office. An atheist parent is “offended” because his daughter has to say “under God” in the pledge.

Our society has allowed offense to be confused with harm. A different opinion is now considered offensive. Marcus Aurelius said if you remove the opinion, you remove the complaint; remove the complaint and you remove the offense. Our society needs to pause and remember the basis of its founding. Many of our founders came here because they couldn’t openly express their opinions. They fought a war of liberation from England to establish a place where contrasting opinions could be freely expressed. We are gradually losing that freedom.

Greg Gutfield made a good point on Fox News' The Five last week. Liberals generally see their ideas as open-minded while they see conservative ideas as evil. Gutfeld's liberal co-host, Bob Beckel, repeatedly called the NRA a "bunch of thugs." He conceives of those who champion the idea that US citizens have the right to bear arms as "thugs," but liberals who seek to undermine or redefine the Second Amendment as noble. Beckel's "thugs" employ rational arguments about the meaning of the Constitution; his liberal peers attempt to cash in on the emotional trauma following shootings like Newtown. As I tell my Comp students, arguments based solely on pathos (emotion) are weaker than those based on logos (reason.) The real thugs are the ones who would manipulate others with tear stained pleas instead of rational arguments.

The same kind of disparity occurs in debates about the place of religion in society. Sharing Islam, Buddhism or Eastern mysticism is fine, but mention anything having a Christian connection and it is immediately singled out by the ACLU as a First Amendment violation. A corollary to this is found in what might be called nationalism. The manic emphasis on multiculturalism that infects academia today seems oblivious to the fact that America has a culture too, and by virtually criminalizing any act of patriotism or expression of national pride, they discriminate against the native culture. How we came to despise national pride is befuddling.

According to Neil Cavuto, his Mom used to say you can tell a lot about a person by what upsets them: little things -- little person; petty things -- petty person. Neil included this in his monologue, "Life is short; that doesn’t mean we have to be." It is on my list of recommended viewing. An exchange one might have heard years ago seems unlikely today: "No offense intended," says the gentleman. "None taken," responds the scholar. Or as the Apostle Paul recommended to the Romans, don't go around picking fights (12:18, my translation.) Open, rational debate is the sine qua non of our government and society. But when debate descends to dismissive demogoging and derisive name-calling it ceases to be helpful. It becomes offensive in the true sense of the word; it creates harm.

Words Have Meaning

I watched some of the coverage of President Obama’s inaugural speech. I couldn’t watch it all. My excuse for leaving mid-speech was to attend my next class of the day, but I would have made up another excuse if it hadn’t been that. I just couldn’t stand to watch.

Barak Obama is a fine looking, well spoken man. His presentation is so sincere, so believable, his manner so presidential that I am not surprised at his popularity in spite of his accomplishments – or should I say lack of accomplishments. I will not repeat his resume as community organizer and short term Senator during which time he mostly voted “present.” I will not rehash the list of 2008 campaign promises he failed to accomplish. I will not remind the reader that his first four years produced no measurable improvement in the worst economy since the Great Depression. A track record is of no consequence to a man who looks and sounds as good as Barak Obama.

And he does sound good. If you know nothing of his policies and their historical record of failure, you can swoon with the rest of the 53% who wanted four more years of him. But for anyone with a modicum of sense and a perspective that includes more than two minutes of history, this President’s speeches are unbearable. There is no good way to explain the disparity between what the man says and what he has done (or not done.) He is either a pathological liar or he has a severe mental disability which causes him to disregard the requirements of logic and morality. I don’t think he is disabled.

He makes sweeping statements about his vision for America that sound good, yet his meaning is hidden behind the lovely words he uses. For example, he claims to want America's position in the world arena strengthened. A review of his policies leads to the conclusion that by strength he means likability. He actually said, in a rare moment of clarity, that he believes we can talk our enemies into better relations. That sounds wonderful, but it is disconnected from the realities of a modern world fraught with ancient religious fanaticism. There have been radical Islamists since Mohammad invented the religion. The difference now is the tools they have at their disposal. On camel back with a sword, the radical jihadist was no threat to civilization at large. Armed with box cutters that granted access to 747's, they shook our very foundations.

