From what I've said previously, it makes total sense for liberals in America to assign the
greatest slur they can think of (fascists/Nazis) to conservatives, while
conservatives assign the greatest slur they can think of to liberals (Communists/socialists).
The problem is, at least with the liberals' use of fascism and Nazism,
they fail to look deeper at both fascism (which they abhor) and
socialism (which they wish to emulate).
Socialism, it is widely thought, was the brain-child of the
theories of Robert Owen. Owen (1771-1858) used his extraordinary skill
in managing and overseeing to create a successful textile mill at New
Lanarck. He was able to put several of his progressive ideas into
practice at New Lanarck, and these successes gave him the opportunity to
put his more radical, socialist theories into practice, most notably at
New Harmony in Indiana. Owen's socialism reduced the population into
small "societies" of about 500-3000 people, and removed private property
and private ownership: all that mattered was the success of the "society". All people shared everything, and each would
receive according to their need. Everyone would exist in relative
equality in these self-contained societies, which would be overseen by a
capable, qualified and adept overseer. Groups of societies would be
linked together, and those groups would be linked together, until every
society was part of a globally integrated, non-competitive socialist
utopia. In classical socialism, the goal is the economic survival/success of
each individual, not competitive "collective". Due to the
non-competitive nature, the idea of nationalism, or pride in one's
collective, or heritage, or individuality is supposed to be
non-existent. Any sort of differentiation between individuals would
create a competitive atmosphere, which would undermine the socialist
utopia. Thus, true socialists are afraid of nationalism, or "American
exceptionalism", so much so that the would label anyone who demonstrates any sort of pride in their country as "fascists" thought to invoke the totalitarian regime of Hitler.
Fascism is first seen in Mussolini's Italy. Mussolini's fascism was centered around his authority as a dictator, and the uber-nationalism that accompanied Italy's militarism. For Mussolini's Italy, everything revolved around the good of the State. So important was the State's influence on everyday life, that a common joke was that while everything was going to hell-in-a-handbasket, at least the (state-run) trains ran on time. Over time, he dramatically increased state control over the private sector, eventually settling on a system called corporatism, which melded a centralized economic plan with privately run businesses. Mussolini was the first, but not the last. Adolf Hitler adopted the fascist idea with his National Socialists is Germany. For the Nazi party, the good of the state was the goal, and while Mussolini never really went full socialist, Hitler did. However, we don't really hear about Hitler's love-affair with socialism. Instead we are faced with his great nationalism, his Thousand Year Reich, and the "Fatherland".
The fact is, that all fascists used socialism as their economic policy to some extent. The goal of the fascist is the success of the state...thus, socialism, with its goal of economic "success" of the society is a good match. Fascists will, because of their insistence on the importance of the state over the importance of the individual, adopt socialist policies. For this reason, it is rather ironic that American liberals (who want state control of the economy, and who believe in the importance of the state over the importance of the individual) call American conservatives (who are proud of the United States and believe in the importance of the individual over the importance of the state) "fascists".
Saturday, July 14, 2012
Dracula, revisited
I was just breezing through Creative Minority Report and I came across the phrase "he gave vampires souls". It brought me back to an issue I have with Stoker's work and how he dealt with vampires and souls.
When vampire-Lucy was waylay-ed by Professor Van Helsing and his partners, Van Helsing imparts on Arthur the importance of what need to happen: by slaying the vampire-Lucy, Lucy's soul is free to enter into Heaven. This gives a rather interesting perspective on the soul, salvation, damnation, and the link between the soul and body.
Catholic teaching on the soul and the body is such that both are intrinsically linked: the body is THE vessel for the soul, and during the resurrection, the soul will be reunited with the body (not a different one, but a glorified old one). When the body dies, the soul is freed from this "mortal coil" and will be separated from it.
This means, in relation to vampire-myth, that when the body dies (and before it becomes a vampire) the soul is released and thus the soul is not trapped by the vampire's actions. So then, it would appear that vampire-Lucy wouldn't really have been Lucy at all, but a demon using Lucy's body, or something to that effect, and Lucy's soul would have entered Heaven already. But that isn't what Stoker presents.
Stoker actually presents two DIFFERENT perspectives in his work. Lucy's soul is in jeopardy, as if it is trapped in the body while the body continues its evil, God-forsaken actions of feeding off others. Killing the body will release Lucy's soul to enter into heaven. The fate of Lucy's soul (whether it will be damned or saved) is unrelated to the actions of the vampire, it appears.
HOWEVER, both Lucy and Dracula know who they are. Lucy recognizes her beloved, and with evil depravity presents herself in a lustful manner to seduce him in order to prey upon his blood and win him over to her (and possibly be his master, as Dracula is hers). Likewise, Dracula is fully aware of his existence, who he is, what his purpose is, and what his plan is. He recounts his history, what he's done, etc.
The two perspectives are mutually exclusive. Lucy's soul cannot be trapped against its will by vampire-Lucy AND vampire-Lucy know who she is and act accordingly (although in an utterly depraved manner). Either the vampire is Lucy or it is not.
When vampire-Lucy was waylay-ed by Professor Van Helsing and his partners, Van Helsing imparts on Arthur the importance of what need to happen: by slaying the vampire-Lucy, Lucy's soul is free to enter into Heaven. This gives a rather interesting perspective on the soul, salvation, damnation, and the link between the soul and body.
Catholic teaching on the soul and the body is such that both are intrinsically linked: the body is THE vessel for the soul, and during the resurrection, the soul will be reunited with the body (not a different one, but a glorified old one). When the body dies, the soul is freed from this "mortal coil" and will be separated from it.
This means, in relation to vampire-myth, that when the body dies (and before it becomes a vampire) the soul is released and thus the soul is not trapped by the vampire's actions. So then, it would appear that vampire-Lucy wouldn't really have been Lucy at all, but a demon using Lucy's body, or something to that effect, and Lucy's soul would have entered Heaven already. But that isn't what Stoker presents.
