The Christian Kantianist

A Working Man

2006-02-23T10:18:00.000-08:00

I just got back last night from Washington, D.C. I was interviewing for a position with the premier public policy think tank in the country, and they have informed me that they are going to offer me the job. My primary areas will be education issues as well as family and welfare issues.

I'll start June 1st (roughly 10 days after graduation).

As I prepare for this job, expect a lot of posts on school choice, vouchers, etc.

Sexuality and the De-valuing of Humans

2006-02-16T10:05:00.000-08:00

Today in my Byzantium and the Islamic Empire class, we were discussing the effects of the early church's repudiation of the value of sex for anything other than procreation, and its effects on society (we were looking at it from Muhammad's perspective in the 7th century, but that's not important here). My professor asserted that the teaching contributed significantly to the devaluing of women for many centuries, and the subsequent lower status that females had. Based on this assertion, an interesting thesis popped into my head, though I'm not sure if it has been argued elsewhere or not. I agreed with the professor, and going a step further, I believe that the sexual revolution of the 20th century and the philosophical change toward sexuality that has occured has swung the pendulum the opposite direction. That is, the "sex as a commodity" approach that sociologists speak of amounts to a repudiation of sex in a similar way, but this time it does so to the suppression and detriment of all non-married people.

Obviously, I'd have to tighten this thesis up quite a bit, and I haven't developed it very much. I do see an alarming trend in our culture, where sex within marriage is not given higher status than sex outside of marriage. If there is no philosophical difference between the two, the results are disastrous, with children being born out of wedlock, sexually transmitted diseases running amok, and marriages breaking down constantly.

Thus, my basic argument is a descriptive one, and would therefore require a lot of sociological and historical data to back up. At this point, I just want to throw it out there to see what everyone thinks. Is the liberal view of sexuality in our culture leading to devastating consequences? If so (which I think the answer is clearly yes), then is the ultimate consequence the devaluing of humanity in general? I think the answer to this is also a yes. When we no longer care about illegitimate child rates, divorce rates (broken homes with children), and sexually transmitted diseases killing thousands, then I think we have lost a large degree of human dignity and worth.

Let me know what you think.

On Contraceptives

2006-01-20T20:12:00.000-08:00

As evidenced by some of my previous posts, I believe the institution of marriage to be fundamental to society. Also, keeping the institution of marriage sacred is vital to the Christian faith and church. Thus, having a proper theological understanding of marriage is extremely important for each and every Christian to develop. One of the most complex, difficult, and debated aspects of the marriage relationship involves the use of contraceptives within the marriage relationship. Many believe the decision to use contraceptives to be a personal one that is made when they are entering a marriage relationship, but I believe it to be a far more important theological question. I will attempt to convey my beliefs on the subject, but am extremely interested to hear what others have to say.

First, it is important to note that the existence and use of contraceptives have, from a practical standpoint, damaged the institution of marriage significantly. Contraceptives were clearly at the center of the sexual revolution of the 60s, and continue to give individuals confidence that they can have sexual relations without the unintended consequence of having children. Thus, contraceptives have divorced the sexual act from conception to a high enough degree to invert the intended, natural order. In terms of social history, I think there can be little argument against this (except that sexual freedom is a higher value, which is the primary tenet of feminism), but the higher question that must be answered is what I would like to deal with. If contraceptives were only used by Christians, within the confines of marriage, would they be considered a moral good or ill? That is, is the use of contraceptives consistent with biblical values or not?

I first would like to state, and then quickly move on, from the most basic argument that is made about contraceptives. Many Christians will argue that contraceptives frustrate the will of God. I have considered this argument, but ultimately find it by itself to be unpersuasive, because every personal decision we make would then have the possibility of preventing the Almighty in some capacity from achieving His will. The point is taken that even within marriage, contraceptives separate intercourse from procreation to some degree - the question is if that is ok.

