Odd

Not too long ago Mark Shea sparked a discussion on his blog about miracles.

My maternal grandmother died back in June. My mother placed an icon of St. Andrew, one from an old monastery in the north of Cyprus, in the casket. I recall having mixed feelings about the act: it was a wonderful gesture, but then again I really liked the icon. You see, that icon used to be in my home, but I took it with me to school one year.

I made a comment to my mother late in summer about the lost icon, expressing a bit of regret that it was gone. It reminded me of my deceased father (who gave it to us originally) and grandparents, and I wished I had it back.

When I returned to school, I found that icon. Of course there are two options: there were two of them from the start, or something very strange happened. I don't think my family ever had two copies of the icon in question. I recall seeing one at home, the one I took back to school with me. Then again, I don't remember taking it with me when I returned home late last spring.

This is driving me crazy. I don't want to believe in some miracles that didn't happen. Yet I'm so very sure that there was only one copy of that icon of St. Andrew, and that we buried it with my grandmother.

FDR

He didn't help end the Great Depression.

This should be obvious to those who have a correct understanding of economics.

There's only one thing wrong with the article: there's good reason to believe (both based on economic theory and the numbers) that the massive slashing of the federal bureaucracy after FDR's last term did the trick.

Back to school.

I hate moving stuff.

Huzzah!

More Metallica exegesis, courtesy of the Old Oligarch.

Hate Speech

That's what people like to call the immutable teachings of the Church.

I really wish the Catholic and Orthodox Churches could patch things up and provide a united front against the relativism and authoritarianism that's making a steady advance.

(Link via Catholic and Enjoying It!)

Church and State

[What follows is a pretty long post, followed by some shorter, more lighthearted ones.]

So a federal judge has ordered that a sculpture reflecting the Ten Commandments be removed from the Alabama judicial building.

This is such a poor reading of the US Constitution. Can someone please point out to me where the "separation between church and state" was established? And no, taking this phrase out of context from one letter by Thomas Jefferson doesn't count (that's the only place you'll find this now sacred phrase).

The Constitution addresses the issue of establishment of religion. Here's the exact quote, the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

England had an established religion, the Anglican Church. This Amendment was designed to fight precisely that. What religion, pray tell, does the statue of the Ten Commandments establish? Christianity? Judaism? When is the last time the government official endorsed a church? Alabama isn't making Christianity the official church of that state, nor if the US Congress.

[Brief aside 1: And what does is it even mean to make Christianity the official church? There are so many conflicting and contradictory sects out there that call themselves Christian.]

[Brief aside 2: And why are Christians the bad guys here? The Ten Commandments are more important to Jews than Christians (Judaism being a more legalistic faith), but no one jeers Jews. It's always those evil Christian conservatives, "imposing their faith" on the rest of us.]

We have to realize, as a nation, that we owe a tremendous debt to the Judaeo-Christian tradition. That was the foundation of so much of our law and morality, no matter how much we kick and scream to the contrary. And that's the main point here: the Ten Commandments are the laws that civilization largely rests upon (we were a British colony, and Britain and the rest of Europe were Christian monarchies, and part of a Christian Empire before that).

This does relate to a larger issue, just what the relation between church and state should be.

There are two basic dangers that result when the two are separated: politics becomes arbitrary, and the attitude to religion becomes hostile.

Richard John Neuhaus has some interesting quotes in his book, The Naked Public Square. Here's on:

The danger of rights being overridden by abstractions is the danger posed by a "secular" approach that is typically utilitarian in its calculation of interests. In that approach...all values and all truth claims are reduced to the status of individualistic "interests." p. 120-121

Just think of the Federalist Papers (if you haven't read those, do so). So much of the calculation behind the founding was trying to figure out a way to balance people's interest, to figure out a way to mitigate the problems factions can cause.

The thing that's closest to what we might call "truth" in current politics is the Constitution. Even that has been manipulated and shamefully twisted. Even if you don't think cases like Roe v. Wade were decided, not on the basis of law, but on personal ideology, just take at look at the current process behind the confirmation of people to the bench. The so-called litmus test runs the show; Catholics, conservatives, those who think Roe v. Wade was poorly decided, etc. need not apply.

Despite the arbitrary nature of the law, we're all expected to put the law ahead of religious conviction. That's quite hard to do when you know the Church you are a member of was established by God, not some dudes with powdered wigs a few centuries ago. There's so much talk about conservative judges having to prove that they will "put their convictions aside" and follow the letter of the law. Hasn't a precedent on this issue been set already? You know, the Nuremburgh trials? I thought we've established that there's something higher than the law out there, and that sometimes it's probably best not to just "follow orders."