Stoker actually presents two DIFFERENT perspectives in his work. Lucy's soul is in jeopardy, as if it is trapped in the body while the body continues its evil, God-forsaken actions of feeding off others. Killing the body will release Lucy's soul to enter into heaven. The fate of Lucy's soul (whether it will be damned or saved) is unrelated to the actions of the vampire, it appears.
HOWEVER, both Lucy and Dracula know who they are. Lucy recognizes her beloved, and with evil depravity presents herself in a lustful manner to seduce him in order to prey upon his blood and win him over to her (and possibly be his master, as Dracula is hers). Likewise, Dracula is fully aware of his existence, who he is, what his purpose is, and what his plan is. He recounts his history, what he's done, etc.
The two perspectives are mutually exclusive. Lucy's soul cannot be trapped against its will by vampire-Lucy AND vampire-Lucy know who she is and act accordingly (although in an utterly depraved manner). Either the vampire is Lucy or it is not.
On 'Coriolanus' and American Politics
To summarize a rather long situation, I was tricked into reading Shakespeare's Coriolanus. It was an interesting and enjoyable read. The story surrounds a rather decorated and successful general for the Roman Republic, who is eventually banished, and seeks to exact revenge on the spiteful populace of Rome.
The main theme, from what I could gather, is anger, or more specifically, anger management. If the title character could control his anger in public, he wouldn't have been in the situations he was in. Mother always said, think before you speak. However, this is not what caught my eye as I read the play.
What I thought was most compelling was the subtle manipulations that went on that ended up inciting Coriolanus to anger. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the manipulations present in Shakespeare's 17th century play are eerily similar to the manipulations that are occurring presently within the American political landscape, particularly with the Democratic Party.
The plebians' opinion on the Senate in general and Caius Marcius in specific are essentially the result of careful seeds planted and nursed by their supposed voices in the Senate: Junius Brutus and Sicinius Velutus. Their seeds include class-envy and class warfare, inciting the crowds to jealous outrage against the wealthy Senators and their motives. Had not Rome been threatened by an attack by their enemies the Volscians, it is highly likely a violent outburst would have occurred, quietly encouraged by the supposed "voice of the people". Such actions only increase the influence and authority of the two tribunes.
Within the American political landscape, we see the same thing taking place with the Democratic party. The first connection between the tribunes and the Democratic party has to do with identification. For a while now, perhaps over four decades, Democrats have branded themselves as the "voice of the poor", while calling their main opponents, Republicans, advocates for the rich. As such, like Junius and Sicinius, they play on class envy and class warfare. Consider how often we've heard the meme "make the rich pay their fair share". Prominent Democrats, like Nancy Pelosi, President Obama and DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schulz gave repeated public support to the Occupy Wall Street movement, which, among other things, advocated and carried out violence against the "rich", much like Junius and Sicinius prompted and supported in Coriolanus. Further, there is the undeniable hatred that Junius and Sicinius have for Caius Marcius, who put his life on the line for Rome more that once, and begrudgingly accepted the consulship against his better judgement. Even after Marcius had won the support of the people, the two tribunes managed to trick them into thinking that he had humiliated them, and used them for his own gain. While not a perfect fit, we witnessed a similar thing with former President George W. Bush. All one needs to do is look at the way Democrats and the media (remember, well over 75% of journalists consider themselves liberal) treated President Bush--"Bushitler" comes to mind. Further, Junius and Sicinius attempted to use their manipulations to gain influence; it cannot be less obvious that certain policies (like expanding food-stamps and unemployment benefits, or not enforcing immigration laws) only serve to create support for the Democratic Party among certain demographics.
There is another angle that presents itself, when we analyze it further. In Act II, Scene I, Menenius Agrippa (a Senator who "hath always loved the people"), confronts Sicinius and Junius, essentially calling them hypocrites, for they are quick to criticize Caius Marcius for faults they all too willingly exhibit themselves (like pride). This is similar to the Democratic attacks on President Bush for his war in Iraq while failing to attach President Obama (who engaged US military forces illegally in Libya--he did not notify or explain his actions until much after the fact--and 'unilaterally' engaged in military operations in new venues, all while continuing wars he said he'd end), or Democratic attacks on Dick Cheney for "crony capitalism" on creating a energy policy that supposedly benefits his oil buddies, while being mum on President Obama for giving "stimulus" monies to "green energy" companies which happened to have wealthy Obama supporters at the helm.
Junius and Sicinius manipulated public opinion and most certainly put themselves in a more advantageous position. However, their manipulations, while certainly bringing out the downfall of their enemy, Caius Marcius, also almost completely destroyed Rome. They lied to the people they supposedly stood for, for personal gain, despite the ruin it almost caused. The modern Democratic Party, which is engaging in the same thing, should take heed. Sure, Shakespeare's play is a work of fiction, but like all of the Bard's works, Coriolanus still exhibits a deeper knowledge of the human condition: often, we will engage in behaviors that can or will ultimately lead to the suffering of many for our own selfish ends.
The main theme, from what I could gather, is anger, or more specifically, anger management. If the title character could control his anger in public, he wouldn't have been in the situations he was in. Mother always said, think before you speak. However, this is not what caught my eye as I read the play.
What I thought was most compelling was the subtle manipulations that went on that ended up inciting Coriolanus to anger. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the manipulations present in Shakespeare's 17th century play are eerily similar to the manipulations that are occurring presently within the American political landscape, particularly with the Democratic Party.
