Due to a trip to Kansas City and a defunct laptop, I won’t be blogging this Labor Day weekend. Go out and enjoy the sun, and if you must stay inside and read blogs, enjoy Keith’s and Tex’s posts.
Or use the blogroll–remember it? It’s still there linking to a number of blogs that are worth reading consistently.
Look for articles in this series every Monday and Friday….
The invasion of Iraq set off a volley of questions about the justifiability of war that continue to be asked as America, and the world, evaluates the continued presence and efforts of the Coalition forces in the country. Commentators on both sides of the issue, and on both sides of the globe, have argued vehemently over whether or not the United States was justified in deposing Saddam Hussein and seeking to establish a new government in his country. With this discussion, deeper issues have been raised—issues about the morality of war, the relationship between religion and politics, and the true meaning and intentions of two of the world’s largest religions.
Both Christianity and Islam have definite conceptions of war, its justifiability, and the larger political structures in which it takes place. Within a few centuries after its birth, Christianity had become the official religion of the Roman Empire. With this status came responsibility, and theologians were forced to examine the relationship between church and state, morality and violence. These same questions were raised even more quickly among the people of the Arabian Peninsula. When Mohammed began to proclaim the messages he received from the angel Gabriel, a religious awakening took place. Within a few decades the new religion, Islam, had gained thousands of adherents. With its growth came expansion, and Mohammed and the rulers who followed him had to explain and defend their reasons for going to war with the surrounding tribes and nations. Both religions came up with broad theories on the nature of the state, its relationship to religious adherents, and the justifiability of war.
These theories still affect the world today, both within the religious communities’ responses to the possibility of war as well as in the way that the world understands and responds to various issues and crises. Over the next few weeks look for a series of articles on both the Christian and Islamic just war theories. Besides offering some interesting background information I hope to show that despite similarities in Christian and Islamic just war theories the Islamic identification of religious and secular authority prohibits Islamic just war theory from playing a relevant role in contemporary debate over the nature of just war.
So long as the majority of the world (or at least the majority of the world’s leaders) are committed to religious pluralism there really is no room for Islamic inisights on war and statehood to find a voice. This in turn means that any attempt to harmonize current Western political thought with that of a distinctly Islamic character is destined to fail. It is a debate over fundamental values and institutions, and where one side gains ascendancy the other necessarily must fail.
Lot’s of people like to lament the fact that American education is, well, less spectacular than we all might like it to be.
There’s a silver lining, though.
We’re not alone in our ignorance! This poor fellow and half the audience still haven’t received the “Copernican revolution” memo.
My favorite parts: the three people in the audience who can’t constrain their laughter when he says “final answer” and the hosts pathetic attempts at consolation.
(HT: Brad from Happy Mills)
There’s lots of talk these days about Facebook being the next Microsoft. Is it?
The main question for Facebook, as it is with nearly every interesting web idea, is how they will make money. CNN Money pointed out today that Facebook has taken an interesting route to profitability: by opening up the doors and letting developers make applications that users want. In some ways, Facebook is akin to a real-estate developer. They own the property and are fostering other people to create the businesses on it. The internal competition is clearly good for Facebook–when applications die because of errors or lameness, Facebook isn’t as fault. Their brand is protected, while developers take all the risk and engage in the competition.
But that doesn’t mean that Facebook’s future is secure. For one, there is a larger adult market that hasn’t quite jumped on board the Facebook bus. As Arnold Kling points out, until the platform allows for a greater degree of control over what information is seen and shared, adult users aren’t likely to. In addition, they still have not perfected their source of revenue (right now, it’s mostly ads).
But the future for Facebook is still rosy. Even though Josh Harris left after a week, most people will stay, especially when Facebook becomes the home for email, text messaging, and Twitter.
I don’t read Boars Head Tavern very much. I’ll confess that up front.
But they have hit on a discussion of politics lately that has been of some interest to me, particularly sense at least one of the members, Bill Mackinnon, has registered strong disagreement with the decision to invade Iraq. Along the way, he made this claim:
I’ve been a Republican all my voting life and am certainly not a pacifist. I consider this administration to be the most power mad and corrupt in my memory.
That’s the sort of claim that makes me think our political and cultural memory is dead. This past week I have been revisiting the Clinton era for work and have been reminded of the corruption that was rampant throughout their administration. There is good evidence to think that the Clinton’s went to extraordinary lengths to cover Bill’s “indiscretions.” Even if the decision to invade Iraq was a bad one–and I am still unpersuaded that it was–the claim that this administration is the most corrupt in recent memory is tendentious at best and probably downright ludicrous.
Our political resolve is clearly weak, which is problematic enough, but our political memory is no better.
Michael Barone, a senior editor at US News and World Report, has written a gem of a history in his newest book Our First Revolution. While the American Revolution is largely hailed as the first significant experiment in representative democracy, Barone argues persuasively that England’s Glorious Revolution of 1688-89, in which William of Orange (Netherlands) invaded England and took the throne from James II, formed the backdrop and political example for the American revolution.