Similar disconnects inhabit his domestic policies. His opening remarks included the statement that, "We bear witness to the enduring strength of our Constitution." Only a blind deaf mute who lives under a rock could have missed the fact that the Constitution has been under attack by this President since before he was elected. The hottest current battle is his open assault on the Second Amendment in the aftermath of Newtown. But there is also his arrogant ignoring of Constitutional requirements to reveal his regulatory schedule (see Tsunami Warning.) There was his First Amendment attack on religious liberty when he tried to force the Catholic church to pay for employees' birth control. Then there is his apparent disregard for the separation of powers by which the Constitution gives certain duties to Congress and he feels at liberty to subvert.

A theme Obama carried throughout his speech was "we the people." He said that, "The patriots of 1776 did not fight to replace the tyranny of a king with the privileges of a few." And yet virtually all his actions privilege the few. He is most egregious in his abuse of his position, jetting about the globe for junkets and family vacations spending millions of taxpayer dollars on his and his family's entertainment. Doling out "stimulus" money to those who supported his campaign (think Solyndra) privileges the few. Thwarting attempts to learn the truth about his administration's behavior (think Benghazi or "Fast and Furious") privileges the few. Excusing outright illegal activity of his associates (think Timothy Geitner) privileges the few. One must wonder who "we" is to Obama.

I could go on, but I must stop for the same reason I couldn't listen to the whole speech; this is what this President does to me: he makes me crazy. His words don't mean anything, or rather, his words mean something different to him than to the reasonable man listening to him. Jesus' brother James said, "Let your yes be yes and your no, no lest you fall into judgment." Barak Obama is tumbling headlong into judgment by this standard. Speaking in the context of the verbal gymnastics former President Clinton employed, Rush Limbaugh used to say, "Words have meaning." It is impossible to judge the meaning of the golden words in bowls of silver delivered by our President. I hope that in four years enough of us will be tired of it to elect someone who simply says what he means and means what he says. What a relief that will be.

Anybody Hear a Fiddle?

I have nothing against violins, really!

I have been trying not to rant about the nonsense going on in Washington D.C. since the fiscal cliff non-event, but it is a target-rich environment that I can no longer avoid. The Republicans held a three day retreat this week before going home for the weekend. Some people wonder why folks who have a three day work week need a retreat, but I understand that Congress does not have to be in session for my elected official to be “working.” In fact, with all the arcane shenanigans that hobble true accomplishment in government, maybe not being at the Capitol leads to more work actually getting done.

Anyway, according to The Hill, the GOP went off to Williamsburg to seek unity as a party after the fractious fiscal cliff fiasco. The concept sounds great; the question becomes what they will unify around. Hugh Hewitt has a great satire of what the welcoming speech should have sounded like on his blog. Hewitt’s point is well taken: the current face of the GOP is as telling as a poker player holding a royal flush. It is unclear if they really stand for anything, which according to popular wisdom means they are primed to fall for anything.

Perhaps the poet in me makes me more attuned to curious metaphors than most, but I could not help seeing the irony of a keynote speaker at the GOP retreat being blind. Erik Weihenmayer was the first blind person to climb Mt. Everest, so there is reason to believe he can help the Republicans. They have a mountain to climb, and they have been acting as if they are blind recently. To extend the metaphor, perhaps Weihenmayer can provide a few tips regarding preparation and equipment necessary to scale the heights of the debt ceiling debate which looms before them.

As Charles Krauthamer said on O’Reilly this Tuesday, President Obama has been consistent in his approach to the fiscal problems facing the country. He has not been providing serious plans to avert the cliff or solve the bigger issues; his strategy has always been to add gasoline to the flaming factions within the Republican Party to render them impotent. Back to Hewitt’s point, the GOP has not presented any real solutions either (if you discount Ryan’s budget plan of campaign days and a few other unsupported efforts.) The best defense against Obama’s tactics would be to propose real solutions and force up or down votes in Congress. Maybe they would only be congratulated by half the country, the other half not wishing to lose their entitlements, but at least they would stand for something.