The plebians' opinion on the Senate in general and Caius Marcius in specific are essentially the result of careful seeds planted and nursed by their supposed voices in the Senate: Junius Brutus and Sicinius Velutus. Their seeds include class-envy and class warfare, inciting the crowds to jealous outrage against the wealthy Senators and their motives. Had not Rome been threatened by an attack by their enemies the Volscians, it is highly likely a violent outburst would have occurred, quietly encouraged by the supposed "voice of the people". Such actions only increase the influence and authority of the two tribunes.
Within the American political landscape, we see the same thing taking place with the Democratic party. The first connection between the tribunes and the Democratic party has to do with identification. For a while now, perhaps over four decades, Democrats have branded themselves as the "voice of the poor", while calling their main opponents, Republicans, advocates for the rich. As such, like Junius and Sicinius, they play on class envy and class warfare. Consider how often we've heard the meme "make the rich pay their fair share". Prominent Democrats, like Nancy Pelosi, President Obama and DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schulz gave repeated public support to the Occupy Wall Street movement, which, among other things, advocated and carried out violence against the "rich", much like Junius and Sicinius prompted and supported in Coriolanus. Further, there is the undeniable hatred that Junius and Sicinius have for Caius Marcius, who put his life on the line for Rome more that once, and begrudgingly accepted the consulship against his better judgement. Even after Marcius had won the support of the people, the two tribunes managed to trick them into thinking that he had humiliated them, and used them for his own gain. While not a perfect fit, we witnessed a similar thing with former President George W. Bush. All one needs to do is look at the way Democrats and the media (remember, well over 75% of journalists consider themselves liberal) treated President Bush--"Bushitler" comes to mind. Further, Junius and Sicinius attempted to use their manipulations to gain influence; it cannot be less obvious that certain policies (like expanding food-stamps and unemployment benefits, or not enforcing immigration laws) only serve to create support for the Democratic Party among certain demographics.
There is another angle that presents itself, when we analyze it further. In Act II, Scene I, Menenius Agrippa (a Senator who "hath always loved the people"), confronts Sicinius and Junius, essentially calling them hypocrites, for they are quick to criticize Caius Marcius for faults they all too willingly exhibit themselves (like pride). This is similar to the Democratic attacks on President Bush for his war in Iraq while failing to attach President Obama (who engaged US military forces illegally in Libya--he did not notify or explain his actions until much after the fact--and 'unilaterally' engaged in military operations in new venues, all while continuing wars he said he'd end), or Democratic attacks on Dick Cheney for "crony capitalism" on creating a energy policy that supposedly benefits his oil buddies, while being mum on President Obama for giving "stimulus" monies to "green energy" companies which happened to have wealthy Obama supporters at the helm.
Junius and Sicinius manipulated public opinion and most certainly put themselves in a more advantageous position. However, their manipulations, while certainly bringing out the downfall of their enemy, Caius Marcius, also almost completely destroyed Rome. They lied to the people they supposedly stood for, for personal gain, despite the ruin it almost caused. The modern Democratic Party, which is engaging in the same thing, should take heed. Sure, Shakespeare's play is a work of fiction, but like all of the Bard's works, Coriolanus still exhibits a deeper knowledge of the human condition: often, we will engage in behaviors that can or will ultimately lead to the suffering of many for our own selfish ends.
Sunday, June 17, 2012
Fascism vs. Socialism, Part I
So apparently once-famous author Terry McMillan has decided that, because Republicans are obviously against Barack Obama, they are racists and compared them to Hilter by Tweeting "Republicans are behaving just like Hitler did." Besides the obvious inanity of this statement (a group of well over 10 million individuals behaving like dictator), there is a reflection of a complete lack of understanding on Ms. McMillan's part. However, this lack of understanding is actually rooted in a poor education on the roots of socialism and fascism, and this poor education has led to a common misconception that fascism is a "rightist" movement, while socialism is a "leftist" movement. Hence, Ms. McMillan and other progressives, can claim that Republicans, and most especially conservatives, are fascists and "Nazis", while Glenn Beck and other conservatives can equate President Obama and progressives with Stalin, Mao, and other socialists (well, at least Beck has a point: Obama is an official member of the New Socialist Party...).
First, we'll look at fascism. Benito Mussolini is noted as the father of fascism, as he founded the Fascist party in the early 1920s. What is particular about the fascists is their use of nationalism and a proud history to promote the concept of the welfare of the state over the welfare of the individual. Such a sentiment was actually at odds with the "left-wing", meaning the socialists and communists, whose idealists dreamed of a world-wide communal utopia with everyone living in equality. The nationalist-based State-first mentality is a hearken to the absolutist monarchies of the not-too-distant past. When one looks at France after the fall of the Ancien Regime, nationalism and pride for the greatness of France is often linked with "conservative" monarchists. Ditto for Italy, Germany and Spain. Thus, it is no surprise that Hitler's National Socialist Party would gain support from military veterans and conservative elements of the German society. This is particularly true when one considers that in contemporary Germany, the Weimar Republic was extremely liberal in that Germans had always had a monarch, or another strong single leader (Bismarck). In Mussolini's Italy, nationalism likewise appealed to a conservative, or right-wing demographic, especially since the socialists in Italy rejected any and all nationalist or country-first action or sentiment.
Socialism, since its inception, has always been associated with the left. While fascism used elements and themes linked to traditionally conservative views (strong central government, nationalism), socialism was derived from "new" and "enlightened" ideas that shunned traditional ideologies. While not universally atheist, socialist originators were essentially secular, whereas conservative and traditional ideologies were based on Judeo-Christian religious tradition. Likewise, where as conservative and traditional economic models were based on private-property and private ownership, socialism was not.