Barone’s historical explication is both detailed and extensive. He effectively sets the Glorious Revolution within its political and religious contexts, briefly but thoroughly examining the reign of Charles II, James II’s brother who had tenuously but successfully navigated the turbulent religious waters of his day. While Charles demonstrated some political savvy, James demonstrated none. At the height of concerns about Catholicism in England, James converted to Catholicism, precipitating a crisis in the government as Parliament moved to exclude James from the throne. While Charles ceded to their demand, temporarily banishing his brother, he also prorogued Parliament for an extended period of time, effectively moving England toward the “absolute monarch” model of Louis XIV in France. When Charles died, James took the throne to no little dissent–the Duke of Monmouth, the illegitimate child of Charles, was the more popular figure as he was both a successful general and a Protestant.
James’ rule would be marked by efforts to consolidate power in the monarchy, thereby ensuring that his Catholic heirs would remain on the throne, and by his efforts to bring tolerance for Catholics to England. When Parliament was resistant to his efforts, he worked to rig the elections to create a Parliament that was more friendly to his work. When compared with the persecution of Protestants by the Catholic Louis XIV in France, James’ efforts to instill Catholicism in England made him unpopular.
England would be saved from James’ efforts by William of Orange, James’ cousin who wanted to procure England’s help against Louis XIV and France. William was also interested, of course, in procuring the British crown for himself, which led to his invasion of England in 1688, an invasion that was mostly bloodless and which resulted in the promotion of representative democracy. William, the master propogandist, had released a pamphlet in England prior to his arrival claiming that he would ensure unimpaired elections to Parliament. He never broke his promise.
When James fled England, England faced a governmental crisis. Louis XIV was growing in power across the channel and threatening the Netherlands, but England had no government to speak of. William called elections and asked Parliament to convene–during their convention, they named William king, created a Bill of Rights, limited the King’s power, and declared war on France. Barone argues effectively that these changes to England’s monarchy were both effective and were imitated roughly 100 years later by the American revolutionaries. In the words of Barone, “Americans were thus not rebelling against the Revolutionary settlement. They were seeking to preserve in their own states what they believed the Revolution of 1688-89 had established.”
Links to the previous adventures and series intro are at the bottom of the page.
Every time you fly a mission away from your home station you and your crew are entitled to per diem money that is meant to cover any sort of incidental expenses that might arise: things like eating at a restaurant when the military dining facilities are unavailable, paying for shuttle service to and from you place of lodging, etc. Most crew members like to view this as extra pocket money and do everything they can to be entitled to per diem money without ever having to spend it.
You just got word that you are scheduled for take off at three in the morning, meaning that the chow hall won’t be open for you to grab some food for the trip. You have the option of stopping at a gas station to buy some junk food and charge it to the military’s account, thus allowing your crew to pocket all of their per diem money. You also know that you will be able to pick up in-flight meals (“Box Nasties” as they are affectionally called by all those who have had to eat them) from the flight kitchen. The rest of the crew wants to stop at the gas station and charge the bill to Uncle Sam even though the military expects you to make due with the in-flight meal. As the aircraft commander, it is is up to you whether or not to add the additional expense of the junk food stop to the military’s (and tax payer’s) bill, or to just force your crew to “suck it up” and eat the military rations.
Do you give in to the requests of your crew to make the gas station stop…after all, who really cares about the added expense of a few candy bars and soda pops? Do you refuse to permit this minor case of “fraud, waste, and abuse” out of the principle of the matter? What is gained or lost by the decision you make?
Ethical Adventure 1: Way Too Christian
Ethical Adventure 2: Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink!
Update: Consistent? Absolutely! Step one, then step two!
My brother says “yes.” I remain unconvinced.
Watch this video of the Massachusetts gubernatorial debate. Romney argues forcefully that he will not change the pro-life laws. In fact, he argues with the sort of passion that suggests he is either (a) an extremely polished liar or (b) earnestly committed to what he is saying.
If you watch this interview with Jan Mickelson, though, where Mitt doesn’t know he’s being videotaped, you’ll see the exact same passion that he demonstrated in the gubernatorial debates. He’s so passionate that he barely restrains himself, an excellent indication that he is not managing his words so they are politically appropriate. Rather, he is earnestly committed to the separation of church and state.
On this issue, at least, Mitt seems consistent. As for the others? I don’t know, but it’s plausible that the same explanation could be used for all of them–personally, Mitt has always held conservative opinions but has thought that his political position needs to represent the will of the people that elect him.
What is clear is that the “flip-flopping” charge is probably the single greatest hurdle Romney will have to overcome. Reminders of Kerry will doubtlessly prove rhetorically effective, even if inaccurate.