The Bible says, “where there is no vision the people perish.” We are dying out here in “Red State America.” As Dorothy said when the strange landscape of Oz overwhelmed her, “We’re not in Kansas anymore, Toto.” Neither are we, if by Kansas we are referring to Cohen and Winston’s What’s the Matter with Kansas? The ideals that spawned the Tea Party seem to be forgotten or ignored in Washington these days. Just like buying a vowel on Wheel of Fortune to make sense of a puzzle, I wish we could buy an idea in the game Congress is playing. Could this be why Nero fiddled while Rome burned?

High Resolution Living

Living 1366x768 24/7/365 is where it's at.

This post is for the guys. We are not making any New Year's resolutions here. Real men don't make resolutions; they don't eat quiche, and they don't carry "man bags." Okay, maybe a really good quiche once in a while, but definitely no purses, no matter what they call them. Real men know who they are and always do what's best so resolutions would be pointless. You can't improve on perfection.

Contrary to some opinion, real men are in touch with their "feminine side" though. I came to this conclusion recently with a modicum of humble contrition. The other day I walked into the kitchen to pour myself another cup of coffee and "noticed" the sparkling clean sink. I "realized" it looked really good nestled in the uncluttered and crumbless counter. When it hit me that I was admiring something as mundane as a clean sink, it also hit me that I had felt compelled to clean said sink earlier that morning after removing the dirty dishes and daily detritus from the surrounding surfaces. It occurred to me that I had no recollection of having such feelings before.

Almost a year ago my wife fell at work and has been on the DL ever since. During her time on the bench, I pitched in a little more than usual with housework. Actually, I started with the increased innings back when my trucking career went kaput following the demise of Michigan's auto industry. I had been AWOL for almost twelve years, being on the road four or five nights every week. Even though she worked full time as a teacher, she still did the lion's share of the housework. (We might have to rethink using "lion's share" given the performance of a certain Detroit sports franchise.)

Now I walk toward the living room and the dust bunnies and crumbs on the hardwood (that seem to be manufactured endlessly) fairly shout at me in the reflected light of the front windows. That moves me to pull out the electric sweeper and drag it around the room. That process ends with a trip to the laundry room to empty the sweeper and I find the cat's litter box is filled with clumps and turds. Several years ago I bought my wife (it's her cat) an automatic electric box cleaner, but it has died and refreshing the litter has become a manual labor. So I do it.

Only those who know me very well realize what an admission that is. I hate cats. Really. Hate. The only thing worse than having a cat in the house is having a littler box for the cat in the house. But I realize that the bending and raking and scooping to clean the box is hard on my wife's back, so it gets done less regularly than I would like. (One stipulation for allowing a cat was that I must never, never smell the litter box, ever.) So I clean the litter box occasionally.

One may wonder how a cat ever got into our house in the first place. Here's more of the "feminine side" revealed. My wife looked at me with big sad eyes when our last cat died (one of the kid's beasts) and said that it was lonely with me gone four or five days in a row and a cat would keep her company. I think she may have also intimated that a cat would surely be preferable to her finding a man to replace me, but that may just have been something I imagined. Anyway, she got her replacement cat.

My point in all this is that the resolution of my life view has sharpened of late. Living in HD, someone has said, means really noticing the little things, and after noticing them, doing something about what can be done. After forty-plus years of marriage I realize that my view of life has often resembled the look of my brother-in-law's B/W rabbit-eared 19 inch set on which we used to "watch" hockey. The conversation during the games went like, "There. I think that was the puck. Didn't somebody just skate down the ice?" Lot's of snow, if you know what I mean.

So, guys, no New Years resolutions. Just check the resolution on your world-view screen. Make sure it's set to to highest setting you have available. Living with high-def vision will allow you to "see" the holes in the defense, the openings in the outfield, whatever the metaphor. Do you have a wife? Do you love her? Got kids? Care about them? Live so the people around you see the highest resolution picture of what you think of them. It's not girly to be really clear about what matters to you.

Besides, a vacuum is a tool, right? Laundry is kind of a science project involving chemicals and a large agitating apparatus. I've discovered that the joy of the hunt can even apply to finding that one thing on the grocery list that they hide in the least likely place. It is true that unless you have a CPL you will have to leave the firearm in the car when you hunt Meijer for the turkey, but life is full of compromises. The only unacceptable compromise is the one that asks you to compromise on principle: like carrying a purse or saying I really don't hate cats.