Clearly, the Bible affirms that sexual activity is not merely for procreation. Paul speaks of women not denying their husband at any time. In the Old Testament, the Song of Solomon also shows the importance of the marriage act beyond procreation. I believe this is the main argument of those who favor the use of contraceptives - that sex isn't just about procreation, so contraceptives merely allow the Christian to be responsible in their decisions about having a family (when to have kids, how many to have based on finances, etc.). I do not believe, however, this issue to be as simple as determining whether sex is about procreation, pleasure, or both.

At this point, let me state that I believe life begins at conception, so I obviously do not condone the use of any types of contraception that would abort what has already been conceived. Anything from a morning after pill to an abortion would clearly be wrong. But, this doesn't answer the simple question of whether using standard contraceptive devices is right or wrong.

Biblically, I can't really give a much better answer than what I have already said. Because the biblical narratives didn't have to deal with this issue, there is nothing to directly reference. Thus, I believe tradition and Christian logic to be important to use here, but perhaps not definitive. I will state my thoughts, and then listen to yours.

As Christians, we should be responsible yet trusting at all times. When it comes to planning our family, this is a delicate balance. Perhaps having another child would be a financial burden or too time-consuming. While I understand this argument, I ultimately reject it completely. I believe that trusting God knows when we are ready to have a child is more important (and reliable) than our own plans. Even so, the statistics I have looked at show that Natural Family Planning is statistically equivalent to most types of contraceptives. So, even if one wishes to be responsible, there are other ways than using contraceptives. This brings up the important issue, if family planning is biblical, then why isn't family planning using modern technology biblical? I still can't get around this question, but will provide perhaps my only original thought on this subject.

I believe there to be a fundamental difference between contracepted sex and non-contracepted sex. I also believe there to be a difference between family planning and contraceptives. Non-contracepted sex (within marriage) is safer than the use of pills and such. Natural sex, is also just that, more natural, and thus has a profound psychological edge over contracepted sex. Moreover, it is scientific enough to be responsible, but natural enough to allow God to use the sexual act for its primary purpose: procreation. Furthermore, natural family planning affirms the biblical values of self-control and self-denial. Christians, even within marriage, can act as witnesses to their ability to responsibly abstain from sex, even if they are sleeping right next to that person. As an example to teens who feel it impossible to abstain from sex, this could be powerful, or to friends who find it difficult to be abstinent outside of marriage, this would be a great example. Morever, from a practical standpoint, this type of self-denial could add a lot of romance into a marriage relationship (though from a moral standpoint, this doesn't have a lot of weight).

Ok, so I probably haven't proven anything to you, but I think I've stated why I am not going to use contraceptives within marriage, and also why I think that you shouldn't. My points are not entirely definitive however, so I am certainly open to discussion and disagreement, so have at it.

Excuses

2006-01-15T20:14:00.000-08:00

Hey everyone... sorry for my lack of posting lately. Let me give you a few excuses:

1. I was out of town with no access to a computer for over a week.
2. I'm lazy.
3. I was hoping more people would comment on the flat-tax post.

None of those are completely adequate, because I watched the Alito hearings in their entirety, and I definitely could have written something while I was watching, for sure.

Oh well, I'd like to end this by promising to post something interesting soon, but...

I'm getting my wisdom teeth out tomorrow morning, and I won't be posting until I'm not drugged up anymore... Sorry!

Flat-Out Necessary

2005-12-26T10:56:00.000-08:00

When it comes to tax policy in America, the issue has become an extremely complex, intricate, and burdensome one to understand. The tax code contains volumes of provisions that few people comprehensively grasp. Moreover, tax policy is used to encourage certain types of behaviors over others through tax credits, exemptions, and penalties. Perhaps most importantly, the tax system is used in our country as a mechanism to redistribute wealth through progressively taxing income, coupled with an extensive welfare state that uses those taxes to provide social welfare programs for those in poverty.