First, we'll look at fascism. Benito Mussolini is noted as the father of fascism, as he founded the Fascist party in the early 1920s. What is particular about the fascists is their use of nationalism and a proud history to promote the concept of the welfare of the state over the welfare of the individual. Such a sentiment was actually at odds with the "left-wing", meaning the socialists and communists, whose idealists dreamed of a world-wide communal utopia with everyone living in equality. The nationalist-based State-first mentality is a hearken to the absolutist monarchies of the not-too-distant past. When one looks at France after the fall of the Ancien Regime, nationalism and pride for the greatness of France is often linked with "conservative" monarchists. Ditto for Italy, Germany and Spain. Thus, it is no surprise that Hitler's National Socialist Party would gain support from military veterans and conservative elements of the German society. This is particularly true when one considers that in contemporary Germany, the Weimar Republic was extremely liberal in that Germans had always had a monarch, or another strong single leader (Bismarck). In Mussolini's Italy, nationalism likewise appealed to a conservative, or right-wing demographic, especially since the socialists in Italy rejected any and all nationalist or country-first action or sentiment.
Socialism, since its inception, has always been associated with the left. While fascism used elements and themes linked to traditionally conservative views (strong central government, nationalism), socialism was derived from "new" and "enlightened" ideas that shunned traditional ideologies. While not universally atheist, socialist originators were essentially secular, whereas conservative and traditional ideologies were based on Judeo-Christian religious tradition. Likewise, where as conservative and traditional economic models were based on private-property and private ownership, socialism was not.
Friday, June 8, 2012
Tinfoil Hat time
Okay, so in Wisconsin, we've seen a major break with precedent: an incumbent governor survive a recall election. This is the first time in American history that that has every happened.
First, a little necessary background. Gov. Scott Walker (elected in 2010) got in trouble because he curtailed some issues public workers unions would be allowed to collective bargain on, despite the fact that he said he was going to do those if elected. After said reforms were passed, the public sector unions (very strong in Wisconsin) went ballistic (even as Gov. Walker's reforms were saving public employees' jobs and saving the state money). Strikes and demonstrations (the unions had to hire out people to demonstrate, as their union workers were busy or didn't want to), along with threats of physical violence toward the Republicans who voted for these reforms, were organized and carried out by the unions. Around this time, President Obama threw his support behind the union bosses in several high profile pictures and events.
Egged on by the union antagonists, the Wisconsin people agreed to a recall vote against Gov. Walker. Nearly 12 months later, Walker won, handily (it wasn't close by any means). Of course, those on the left are attempting to rationalize why such a heartless and evil hater of the working man and middle class could possibly have won so big against the forces of Justice. A few have thrown out the cheating thing, but faced with the fact that heavily Democratic Madison, WI had a 119% voter turnout, that argument can't be effectively raised. So, the progressives and Democrats have begun focusing on MONEY. Their argument: the cause of Right was undermined by the massive amounts of money that the evil rich people sent to Gov. Walker's campaign.
As I have been reading about this, something hit me. President Obama was conspicuously present during the initial outpouring of support for the unions. Since the recall campaign began in earnest, however, the President was conspicuously ABSENT, sending only a little supportive Tweet to the Democratic challenger, Milwaukee Mayor Barrett. Then, this meme about being outspent (ratios vary between 5-1 to 8-1) surfaces. What is interesting is that the whole being outspent thing was essentially vocally promoted by Obama's campaign coordinator, Jim Messina. The Obama campaign has now been using the money disparity to raise funds for his own campaign.
This got me thinking:
Could it be that this whole Wisconsin recall affair was orchestrated by the Obama camp to further Obama's own ends? Could the selection of Tom Barrett (who lost to Walker in 2010) over the pro-union candidates been designed by Obama to ensure a Walker victory? Could Obama have influenced potential donors NOT to donate to Barrett's campaign?
My reasoning is, I think sound. 1) Obama's been in the tank for unions since he entered the political arena, so it makes no sense that he'd withdraw his support now. 2) The statistic concerning the ratio of funding is based on the report of an essentially non-partisan group with a historical link to George Soros (a progressive billionaire who funds socialist, progressive, and other far left causes, AND is the de facto owner of the Democratic party). 3) Obama's rise to prominence and his election had a heavy Soros hand in them. 4) Obama is now using the failed recall effort to drum up his own funds. 5) [and perhaps most incredibly relevant] Obama is a Chicago politician, who has used Chicago thuggery and corruption to get his way in the past.
This doesn't mean that I necessarily think that Obama definitely orchestrated this. It could also be that Obama was afraid to put his stamp of approval on Barrett when he wasn't sure if Barrett would win. It could be that Obama thought that the election was in the bag already. Whatever the case may be, I think it not only possible, but probable, that Obama was some how involved in this whole event.
First, a little necessary background. Gov. Scott Walker (elected in 2010) got in trouble because he curtailed some issues public workers unions would be allowed to collective bargain on, despite the fact that he said he was going to do those if elected. After said reforms were passed, the public sector unions (very strong in Wisconsin) went ballistic (even as Gov. Walker's reforms were saving public employees' jobs and saving the state money). Strikes and demonstrations (the unions had to hire out people to demonstrate, as their union workers were busy or didn't want to), along with threats of physical violence toward the Republicans who voted for these reforms, were organized and carried out by the unions. Around this time, President Obama threw his support behind the union bosses in several high profile pictures and events.
Egged on by the union antagonists, the Wisconsin people agreed to a recall vote against Gov. Walker. Nearly 12 months later, Walker won, handily (it wasn't close by any means). Of course, those on the left are attempting to rationalize why such a heartless and evil hater of the working man and middle class could possibly have won so big against the forces of Justice. A few have thrown out the cheating thing, but faced with the fact that heavily Democratic Madison, WI had a 119% voter turnout, that argument can't be effectively raised. So, the progressives and Democrats have begun focusing on MONEY. Their argument: the cause of Right was undermined by the massive amounts of money that the evil rich people sent to Gov. Walker's campaign.