God's Choice or Man's

Spoiler alert: this post is an in-house argument that will bore non-believers.

There is a debate within the Church that has been going on since at least the fourth century. The early church considered arguments from a British monk named Pelagius and Augustine, the Bishop of Hippo, and in 418 finally denounced Pelagius' view and upheld Augustine's. Very briefly, the argument centered around the act of the human will in salvation. Pelagius believed that humans were capable of seeking God in their fallen state. Augustine taught total depravity, meaning that it is not possible for humans to seek God of their own will.

The issue made theological waves again in the 16th century when John Calvin and a former student, Jacob Arminius, became embroiled in it. Their names are most frequently associated with the debate today as Calvinism v. Arminianism. Arminius resurfaced most of Pelagius' argument with the modification that the human will was aided in seeking God by something that has come to be called "prevenient grace." In other words, humans are totally depraved, but everyone has the benefit of God's grace to come to salvation, not only those chosen by God before time.

An important corollary of this issue is referred to theologically as perseverance. Calvinists believe that people chosen by God for salvation are eternally secure in that state. Arminians teach that because humans play a part in their salvation, it is possible for them choose to reject salvation after having embraced it. The sovereignty of God is also understood differently by the two camps: Calvinists believe that God is totally sovereign in all his purposes and has ordained all that is and all that will be. Arminians believe that God's sovereignty is limited somewhat by the will of humans, but that his purposes are secured by his foreknowledge of what every human will do in every situation.

Each position has certain key Scriptures which are quoted as support. Likewise, there are Bible passages which vex each side, creating difficulties in maintaining a consistent interpretative position. One of the most sensitive sticking points is the Calvinist doctrine of election. I am going to treat two of the most frequently disputed passages as a demonstration of how the sides differ. I Timothy 2:1-4 has Paul exhorting prayers for all men because this is pleasing to God, "who desires all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth." Arminians think this proves that all humans may potentially be saved, not just the ones chosen by God as the Calvinists assert. Calvinists believe this presents God's loving heart toward his creation but not an aspect of his divine will.

The second passage often quoted by Arminians as closing the case against divine election is 2 Peter 3:9. Peter says that God is, "not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance." Like the passage in Timothy, this one suggests to Arminians that God doesn't want any human to go to hell, therefore implying that he makes salvation available to all. The Calvinist sees this verse as parallel to the one in Timothy. The Greek word "willing" is different in this passage from the word "desires" in Timothy, although they both carry the same connotation. Here in Peter, it would be easily translated "wishing."

In both passages the Arminians try to make God's attitude an action. But if God willed all men to be saved, they would in fact all be saved because God's will is omnipotent: nothing can resist the express will of God; it will be done. The statement that God desires something does not equate with its being a fact. Again, even if God wishes none would have to suffer punishment in hell, he nonetheless knows that hell will not be empty. Unless one chooses to side with the likes of Rob Bell and eliminate hell from the equation, one cannot avoid the sad fact that some humans are going to end up there. God may wish that it were otherwise, but he knows the future; he knows hell will be populated.

One imagines that when God created the earth and set Adam and Eve in the Garden, he "wished" that they would remain obediently dependent on him. He doubtless "desired" that they would not eat of the forbidden fruit. Yet the Bible clearly teaches that God's plan always included a Redeemer; the plan predates creation; he knew Adam and Eve would fall. The answer to why he did this is in Ephesians third chapter. Paul tells the Ephesians that God's mysterious plan is now revealed: he wants the angels in heaven to see how much he loves even fallen creatures. Man had to fall so that God could demonstrate his love in a most dramatic way.

The reason Arminian teaching is attractive, in my opinion, is because it takes back from God a small amount of control. The Calvinist sees God as the Sovereign of the universe and humans as subject to his irresistible divine will. In the Garden, the Serpent asked Eve, "Has God said..." He then challenged her to take some initiative and write her own rules. She did; Adam joined her, and we suffer the consequences. Yet even believers long for a degree of control over their lives; it is still difficult for some people to let go and let God.