Philosophically, my belief in limited government and protections against government intrusion lead me to condemn the use of government coercion through the tax code. As a rule, government intrusion is highly troubling. While this especially bothers me when the government coerces in a way that I disagree with, any coercion causes me distress. A great example for me would be with marriage - even though as a conservative I believe the government ought to protect the institution of marriage, it is precisely that the manipulation of the tax code that causes homosexual rights activists to call for marriage rights. If there was no economic benefit to marriage, perhaps there would be no debate here.

To answer the second question, as to whether the tax system ought to be progressive, I would like to devote the rest of this post to answering. Many people argue that the conservative, pragmatic view of taxes is in opposition to the liberal, idealistic view of tax policy. Quite simply, this is an unfair and wrong way to frame the debate. Both positions are based on ideals: alleviating poverty, affording equal opportunity, reducing unemployment, and gathering tax revenue for the government to provide important services (roads, defense, schools, etc.).

At this point, I'll advocate my position on taxes: the flat tax is flat-out necessary for the economic well-being of our country. In terms of effectiveness, many estimates have the flat tax creating roughly 5 trillion dollars in wealth in just a couple of years. The Laffer Curve is definitely not "voodoo economics." When countries drop their tax rates substantially, they collect more total tax revenue! If anyone is unfamiliar with the Laffer Curve, just post and I'll explain it more in a comment. Purely based on economic considerations, the flat tax is far superior than a progressive tax. Progressive taxes restrain entrepreneurship and the creation of wealth by creating systemic penalties for creating wealth. As taxes are higher on those that run businesses, they can't hire as many workers, and unemployment goes up.

Need evidence? Look at how America is quickly beginning to lose our global advantage economically. As globalization takes hold of the international economic scene, investing will flow to economies that have unburdensome taxes and vibrant economies. A couple examples: Ireland has slashed its corporate taxes from over 50 percent to 12.5 percent, unemployment has gone from double digits to 5 percent (less than American unemployment). Russia has gone to a 13 percent flat tax, and their economy immediately began to turn around and grow. Romania, Georgia, and Poland have all adopted flat taxes and seen immediate results.

A flat tax upholds all of the ideals that I mentioned earlier. The primary mechanism for alleviating poverty is to reduce unemployment. The redistribution of wealth over the last half-century has proven to be a colossal failure at alleviating poverty (2.2 percent increase in poverty, and we've spent billions of dollars in the process). It is time to realize that economic freedom and prosperity, through low, uncomplicated taxes is the best way to go.

So, let's adopt a flat tax of roughly 17-20 percent. A consumption based tax that taxes income just once will promote saving and investing. Overall tax revenues will increase as wealth is created. What we have now, our taxes will continue to go up, because raising taxes causes a stagnation in tax revenues, and law makers will always increase taxes to find money for new programs. As they raise taxes, overall tax revenue will not increase, and thus the spiral toward European socialistic tax practices begins. Let's avoid this, and go with a flat tax.

In discussion, I'd love to express why I'm for a flat tax instead of a fair tax (sales tax).

Finals Week

2005-12-15T07:32:00.000-08:00

I'm only writing this post to apologize for not posting anything lately. It is finals week at school, and I have not been able to find the time to write anything of worth.

When finals week is over, I'd like to wrestle with some of the following topics:

1. Christian Kantianism
2. NFL Playoffs Preview and Predictions
3. Contraceptives (their effect on society and ethicality)
4. Courting vs. Dating
5. The Perfect Presidential Candidate in 2008
6. The Flat Tax (vs. Fair Tax vs. what was have now)

If you particularly like one of these or a few of these, let me know, and I'll do those ones first.

24 Is the Best Show Ever

2005-12-08T11:39:00.000-08:00

The past few months, my eyes have been opened to perhaps the greatest television show of all time: 24. Though I have never seen it on television, my friends and I have been watching the DVD's all fall, and I have now watched all of Seasons 1, 2, and 3. Please keep in consideration that I have not yet viewed Season 4, so in any of your comments do not give away anything that happened if you have seen it. In this post, I'd like to talk to you about my favorite storylines and characters, and ultimately the larger cultural commentary that the show provides.