As I have been reading about this, something hit me. President Obama was conspicuously present during the initial outpouring of support for the unions. Since the recall campaign began in earnest, however, the President was conspicuously ABSENT, sending only a little supportive Tweet to the Democratic challenger, Milwaukee Mayor Barrett. Then, this meme about being outspent (ratios vary between 5-1 to 8-1) surfaces. What is interesting is that the whole being outspent thing was essentially vocally promoted by Obama's campaign coordinator, Jim Messina. The Obama campaign has now been using the money disparity to raise funds for his own campaign.
This got me thinking:
Could it be that this whole Wisconsin recall affair was orchestrated by the Obama camp to further Obama's own ends? Could the selection of Tom Barrett (who lost to Walker in 2010) over the pro-union candidates been designed by Obama to ensure a Walker victory? Could Obama have influenced potential donors NOT to donate to Barrett's campaign?
My reasoning is, I think sound. 1) Obama's been in the tank for unions since he entered the political arena, so it makes no sense that he'd withdraw his support now. 2) The statistic concerning the ratio of funding is based on the report of an essentially non-partisan group with a historical link to George Soros (a progressive billionaire who funds socialist, progressive, and other far left causes, AND is the de facto owner of the Democratic party). 3) Obama's rise to prominence and his election had a heavy Soros hand in them. 4) Obama is now using the failed recall effort to drum up his own funds. 5) [and perhaps most incredibly relevant] Obama is a Chicago politician, who has used Chicago thuggery and corruption to get his way in the past.
This doesn't mean that I necessarily think that Obama definitely orchestrated this. It could also be that Obama was afraid to put his stamp of approval on Barrett when he wasn't sure if Barrett would win. It could be that Obama thought that the election was in the bag already. Whatever the case may be, I think it not only possible, but probable, that Obama was some how involved in this whole event.
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Doubting Thomas, another explanation
Today at Mass (rather yesterday, as I post this), the Gospel reading was the account of the apostle Thomas, who famously didn't believe in his fellow apostles' account that the Lord had indeed risen, as He said. Father B discussed how similar Thomas and atheists are, because both of them demand physical proof.
As I reflected both on Father's homily and the Gospel a few thoughts came to me.
1) Father opined that Jesus appeared to Thomas because it was in His plan to have Thomas as an apostle, and it was necessary for the Divinely Ordained Church. While certainly true, there is something else at play, the real difference between atheists and Thomas. Thomas was called to be an apostle. He spent countless hours with his companions on the road, and with the Lord. These men were his close friends, and he acted just like the other apostles did when they disbelieved in the Resurrection when the women told them. Yet his disbelief wasn't one of the will, but of the intellect. He WANTED to believe, as is evidenced in his return to the upper room with the rest of the apostles.
This is purely speculation on my part, but it makes sense (at least to me). Why was Thomas NOT with the apostles on the day following the Sabbath? Why should he have been? After all, their hope was lost, their leader, Who inspired them and motivated them, was crucified, and laid in a sealed tomb. The joyride was over, the hope was gone. The apostles, Scripture says, locked the door out of fear of the Jews...Thomas chose not to show up because he saw no point now. And yet...
What does Thomas do after he hears his brethren tell of the Resurrection? He doesn't believe...but he joins them the next week. Why, if he didn't believe, would he join them? I think it highly likely that Thomas knew that IF Jesus was alive, and IF He were to appear again, it would be to the apostles in that room, just like before. He chose to be there so he COULD believe. His heart was open, his hope was rekindled. Jesus acted on that and chose to reveal Himself to a willing person.
When I think of Thomas reaction to seeing Jesus, I don't just picture a muted, humble "My Lord and My God." I picture a man kneeling, with tears of joy flowing down his cheeks, mumbling through his profound amazement, joy, and relief. I picture a man unable to stand, and barely able to speak. I picture a man, once broken and lost, now strengthened and emboldened.
2) Thomas' doubt is no different than the rest of the apostles. As we learned on Easter Sunday, the women who witnessed the empty tomb ran and told the apostles...who didn't believe them. So, Peter and John ran to the tomb. It is said John believed, but Peter was still unsure...until Jesus appeared to him. Mary Magdelene didn't believe until Jesus appeared to her. The rest of the apostles didn't believe until He appeared to them. It appears that the apostles were likewise willing and wanted to believe: why else would they follow the instructions given to them by the women?
3) The difference between St. Thomas and atheists like Richard Dawkins who demand physical, tangible proof is that St. Thomas WANTED to believe, and atheists don't. To be an atheist is to decide that God doesn't exist, and therefore close your mind to the possibility that He does. When you read accounts of atheists who become Christians (or simply theists), there is a universal step in all their accounts: they open their minds to God's existence, and show some desire to know Him...and He reveals Himself to them.
I suppose one could argue that such an attitude (wanting to believe) is biased towards belief, and so when something "unexplainable" happens, the decision to believe isn't based on evidence or fact, but rather on emotion. But if one is to argue that, one must also accept that the decision NOT to believe when faced with the "unexplainable" is likewise based on a pre-concieved bias towards un-belief. Thus, all the "evidence" against God isn't evidence at all, but rationalized reasons to support one's determined will not to believe.
As I reflected both on Father's homily and the Gospel a few thoughts came to me.
1) Father opined that Jesus appeared to Thomas because it was in His plan to have Thomas as an apostle, and it was necessary for the Divinely Ordained Church. While certainly true, there is something else at play, the real difference between atheists and Thomas. Thomas was called to be an apostle. He spent countless hours with his companions on the road, and with the Lord. These men were his close friends, and he acted just like the other apostles did when they disbelieved in the Resurrection when the women told them. Yet his disbelief wasn't one of the will, but of the intellect. He WANTED to believe, as is evidenced in his return to the upper room with the rest of the apostles.
This is purely speculation on my part, but it makes sense (at least to me). Why was Thomas NOT with the apostles on the day following the Sabbath? Why should he have been? After all, their hope was lost, their leader, Who inspired them and motivated them, was crucified, and laid in a sealed tomb. The joyride was over, the hope was gone. The apostles, Scripture says, locked the door out of fear of the Jews...Thomas chose not to show up because he saw no point now. And yet...