(HT: Jim for the first video)
As they penned the books that form our name here at Mere Orthodoxy, we’re pretty interested in all things C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton. I’m enthralled by the new journal of the C.S. Lewis Foundation, which owns the Kilns and puts on the program “Oxbridge” every few years. The articles it has up now look excellent and it will be updated monthly. From the “About” page of the journal:
Inspired by the life and legacy of C.S. Lewis, the C.S. Lewis Foundation is dedicated to advancing the renewal of Christian scholarship and artistic expression throughout the mainstream of our colleges and universities, and by extension, the culture at large. In this spirit, the Foundation offers this online, peer-reviewed journal to stimulate discussion concerning the relationship of Christianity to the academy and the arts. Following the lead of Lewis as expressed in his classic book Mere Christianity, the Foundation and its journal are pleased to be a meeting ground that celebrates the core commitment to Jesus Christ that is common to all Christians of historic faith. The Foundation hopes that these articles will provoke intellectually engaging and responsible dialogue and insight concerning the moral, social, intellectual, and spiritual issues confronting thoughtful persons of goodwill around the world.
Indeed. I will say that it is purely coincidental that this month they are featuring an article entitled, “Externality in Lewis, Tolkien and Chesterton” by a Matthew Lee. It is a different Matthew Lee, who is obviously far more erudite than I.
It is not coincidental, however, that the managing editor of the journal is a friend of mine, which only makes it easier to commend the Journal to you as a place of excellent writing and insightful essays.
If you happen to read the Mere-O Abridged sidebar you’ll notice that we’ve highlighted the Telegraphs’s Top 50 Must Watch YouTube videos for some time now. The other day I sat down to review their picks, and was amazed at their amazing lack of sense of humor. Of their top ten comedy flicks, only one actually made me laugh. Notably lacking from their list were those universal favorites like Gary Brolsma’s Numa Numa or the Dancing Cadet from the Air Force Academy. If a web comedy flick can make the frontpages of news giants like CNN like these two did, it should at least be an honorable mention on any Top 50 list worth its salt.
So in an effort to make amends for accidentally endorsing some of the most un-funny comic clips on YouTube (with all due apologies to the Telegraph), I submit to you my personal list of best amateur comedy on the web. Ever. (more…)
My friend Vicki responded in person to my first post about Jesus’ mother, saying that she (Vicki) does feel a certain sense of wonder about small objects that were touched or used by famous people of the past, Abraham Lincoln’s top hat for instance, or George Washington’s wooden teeth. And Mary, who was the flesh from whom the flesh of Christ came (she provided the egg, after all), attains a certain kind of fame and wonderfulness from being used as Christ’s carrier.Some might say that such adoration of “relics” from old Presidents is quaint and nice, but mostly sentimental and not-rational. And that, by extension, so is affection for Mary.
Two responses to this: 1. If by “sentimental,” you mean “of or relating to the sentiment,” then I agree. If by sentimental you mean “merely sentimental,” or “to the exclusion of the rational,” then I will have to challenge you.
It had been about a month since Dizzy and I sat down and decided to write a screenplay. We had each done our own research and internal development and come up with a few ideas. We had written broad overviews in our heads and hashed them out with each other. But the time had come to get serious or go home.
We created a four-month schedule for ourselves. Brian Tracy observes that the human psyche simply requires deadlines. If the deadlines are not being given to you from the outside, by principals, university presidents, professors, parents, or pastors, then they must be given to you from the inside; that is, you must give them to yourself. Plato observed that the unlimited becomes meaningful upon the imposition of limit. Time (unlimited) becomes “Time in which a screenplay is written,” (meaningful time) upon the imposition of the deadline, August 4th, 2007.
No preface, just a link to the series introduction and previous adventure.
You just got back from a long day of flying supplies into the military area of responsibility (AOR). On the way back to your lodging you pass a group of fellow officers and pilots who are sitting outside near a BBQ grill, laughing, smoking and drinking. As you draw near, they call out your name and invite you to join them. You were planning to relax in your room, but you decide to shoot the breeze with them for awhile and maybe strengthen some of the friendships you have just started building with the guys.
However, after just a few minutes you notice that most of the conversations are more or less sunk in the gutter. Everyone has that bleary-eyed look about them that comes from having consumed more than a moderate amount of alcohol. You begin to think that your presence there is only counter-productive, but as you start to get up to leave one of the more inebriated fellows notices your empty hands and insists that you get a drink. He offers you some beer or, better yet, a couple shots of whiskey. At first you refuse, but his persistence grow stronger and louder the more you try to reject his offer. Soon everyone is gathered around you, chanting for you to take a drink. You are having flashbacks to your high school Life Skills class on peer pressure.
It strikes you as ridiculous that a group of grown men, half of them probably your seniors by at least ten years, are trying to pressure you into doing something that you politely declined. They have no idea why you refused the drink in the first place: it may have been because you weren’t feeling well, or because you had some work to get done later on that required the full use of your mind, or maybe you don’t drink for religious reasons, or perhaps you simply don’t feel like having a beer. Nevertheless, it has become something of a point of honor in their mind to get you to have a drink.
Do you pacify the mob by tossing back a shot? What would that sort of compliance under pressure say to them about your character? Would it say anything at all? Do you stand your ground and continue to refuse? If you refuse, how do you explain your course of action to them? Do you even bother trying? Why would you refuse?