First, let me explain the basic premise of the show. Each season is comprised of twenty-four, one-hour episodes, comprising a one-day period in which the show occurs in real time. Thus, every season functions as the equivalent of an 18 hour movie (if you take out the commercials) when watched back-to-back (like I have). The main character, Jack Bauer, works for a fictitious "Counter Terrorism Unit - Los Angeles" which is a federal law enforcement agency with regional offices, such as Bauer's in LA. Each season deals with a single terrorist threat, which have ranged from an assassination attempt of the President, a nuclear bomb in Los Angeles, and the release of a deadly virus.

On to storylines. I'll try not to give anything away here, so I'll speak somewhat generally. I love the fact that in every season, main characters die. Their work is dangerous, and the show would be incredibly unrealistic if they were constantly getting into gun fights, being held hostage, etc., and nobody ever died. Also, not to sound incredibly sadistic, but I think it is sweet that the terrorists are often mildly successful. In both season two and season three, the terrorists are able to blow up a federal building, release a deadly virus in a busy building (killing over a thousand people), and twist the arm of even the President himself. I think this is cool, because it makes the urgency of what the good guys are doing that much greater, because their failures lead to the deaths of at least thousands, and possibly millions. Another recurring storyline that I love is that characters are constantly "switching sides." Again, without giving anything away, every season includes characters who you think are good, being revealed as evil, and characters that you think are evil being revealed as good. As you watch, you never know who to trust, and that makes it that much sweeter.

As for characters, everybody has to love Jack Bauer. First, I have a theory that his name is symbolic of the "right bower" in Euchre. For those of you that don't play Euchre, the Jack of the trump suit is the strongest card, and trumps everything else, and it is called the right bower. Just a thought. But Jack is pretty much the sweetest guy ever. He's formerly special forces, and he is the toughest guy alive. He is able to torture bad guys with no remorse, yet he somehow is incredibly compassionate and caring. He is constantly willing to sacrifice his own life to save others, yet is so good that he always saves his own life as well. Let's be honest, every girl wants Jack, and every guy wants to be Jack. But Jack isn't my favorite character that has appeared on the show. This might give something away, but an IT guy, named Gael, from the third season, is my favorite character, because for most of the season, I totally misjudged him. Without going into detail, while you think he is the most evil guy ever, he ends up being a totally sweet guy. The last dialogue that he is a part of before he dies goes something like this:

(Gael is dying from a horrible disease that eats away at his body. Michelle pulls out her gun and places it on the table...)
Michelle: Nobody could fault you for ending your suffering, in this life.... or the next.

(Gael puts his hand on the gun...)
Gael: Are you so sure about that?
(...and he slides it back across the table)

So, there's so much to talk about with characters and storylines, but I've tried my best to not give anything away, because you guys should all rent this show and watch it, all of it. It is amazing. The show has brought up some cultural commentary however, that I will only pose as questions for now:

1. Are mild forms of torture useful in stopping terrorism? Morally justifiable? (The show seems to answer yes and yes.) (A bigger question might be whether it is strategically counterproductive)

2. How should we deal with terrorists when a threat is imminent? We say we will not negotiate with terrorists, but that position is difficult when there is a nuclear bomb set to go off and kill millions.

3. Can the President really pardon a terrorist in order to stop other terrorists?

4. CTU Agents are always conveniently disregarding privacy laws, and they always seem to have access to private phone numbers, email accounts, etc. Are we ok with this? Is it realistic even?

Please comment with praise of 24, answers to these societal questions, and additional comments about the show.

Public Schools Should Work Like the NFL

2005-12-04T21:00:00.000-08:00

Over the years I have developed what I believe to be a unique theory about how public schools should run, and interestingly enough it has much to do with my passion for football. In my previous post, I mentioned how I would love to do away with public school altogether, but I understand that this is unrealistic and will never happen. Instead, I have developed a theory as to how we can make a flawed system better.