What does Thomas do after he hears his brethren tell of the Resurrection? He doesn't believe...but he joins them the next week. Why, if he didn't believe, would he join them? I think it highly likely that Thomas knew that IF Jesus was alive, and IF He were to appear again, it would be to the apostles in that room, just like before. He chose to be there so he COULD believe. His heart was open, his hope was rekindled. Jesus acted on that and chose to reveal Himself to a willing person.
When I think of Thomas reaction to seeing Jesus, I don't just picture a muted, humble "My Lord and My God." I picture a man kneeling, with tears of joy flowing down his cheeks, mumbling through his profound amazement, joy, and relief. I picture a man unable to stand, and barely able to speak. I picture a man, once broken and lost, now strengthened and emboldened.
2) Thomas' doubt is no different than the rest of the apostles. As we learned on Easter Sunday, the women who witnessed the empty tomb ran and told the apostles...who didn't believe them. So, Peter and John ran to the tomb. It is said John believed, but Peter was still unsure...until Jesus appeared to him. Mary Magdelene didn't believe until Jesus appeared to her. The rest of the apostles didn't believe until He appeared to them. It appears that the apostles were likewise willing and wanted to believe: why else would they follow the instructions given to them by the women?
3) The difference between St. Thomas and atheists like Richard Dawkins who demand physical, tangible proof is that St. Thomas WANTED to believe, and atheists don't. To be an atheist is to decide that God doesn't exist, and therefore close your mind to the possibility that He does. When you read accounts of atheists who become Christians (or simply theists), there is a universal step in all their accounts: they open their minds to God's existence, and show some desire to know Him...and He reveals Himself to them.
I suppose one could argue that such an attitude (wanting to believe) is biased towards belief, and so when something "unexplainable" happens, the decision to believe isn't based on evidence or fact, but rather on emotion. But if one is to argue that, one must also accept that the decision NOT to believe when faced with the "unexplainable" is likewise based on a pre-concieved bias towards un-belief. Thus, all the "evidence" against God isn't evidence at all, but rationalized reasons to support one's determined will not to believe.
Friday, March 9, 2012
From where I sit--The Republican Candidates
I firmly believe that this election is an incredibly important one for this country. I've heard many say that the survival of this nation is at stake. How true that is I don't know, but I am getting quite disturbed by the direction the Obama presidency is taking. To wit, Obama has 1) engaged in war by fiat (contrary to the War Powers Act, and thus illegally), 2) put peaceful pro-life and Tea Party groups on the domestic terrorist lists at the FBI, 3) used "recess appointments" while Congress is in session to avoid Congressional approval of his picks, 3) use back-room deals to get legislation passed that increases the Presidents' authority over individuals (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act), 4) failed to uphold current law (as in immigration law), 5) conceiving, implementing, and ultimately covering up Fast and Furious, which led to the murder of a US Border Control Agent, and 6) used Executive Orders to side-step Congress because he faces opposition in Congress. This is in addition to the blatant anti-Christian measures he has resorted to, not only with the HHS mandate (the Catholic Church is not the only Christian group that opposes contraception, sterilization, or abortifacient drugs), but with Belmont Abbey College lawsuit, the covering of the Holy Name at Georgetown, and his lack of support for Christians being persecuted as a result of the Arab Spring (he explicitly referred to Muslim victims of an Islamist attack on a church when no Muslims were injured or killed in the attack). Of course, we can't forget the steps that the administration has gone to push the abortion agenda, suing states who've rescinded Planned Parenthood funding and more. It isn't just the President, however, but it seems that the entire Democratic Party in Washington is complicit in the madness, cheering him on, and encouraging him to do more. Sure, Democrats may have a different idea of how to keep America great...but the things that this Administration is doing is beyond the pall.
So, this brings me to the Republican candidates for President. I will give you a disclaimer: I have supported Rick Santorum from the beginning, for reasons I will not outline here. Below will be my impression of the candidates, from where I sit.
1) Mitt Romney--I put Romney first because he was the front runner since 2008. Romney presents a formidable challenge to any of the other challengers because of that fact. Romney, it appears, maintained much of his campaign structure and infrastructure since 2008. He's got guys on the ground in every important state, and they've been working to not only promote Mitt, but ensure that his message is on target. Besides that, he's got a large warchest with which to operate now and in the general election. There is an issue with that, however. I think Romney and his handlers were expecting to all but walk away with the nomination. A protracted primary simply drains his coffers.
In terms of policy, Mitt is surely not conservative, and most definitely not "severely conservative". His record as Mass. governor shows that. What is concerning about Mitt is the different ways he's attempted to show himself when ever he's been up for election. When he ran for the Senate in Mass., he ran to the LEFT of Ted Kennedy...as if that is possible. When he ran for President in 2008, he labelled himself as the "conservative" (and compared to McCain, he was). Now, he's labeling himself as the moderate. His record shows that as governor of Massachusetts, he oversaw a net loss of jobs, and the Massachusetts economy suffered with him at the helm. He constructed the current health care law that governs Massachusetts, upon which President Obama's monstrous health care law is based. The problem is, he hasn't walked back from it, not one iota, and he hasn't admitted that Massachusetts needed to beg the federal government to help it pay for the implementation of the law because it was so darn expensive. As Americans begin to feel the effects of the Affordable Care Act, namely higher insurance premiums and employers dropping coverage altogether, this is going to be the noose or millstone around Romney's neck. Unlike any of the other Republican candidates, Romney will not be able to use Obamacare to his advantage. Even Mitt's organization of the Salt Lake City Olympics was less than stellar, as they needed to borrow state and federal cash to get the job done. Like Romneycare, this does not bode well for the financial problems we are in. Romney's big selling point is his turning around of private industries, like Bain Capital. This shows his commitment to the free market and an acumen to at least understand how the economy works (unlike President Obama).