I was raised Arminian; I "converted" to Calvinism after years of study and personal anguish. I have become quite comfortable letting God be God. This position does not make me a puppet as some may suggest. My finite little mind behaves practically as if it were totally free: I have free will as far as I can tell. When presented with options, I must choose black or white, salt or pepper. It matters not one whit that God has preordained my choice; it is still a real choice to me.

I had breakfast with a man last week who was raised Calvinist but has come to an Arminian view. I commented on the irony of our having passed one another in our theological journey going opposite directions. I look forward to the day when in heaven we can both approach John Calvin and Jacob Arminius and have a good laugh about the sign over the gate. On the outside it says, "Whosoever will may come," while on the inside it says, "Only the elect may enter." We'll all sit down over Dutch crullers and coffee and spend a thousand years pondering how that works.

Tsunami Warning

Beware: a massive regulatory wave approaches.

Elections have consequences; that is what the winners keep reminding us. Today we learned one of the consequences of the last two elections. The Obama administration has proposed nearly 6,000 new regulations in the last ninety days. In other words, since last August, when the reelection of President Obama was beginning to look chancy, his executive powers started working in overdrive. The regulations were put in a holding pattern until Obama's reelection was assured. Once Obama won, the tsunami of regulations was released (see Breitbart.com.)

Not only is this a direct contradiction to the candidate's promise to decrease business-stifling regulation, it turns out the President has also reneged on his claim that his administration would be open for public examination. The executive has also shortened the mandatory public comment window on proposed regulations from sixty to forty-five days. Since many of the new regs run into thousands of pages each, the likelihood of any real examination in that time is small. Foreshortening the comment period also contradicts Obama's previous call in an executive order released on January 18, 2011, for, "comment periods to last for at least 60 days." This must be another of the changes Obama was talking about in the 2008 campaign.

According to FactCheck.org, it is normal for Presidents to increase the pace of their executive creations in the final years of their term in office; it is called the Cinderella Effect. When the clock is about to strike the midnight of their power, they rush to make the most of their last minutes. What Obama has done is far in excess of any of  his predecessors, however. According to Town Hall, Obama averaged over 17,000 new regulations in each of his first two years. This number outstrips all previous administrations. Although his administration's 2012 rate of regulations is down, the number will explode when the 6,000 new rules he has held back hit the pipeline.

Besides all this, according to Senator Jim Inhofe, President Obama has failed to follow the rules regarding his regulatory agenda. Inhofe charges that the Obama administration has failed, "to comply with the law by refusing to publish its regulatory agenda." The purpose of providing such an agenda is to allow the effected parties enough time to practice due diligence and provide meaningful commentary during the public comment period. By refusing to publish the agenda and shortening the comment period, Obama has effectively shut off any real evaluation of his new proposals.

Back in 1773  the cry was "no taxation without representation." The new Tea Party should be chanting, "no regulation without representation." President Obama is achieving by fiat what he cannot by due legislative process. In his first two years, he had both houses of Congress, so they were able to ram Obamacare down our throats by legislative force. Since 2010 when the Democrats lost control of the House of Representatives, the tactic has been to use the power of the judiciary and executive, even at the expense of violating standard rules and practices.

Barak Obama is as President what he was back in his Chicago days: an arrogant, unprincipled ideologue. He believes he knows what is best for America, and he intends to make it happen any way he can. He appears not to mind bending the rules to the breaking point if it suits his purpose. Sadly, there are plenty of people in this country who have no more respect for rules than he does, so they applaud his bold style.

The Bible says that in the last days things will get worse and worse before the end comes. It predicts that men will behave badly and be proud of it. When I see the shameless depravity of our politicians, or think of the debauchery that is standard fare for Hollywood and television, or witness the audacity of the LGBT movement with their claims of legitimacy, or recoil at the flagrant violation of all that is fiscally responsible in Washington D.C.,  or mourn the millions of unborn children slaughtered since Roe v. Wade, I can't imagine a more striking fulfillment of those Bible words. Scripture also says there will be some in the last days who will remain righteous and "be mighty and do exploits." It's beginning to look like people just doing right will be the mighty exploit. The only exploit common in Washington these days seems to be those exploiting their public trust.