In the National Football League, in the name of competitive parity, there is a salary cap for every team, and there is revenue sharing, so that teams which bring in more fans and sell more merchandise end up giving a lot of money to teams that do not do as well. Sounds communistic right? Well, it is, but the NFL is a single product, not 32 competing economic entities. Similarly, public schools are really part of a single product (public education), but compete with each other for government resources, teachers, and achievement levels. What then can public schools learn from the NFL? The free-agency system.

The tenure system is stupid. You get paid more not because you are a better teacher, but because you have been there longer. I would go on and on about why this is stupid, but I can't imagine anyone saying that the tenure system is a good one. But nobody else is proposing a new system... but I dare to go there today.

A free-agency system would work superbly. The state would give schools a salary cap (which would keep local taxes down), and there is already a built in revenue sharing since the tax revenue from all of the districts is regulated by the state government. At this point, schools could sign teachers to contracts of varying lengths and amounts, all while fitting under the salary cap. It would be the district's job (probably the Superintendent/Principal) to come up with the right mix of teachers to fit under the alloted salary cap. This artificial market-based approach would reward teachers based on their qualifications, experience, and potential as well. Thus, a Harvard educated teacher would get paid like a 1st round draft pick, just as a proven, experienced teacher would get paid like an established NFL veteran.

I think that this system is appealing to everyone. Why wouldn't teachers want to be able to switch schools freely if they get a better offer? Why wouldn't teachers like the idea of being able to renegotiate their contract every few years? Why wouldn't schools like the accountability of teachers needing to perform to earn their money?

Clearly, one drawback is an over-emphasis on achievement scores. But, a good principal would be constantly observing teachers, seeking student input, and so on to get a good understanding of who the best teachers are and who are not.

In my system, the kids win. Almost as much as if all school was privatized...

Universal Pre-K?

2005-11-30T12:48:00.000-08:00

A chic policy proposal that has gained steam in a few different states is for the public school system to be extended to younger children. I would like to quickly examine the arguments for and against this policy.

While I do not have any background in child development, the research tends to be pretty strong that children are extremely impressionable from the ages of 3-5, and that pre-school education can have a positive impact on their cognitive and social development. Thus, universal pre-k advocates make the argument that education at the pre-school level is every bit as compelling for the state to provide as K-12 education.

To this end, advocates claim that a proper education is necessary to succeed in society, and those who do not have access to pre-school will not be able to compete academically, or in the marketplace, with those who are able to receive private pre-K education. There is a lot of truth to this claim, actually, when one looks at the education gap that exists between those on the lower and upper ends of the socioeconomic spectrum.

Universal Pre-K, therefore, is fundamentally a tool to provide equality to those who would otherwise not be able to receive this type of education. While that might sound great, there are also a lot of reasons to be against this policy.

1. This would cost an arm and a leg. It would cost billions of dollars a year to provide universal pre-school, and for a larger state would cost close to a billion dollars. Enacting policy of this sort would be economically detrimental.

2. A huge percentage of families do not need the government to pay for their pre-school. The same problem that occurs with other huge government programs is that the government wastes a ton of money on those who do not need it.

3. This policy is incredibly paternalistic. The state determines the best way to educate children, and limits the choice that parents have to make. Parents whose taxes are going toward the state-run pre-school will be economically coerced into sending their kids to these public schools rather than choosing a private pre-school of their choice for an additional cost. These kids are really young, and we are going to entrust hours of their care to the state, rather than schools that are chosen by parents. I do not like trading parental influence for state influence.

4. There are other alternatives. While I’m not huge on any government spending, if we must do so, let’s do it intelligently. Providing vouchers to disadvantaged children to attend the same private schools that well-off kids attend would be a far better use of tax revenues than universal pre-school. Schools that effectively prepare children for K-12 will attract more students and the market will take over as a regulatory institution. This is a viable alternative. My other favorite alternative: do nothing. In fact, let’s abolish public schools altogether… but that’s an argument for another day.