Socially, I don't know if I can trust him. LDS adherents tend to be socially conservative, so that's a plus. However, Romney seems to be more of a vote-grabber, and will pursue those things that will promote himself. I mean, first, he runs to the left of Ted Kennedy, then he tries to paint himself as THE conservative in 2008, and now he's saying he's a moderate. It seems too calculated to me.
2) Rick Santorum--I'm discussing Santorum second because he is currently the runner-up. Santorum is known for going on "tangents" and thus people lose what his message is. I blame this not only on Santorum (and his handlers), but also on the current generation who rely on 10-second sound bites for their information. This tendency is not an overly good thing, especially seeing what happened after he gained momentum after his three state sweep a few weeks ago: by going "off message", he gave his detractors some sound bites to use against him. In addition, Santorum spent a good 12 years in the Senate, enough time to compile a less-than-stellar conservative record (his votes on unions and some spending bills are evidence).
Santorum isn't your standard, run-of-the-mill politician, like Romney or Gingrich. He is genuine, and actually believes what he says, so much so that he practices it. In addition, he is consistent. You really don't have to wonder what new position or new spin he's going to come up with on the campaign trail. Santorum has built a reputation as being consistent and genuine, which is definitely a plus when going against an opponent who has created a 3 year portfolio of hypocrisy and dishonesty.
Mr. Santorum's record on social issues is unquestionable. His appeal to evangelicals (who helped to carry President GW Bush over John Kerry) is based on this. Unlike Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, who parrot the pro-life, pro-marriage positions as outliers of their basic platform, they are part and parcel of Santorum's basic platform. You aren't going to get a tabling or a truce on social issues with him...that is why he wrapped up the evangelical support early on.
3) Newt Gingrich--Newt was an admirable Speaker of the House, and has several things going for him. First, his record as a legislator and negotiator during the Clinton administration is astounding. To really consider it, we must remember that under Clinton, politics became more polarizing: the strategy was to appeal to your base and get out the vote, not pander to the center. It was in that climate that welfare reform was passed.
However, a career as long as Newt's is not without problems. Not one of Newt's colleagues while Speaker has endorsed him. Some have argued that this means that Newt's leadership qualities are lacking. I see it differently. First, there were some Republicans who questioned and challenged Newt as Speaker, that cannot be denied. However, they were not the majority. Newt still had the support of a great deal of Republicans in the House. Second, under Newt's leadership, Congress controlled spending and balanced the budget. When Newt left, the floodgates opened. Thirdly, the face of Congress has changed considerably since 1998, when Gingrich was Speaker. Republicans lost the House in 2006, and only regained it 4 years ago. Finally, the attitude of the Republicans in the House has changed. Americans were unhappy with the Republican leadership in the House in 2006, and subsequently voted them out. When Republicans regained the House, they elected as Speaker one of the good-ol' boys from the Bush-era spending spree, John Boehner,who coincidentally, was one of the architects of the anti-Newt movement. Suffice to say that Congress in 2012 is very different than it was in 1998.
Clearly, Newt has political acumen. He knows how to play the game. He is bombastic and not afraid to back down. Where Romney has vowed not to really go after Obama, Newt will attack with a vengeance. Newt understands that he is up against the media, as well (to be fair, Santorum has shown that he gets it too, and can use it to his advantage). Newt knows his stuff, which is clear in the debates. I firmly believe that in any debate setting, Newt would run rings around Obama, and would go for the jugular (which McCain wouldn't do, and Romney has refused to do).
Newt, however, is a bombastic, egotistical, attention seeker. His attack campaign on Romney was viscous and spiteful. He's prone to doing and saying stupid things (sitting on a couch with Pelosi agreeing with global warming, condemning Paul Ryan budget as "right wing social engineering"), which gain him just enough notoriety to remain a household name (sort of). Of course, there is the whole marital infidelity thing. On that, there is only one thing that comes to mind: Bill Clinton's response to his involvement with Monica Lewinski: I did it because I could. Such an attitude reveals a character flaw that I don't want in my presidents: unwavering selfishness.
4) Ron Paul--Clearly, Ron Paul is the outlier in the process. His ideas on the size of government and spending are mainstream, well, at least they are not opposed by the other Republican candidates. Fiscally and economically, Paul's proposals make sense.
Paul's foreign policy is what loses me. At best, its naive, at worst its simply moronic. He completely does not understand the ethos or the threat of radical Islam. Fundamentally, radical Islam is aggressive and imperialistic. His lack of historical perspective on the conflict with radical Islam, which is the single biggest threat to America today. In addition, he fails to grasp that as a result of a globalized economy (which isn't a bad thing), its not sound policy to circle the wagons around our borders in case of an attack.
So, this brings me to the Republican candidates for President. I will give you a disclaimer: I have supported Rick Santorum from the beginning, for reasons I will not outline here. Below will be my impression of the candidates, from where I sit.
1) Mitt Romney--I put Romney first because he was the front runner since 2008. Romney presents a formidable challenge to any of the other challengers because of that fact. Romney, it appears, maintained much of his campaign structure and infrastructure since 2008. He's got guys on the ground in every important state, and they've been working to not only promote Mitt, but ensure that his message is on target. Besides that, he's got a large warchest with which to operate now and in the general election. There is an issue with that, however. I think Romney and his handlers were expecting to all but walk away with the nomination. A protracted primary simply drains his coffers.