Christianity: Religion or Philosophy

Fox News' Bill O'Reilly has been a good soldier in the culture wars in recent years. In 2006 he even put out a best seller called Culture Warrior. He describes the opposing forces as, "those who embrace traditional values and those who want to change America into a 'secular-progressive' country." He makes it clear in his writing and on his television program that by "traditional values" he means the Judeo-Christian foundation on which this country was built.

O'Reilly's latest battle in the war is not going to be helpful in the long run, however. O'Reilly has been insisting recently that Christianity is a philosophy, not a religion. This position violates the "no-spin" pledge O'Reilly is so proud of. In an article in Real Clear Religion, Jeffrey Weiss makes my argument better than I could. (I highly recommend this article.) Trying to redefine a word so that it means what you want it to mean is Humpty-Dumpty's trick. It is not sound reasoning. I agree with Weiss that O'Reilly has done just this.

There are two reasons why this is an unfortunate move by O'Reilly. First it is unsustainable as a debate point. This is another way of saying he is wrong. There is such a thing as Christian philosophy, as Weiss points out. However, Christian philosophy is founded on Christian religious beliefs. The philosophy is an outgrowth of the religion, not the other way around as O'Reilly is trying to arrange. If someone came from another planet and stumbled upon the tenets of Christianity, it would be obvious that they are religious tenets. Weiss makes this point also.

The second reason O'Reilly's position is troublesome is that it becomes a classical slippery slope: if Christianity is merely a philosophy as he asserts, and if the Constitution forbids establishment only of religions, then the government could establish Christianity as a philosophy. While this may sound attractive to believers at first glance, it becomes less so upon further thought. This freedom to establish philosophy would then extend to atheism, pragmatism, nihilism, or any other dreadful "-ism" that might hold popular sway in a given Congress. This is precisely what the First Amendment prohibition against establishment was intended to thwart.

This does not mean that our government runs without philosophical underpinnings. Quite the contrary. No structure in human society is void of philosophy. The word "philosophy" simply describes how one views the world. It might be thought of as a lens through which one sees surrounding circumstances and behaviors. O'Reilly is correct to assert that our founding fathers held a decidedly Christian world-view and crafted a Constitutional government that would uphold and propagate that view.

Our real problem today is that a competing philosophy has grown so influential in society, particularly in government circles, that the Christian world-view no longer holds a clear majority. Our national elections which hover around a fifty-fifty split demonstrate this fact. True, there is not a bright line dividing Christianity into one political party or the other, although on the social issues, conservative Christians certainly lean more towards Republican platforms than Democrat. The battle we are fighting today in the public square is over Constitutional interpretation: will we maintain the perspective of the founders, or will we take a more dynamic approach and recast the principles upon which we govern.

We will continue to hold elections to decide the Constitutional issue, but I wonder if O'Reilly hasn't stumbled on a good argument in spite of his faulty application. Christianity as a philosophy is precisely what the Bible calls for: believers are supposed to view the world through God's eyes. "Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things." Even though seventy-five percent of Americans polled recently self-identified as Christians, other poll numbers and daily headlines suggest that far fewer of us actually live as though God had anything to do with our lives. George Barna found that only four percent of believers say they base their decisions on a biblical world-view.

These numbers tell me the church is failing in its primary task. The Great Commission was to make disciples; disciples are followers of their leader; our Leader modeled a radical new way to view the world. Apparently only four Christians in one hundred even try to operate with that world-view. Maybe O'Reilly is onto something. Maybe we should put more stress on the "philosophical" aspect of Christianity and less on the "religious." Maybe we are simply inoculating people with a weakened form of Christianity instead of infecting them with the powerful real  thing. (See Jeff Musgrave.)

Here is a new cause: let's forget about all this "1%" nonsense. After all, what profit is there in gaining the world and losing the soul. Let's start working on the 96% of our fellow-believers who have missed out on real Christianity. For that matter, let's make sure we are in the 4% who do get it. Let's agree with Bill O'Reilly: Christianity is a philosophy in the truest sense of the word. And it just happens to be founded on the religion that rests upon the true Word.