Football 492: Advanced American Football Theory

2005-11-28T15:37:00.000-08:00

I am an avid fan of the National Football League. Well, calling myself just “a fan” would probably be an understatement. I have personally attended roughly 175 NFL games in my lifetime. Being only 21 years of age, that means I have been to every home Steelers game in my lifetime except 3. Additionally, there have been only a handful of Sundays in my life in which I have not watched an entire NFL game, and only a few more in which I haven’t watched multiple NFL games. I think I am more than an average fan… I would call myself a modern football expert. You might disagree, but based on this characterization of myself, I would like to teach you some theories that I have formulated. I have developed immutable football theory for both on-field strategies as well as for front office football activity.

I will start with commandments that should apply to off-the field activity.

1. Never fire a capable coach. This is perhaps the most important thing I have to say, so if you remember nothing else, remember this. Never be that guy at work who is always saying “Fire Cowher, we’ll never win with him!” The Steelers have the best aggregate record from 1992 to the present in the entire NFL. They are also the only team to have only one coach during that span (in fact, there is no other team that has had less than 3!). Look at all of the best teams in the league right now (Indianapolis, Denver, Dallas, Seattle) and look at their Head Coaches. They have all been there a few years, and are all proven winners. Seattle stuck by Mike Holmgren, a championship coach in Green Bay, despite having some mediocre seasons strung together. So many experts called for Holmgren to be fired, but Seattle stuck by him. Now they are the best team in the NFC.

Realize why keeping your coach around is so important. During the salary-cap era in the NFL, the roster turnover is amazingly high. Teams, on average, change about one-third of their roster every season. This kind of instability makes it very difficult to build off of the previous season’s momentum, which is important to becoming a Superbowl contender. Thus, having the same head coach every season provides some semblance of continuity, far more than switching head coaches every few seasons.

So, Ravens fans take note – just because Brian Billick is having a poor season does not mean he should be fired. He led you to a Superbowl, and he has never had a losing season. I hate him, and I hate the Ravens – so I hope they do fire him – but it would be a huge mistake. Green Bay and Philly should also take note – your coaches did not suddenly forget how to coach football, and change is not a good thing.

2. Team Chemistry is actually important. Football teams should care more about team chemistry and makeup than they do. Successful teams place character at the top of their list for potential draft picks or free agents. This might seem obvious with all of the recent Terrell Owens news, but most NFL teams will never learn their lesson. The Steelers value character, so much so that they did not even try to re-sign Plaxico Burress, a player who was never in trouble with the law and was a big contributor on the field. They didn’t attempt to resign him because they felt he was soft and that he wasn’t a hard worker. The Steelers receivers are clearly not as good this year, but the offense is more highly ranked. Go figure. The Saints, Vikings, Raiders, and Philadelphia don’t seem to value character very highly, and look at their records. The Broncos, Colts, Steelers, and Chargers value it very highly, and look at their records

Now, onto on-field strategies:

1.Blitzing is stupid. Endlessly, football announcers talk about how important it is to pressure the quarterback, and I agree. But, to blitz a lot is just foolish. Sure, rushing an extra guy sometimes (that makes 5 rushers) works pretty well, and can fool an offensive line. There is absolutely no reason, however, to rush 6 guys or more. Almost every time a defense does this, the extra guys seem to get in each other’s way, and the result is a huge gain when the quarterback passes it over their heads. I can’t really prove this to you until you start watching NFL games – most sacks come on 5 man rushes or less, and most big offensive plays happen when 6 guys cross the line. Don’t blitz.

To this end, people think the Steelers blitz a lot. Heck, they are often called “Blitzburgh.” But the Steelers don’t really blitz that often. They play a 3-4 defense, so they get to the quarterback by sending their 3 defensive lineman, plus one linebacker (somebody different every play), and sometimes 2 linebackers (that would make 5 rushers). The Steelers rarely send 6 guys across the line, and they certainly don’t do so on 3rd and long.
Now, a rebuttal to this would be that statistics show that offenses only score 12 percent of the time or something when the quarterback is sacked even once on a drive. I understand this statistic, but I wish there was a statistic that says the percentage of time that the offense gets a first time when the defense sends 6 guys on a blitz. I bet the number is above 60 percent.