In terms of policy, Mitt is surely not conservative, and most definitely not "severely conservative". His record as Mass. governor shows that. What is concerning about Mitt is the different ways he's attempted to show himself when ever he's been up for election. When he ran for the Senate in Mass., he ran to the LEFT of Ted Kennedy...as if that is possible. When he ran for President in 2008, he labelled himself as the "conservative" (and compared to McCain, he was). Now, he's labeling himself as the moderate. His record shows that as governor of Massachusetts, he oversaw a net loss of jobs, and the Massachusetts economy suffered with him at the helm. He constructed the current health care law that governs Massachusetts, upon which President Obama's monstrous health care law is based. The problem is, he hasn't walked back from it, not one iota, and he hasn't admitted that Massachusetts needed to beg the federal government to help it pay for the implementation of the law because it was so darn expensive. As Americans begin to feel the effects of the Affordable Care Act, namely higher insurance premiums and employers dropping coverage altogether, this is going to be the noose or millstone around Romney's neck. Unlike any of the other Republican candidates, Romney will not be able to use Obamacare to his advantage. Even Mitt's organization of the Salt Lake City Olympics was less than stellar, as they needed to borrow state and federal cash to get the job done. Like Romneycare, this does not bode well for the financial problems we are in. Romney's big selling point is his turning around of private industries, like Bain Capital. This shows his commitment to the free market and an acumen to at least understand how the economy works (unlike President Obama).
Socially, I don't know if I can trust him. LDS adherents tend to be socially conservative, so that's a plus. However, Romney seems to be more of a vote-grabber, and will pursue those things that will promote himself. I mean, first, he runs to the left of Ted Kennedy, then he tries to paint himself as THE conservative in 2008, and now he's saying he's a moderate. It seems too calculated to me.
2) Rick Santorum--I'm discussing Santorum second because he is currently the runner-up. Santorum is known for going on "tangents" and thus people lose what his message is. I blame this not only on Santorum (and his handlers), but also on the current generation who rely on 10-second sound bites for their information. This tendency is not an overly good thing, especially seeing what happened after he gained momentum after his three state sweep a few weeks ago: by going "off message", he gave his detractors some sound bites to use against him. In addition, Santorum spent a good 12 years in the Senate, enough time to compile a less-than-stellar conservative record (his votes on unions and some spending bills are evidence).
Santorum isn't your standard, run-of-the-mill politician, like Romney or Gingrich. He is genuine, and actually believes what he says, so much so that he practices it. In addition, he is consistent. You really don't have to wonder what new position or new spin he's going to come up with on the campaign trail. Santorum has built a reputation as being consistent and genuine, which is definitely a plus when going against an opponent who has created a 3 year portfolio of hypocrisy and dishonesty.
Mr. Santorum's record on social issues is unquestionable. His appeal to evangelicals (who helped to carry President GW Bush over John Kerry) is based on this. Unlike Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, who parrot the pro-life, pro-marriage positions as outliers of their basic platform, they are part and parcel of Santorum's basic platform. You aren't going to get a tabling or a truce on social issues with him...that is why he wrapped up the evangelical support early on.
3) Newt Gingrich--Newt was an admirable Speaker of the House, and has several things going for him. First, his record as a legislator and negotiator during the Clinton administration is astounding. To really consider it, we must remember that under Clinton, politics became more polarizing: the strategy was to appeal to your base and get out the vote, not pander to the center. It was in that climate that welfare reform was passed.
However, a career as long as Newt's is not without problems. Not one of Newt's colleagues while Speaker has endorsed him. Some have argued that this means that Newt's leadership qualities are lacking. I see it differently. First, there were some Republicans who questioned and challenged Newt as Speaker, that cannot be denied. However, they were not the majority. Newt still had the support of a great deal of Republicans in the House. Second, under Newt's leadership, Congress controlled spending and balanced the budget. When Newt left, the floodgates opened. Thirdly, the face of Congress has changed considerably since 1998, when Gingrich was Speaker. Republicans lost the House in 2006, and only regained it 4 years ago. Finally, the attitude of the Republicans in the House has changed. Americans were unhappy with the Republican leadership in the House in 2006, and subsequently voted them out. When Republicans regained the House, they elected as Speaker one of the good-ol' boys from the Bush-era spending spree, John Boehner,who coincidentally, was one of the architects of the anti-Newt movement. Suffice to say that Congress in 2012 is very different than it was in 1998.
Clearly, Newt has political acumen. He knows how to play the game. He is bombastic and not afraid to back down. Where Romney has vowed not to really go after Obama, Newt will attack with a vengeance. Newt understands that he is up against the media, as well (to be fair, Santorum has shown that he gets it too, and can use it to his advantage). Newt knows his stuff, which is clear in the debates. I firmly believe that in any debate setting, Newt would run rings around Obama, and would go for the jugular (which McCain wouldn't do, and Romney has refused to do).
Newt, however, is a bombastic, egotistical, attention seeker. His attack campaign on Romney was viscous and spiteful. He's prone to doing and saying stupid things (sitting on a couch with Pelosi agreeing with global warming, condemning Paul Ryan budget as "right wing social engineering"), which gain him just enough notoriety to remain a household name (sort of). Of course, there is the whole marital infidelity thing. On that, there is only one thing that comes to mind: Bill Clinton's response to his involvement with Monica Lewinski: I did it because I could. Such an attitude reveals a character flaw that I don't want in my presidents: unwavering selfishness.
4) Ron Paul--Clearly, Ron Paul is the outlier in the process. His ideas on the size of government and spending are mainstream, well, at least they are not opposed by the other Republican candidates. Fiscally and economically, Paul's proposals make sense.
Paul's foreign policy is what loses me. At best, its naive, at worst its simply moronic. He completely does not understand the ethos or the threat of radical Islam. Fundamentally, radical Islam is aggressive and imperialistic. His lack of historical perspective on the conflict with radical Islam, which is the single biggest threat to America today. In addition, he fails to grasp that as a result of a globalized economy (which isn't a bad thing), its not sound policy to circle the wagons around our borders in case of an attack.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)