2. Do not punt on 4th and less than 4 inside the 40 yard line when you are losing. I am so sick of seeing teams punt it into the endzone from the 40 yard line on 4th and 2. The average NFL play averages 5.3 yards – and most teams convert about 50 percent of their 4th down conversions! A first down in this situation almost assuredly gets you 3 points, and maybe 7. A punt gets you, at best, 24 yards of field position, and often less than that. It doesn’t make any sense.

Even more importantly, it sends a message to your team that you don’t think that you can get 2 yards for a first down. Psychologically, this is very detrimental. I have absolutely no evidence of this, other than to say that there are a few teams that I have noticed punt a lot in opposition territory – Buffalo, Miami, and Arizona. All three teams are terrible.

3. Run, run, and run some more. The team with more rushing yards in a game wins something like 80 percent of NFL contests. Why don’t people understand this? Only one passing team has won the Superbowl in the last 15 years that I can think of (St. Louis). Passing-first teams are often good, but not great (Kansas City, Philadelphia). Running first teams are much more consistently good (Indianapolis despite having Peyton, Pittsburgh, Denver, Green Bay before this year, San Diego). Rushing teams are better, enough said.

Nothing displays this more than NFL teams around the goal-line. This might be an entirely different law, but the fade route is the worst play in football. Teams try it all of the time, and it has about a 3 percent effectiveness rate. I made that up, but it is in fact the worst play in football.

Well, I have so much more to say about football than this, but this post is getting long as it is. I’ll post more about football every week probably during the season. Please post your thoughts on football in general here, but I’m more interested in your thoughts on homosexual marriage below, so please continue that discussion in the meantime, as you await a post on contraceptives, which should come in the next day or so.

Why You Should Be Against Homosexual Marriage

2005-11-25T16:31:00.000-08:00

I'm a theologically conservative Christian - so of course I'm going to argue against homosexual marriage, right? Well, that shouldn't be as obvious as it might be in American society today. Scripture is clear that homosexuality is wrong - just as it is clear that adultery, gossip, slander, and greed are all wrong. With each of these sins, we legislate in some ways, and we leave them to the realm of personal liberty and responsibility in other ways. But this post is entitled, "Why You Should Be Against Homosexual Marriage," implying that I will give you an argument as to why we should in fact, legislate against homosexual marriages. I will convince you of this fact, based almost entirely on secular sociological argumentation - though my argument will be particularly enticing to committed Christians who believe in the importance of the traditional family.

The argument is simple: the traditional family includes a father, mother, and their children. The sociological data, and basic common sense, always concludes that the best thing for children is to have a mother and a father, and the best-case scenario is for them to be their biological parents. Anything that undermines the family structure hurts the sociological foundation of our society. It is cliche to say that the family is the building block of our society, but it is cliche for a reason - it is true.

Based on this, we have to examine if legalizing homosexual marriage (or de facto homosexual marriage, i.e. civil unions) undermines the traditional family. I'm not making the elementary argument here "gay people can't have children and aren't as good as a mother and father," though those are certainly true claims. Instead, I'm making the argument that changing the definition of marriage to include homosexuals fundamentally redefines marriage from a family institution to something much more shallow - something that is only symbolic of love and committment. Surely, heterosexuals have done this on their own, with the extensive use of contraception, and more significantly no-fault divorce, but there are still cultural norms against adultery and divorce, though they are not necessarily as strong as they once were. Changing the definition of marriage to include homosexual marriage would crush those norms by completely separating marriage from parenting.

I have so much more to say about this, and I could bring up the arguments against mine, but I'll save that for discussion (which will hopefully happen). In the meantime, I want to give you some evidence. Homosexual marriage has been legal and accepted in the Scandinavian countries since about 1989. Since then, illegitimate birth rates have gone from 11-31 percent in the Netherlands, and in certain areas of the pro-homosexual country of Norway, they are as high as 82 percent. Read this letter written by Dutch scholars, which testifies to the decay of marriage in their country. This is precisely what happens to marriage as an institution when gay marriage is accepted.

So, Christian or not, you should be against homosexual marriage. Not because homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to commit to each other and love each other, they just can't use marriage as a symbol of their love. Marriage should not be symbolic, it should be a social contract between two people, an agreement that they plan on spending the rest of their life together, for two purposes - companionship, and more importantly to parent together.

I have so much more to say about this stuff... including a theory that the family is to society as the contract is to capitalism, but that is probably for a different day...

Am I Part of the Religious Right?

2005-11-24T19:31:00.000-08:00

I was sitting in a class the other day, and the professor started bashing the Religious Right. He claimed that they were blinded by the "Constantinian Temptation," to put the full force of the state behind the Church. He made the argument that when we overlap the state and the church, disastrous things happen. Without getting into examples, I completely agree, and I think that independent, robust religious institutions and civil society bolster the state, as does a state that emphasizes the necessity of freedom of religion.

As my professor railed on the Religious Right, I began to get defensive. I'm a committed evangelical Christian, and an ardent Conservative. Surely, I'm a Conservative largely because of my religious convictions (I was borderline socialist before I gave my life to Christ). Though I am very religious, and very much on the political right, I have never been blinded by this Constantinian temptation, or so I think. Hence, I need to determine if the religious right really desires to Christian-ize the government and that will determine if I am a part of the religious right.

First, I decided that there were certain political values that I was committed to, independent of (though obviously shaped by) my Christian values. I believe in the free-market and limited government. I believe, in a more traditional conservative sense, that we should not radically change institutions based on the value of tradition and the uncertainty of the future. I believe in the authority and limitations of the constitution. If you'd like to discuss each of these, I would be happy to - including biblical support for each of these ideas. I can argue for each of them from a sacred or secular point of view, and I therefore think that these beliefs are not contingent on my religiosity.

So, what defines the religious right? Is it defined by being a Christian as well as being a conservative? Or, is it being conservative ONLY because you are a Christian? I am starting to think that the latter is true, and I'll give you two reasons: Pat Robertson and James Dobson.

First of all, there's a great post over at this blog called "We're Not Israel". Read it. I would love to explain the argument, but he says it better than I could. Pat Robertson does not advocate my political position.

Secondly, we have James Dobson. Now, James Dobson is nothing like Pat Robertson. I like James Dobson. But he needs to understand the influence he has and act far more responsibly. You wouldn't believe how highly Christians view Dobson's opinions - too highly in my opinion. Sometimes, he is wrong. One example, among many, is his support for Harriet Miers. He did so because she is an evangelical Christian - not because she was the best choice for the Supreme Court.

These two guys are examples of what my professor was talking about. Blinded by their faith rather than guided by it (sometimes!), they influence politics in negative ways. If they are the Religious Right, I do not want to be. Not because they don't say things and advocate policies that I agree with, because they often do (well, Dobson more than Robertson), but because their political disposition is inherently flawed.

So, my professor was correct. Crazy religious right. Be religious... Be conservative. But do not call yourself part of the religious right.

First time blogger

2005-11-24T18:55:00.000-08:00

Welcome anyone who is actually reading my very first attempt at a blog. I hope to post very regularly in order to keep this thing interesting, but I know that blogs are only exciting if people read them and comment, so I hope that you find the substance to be worth discussion.

To this end, the following are my favorite topics of discussion: theology, politics, and sports. I must warn you - I think in very vague, general terms, which means that most of my posts will be more theoretical than practical, though I'll try to marry the abstract with the pragmatic. Mainly, I'd love to constantly discuss ideas, and when I'm at a loss for ideas to talk about, I'll probably post something on football, lacrosse, hockey, or baseball.

Expect a post from me in the very near future... though don't expect it to be proofread or revised. I'll type everything in my head and hit publish. Hope you don't mind.