Second, the separation of church and state leads to active hostility against the church, especially The Church. To quote Neuhaus again:

In this manner, a perverse notion of the disestablishment of religion leads to the establishment of the state as church. p. 86

Think about our current attitudes to the law. Politics, for the Left and Right, is the only sphere that really matters. We no longer argue about what's good, we argue about what's legal. Which is why, when some segments of the population (the Left especially) don't like how democracy will turn out, they impose their ideology through the courts, knowing well that that will change the minds of many. Consider Canada, where many supporters of gay marriage oppose a referendum, and would rather keep imposing their views on the populace.

[Side sarcastic note: But I thought that we moved beyond the times when evil kings and bishops imposed their views on us? At least those kings and bishops had a faith that could constrain them, unlike the nakedly immoral, power-posturing of current politicos.]

We also forget where our political inheritance came from. Those thinkers who (let's be honest) invented rights out of thin air had to justify them somehow. So, they said they were created by God. Go ahead, check out Locke, or the Declaration of Independence ("...endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights...").

Sorry for glossing over so much. I didn't want to write a book on the subject, not yet anyway. I'll respond to any e-mails asking for clarifications, fighting over certain points, etc.

Vote early...

Vote often.

A Confession

First of all, apologies for the lack of blogging lately.

Second, my confession:

I saw some youngsters wearing their baseball caps backwards, as they are wont to do, and it occurred to me...I may be responsible for that trend.

You see, when I saw about four years old, I was walking down the local commercial boulevard with my father, of blessed memory. I was wearing a baseball cap; the brim was much too large for my four year old head. Without being aware of it, I walked too close to some scaffolding (I couldn't see much in front of, and certainly nothing above, me). My father noticed and pulled me aside, just as something crashed overhead.

Needless to say, I had a good scare. So, I quickly turned my cap around so that I could gain a bigger field of vision.

That was about 1985 or 1986. Perhaps Grandmaster Flash turned his cap around before I did, but at least I was on the cutting edge of that trend.

I'm sorry.

Good Book

When not wasting time or studying for the LSAT I'm reading Dancing Alone: The Quest for Orthodox Faith in the Age of False Religion.

I'm about halfway through at this point.

The author, Mr. Frank Schaeffer, is the son of Protestant theologian and author Francis Schaeffer. Frank converted to the Orthodox Christian Church. Dancing Alone is a combination of social critique and his reasons for converting.

The book centers of secular society. Mr. Schaeffer argues against it (secular society has bred statism and relativism, along with the other social ills we're forced to deal with like an increase in the number of unwed mothers, a degradation of the culture, etc.) and that Protestantism is mainly responsible for it in America (Protestantism, with its anti-authoritarian inclinations, is inherently relativistic).

It's a good book. I'll comment on it some more when I'm done. I've been a proponent of some sort of union between Church and state for a while now, and am interested to see how his arguments flesh out.

Lousy Democrats

I saw a bit of the Democratic Party's Presidential Candidates' Convention, held in Philadelphia this past Monday. Wow, so many wrong and funny moments in such a short period of time.

First off Bill Press, of Buchanan and Press fame, made the ludicrous comment that Philadelphia was the cradle of democracy. Sorry Bill, you're going to have to go a bit further back in history to find it.

Ed Rendell, Pennsylvania's governor, introduced the candidates in alphabetical order. After he introduced Senator John Kerry, Rendell pulled Kerry close and whispered into his ear, with a tone of incredulity, "Cucinich is a congressman?" Kerry, stunned, affirmed. The microphone picked this exchange up so, since I heard it at home, Cucinich and the rest of those in attendance probably heard it as well. Priceless.

I haven't heard so much class warfare and bad political/economic theory since, well, the last time the Democrats held some sort of conference. The California recall effort was just another example of how the Right hates democracy. President Bush's tax cuts were destroying the economy. We need to take the tax cut back and put it into universal health care. And, we have to create jobs by rebuilding our nation's infrastructure, thereby creating taxable income.

First off, the CA recall is not undemocratic. 1.6 million people signed petitions requesting the ballot initiative, and it will be decided by a vote. This is democratic theory taken to its logical end. Recalls are the product of the hyper-democratic Progressive Era, along with the direct election of senators, etc. Recalls recognize that the democratic process can have lousy results, and try to fix the problem with more democracy (it's odd that people think the only solution to democracy's shortcomings is more democracy).

Governor Gray Davis is not just a scapegoat for the problems President Bush has caused, as the Democrats assert. Yes, the nation is also in bad financial shape. Want to know why? Perhaps the shocking terrorist attack that took place on September 11th, 2001 had something to do with it. Perhaps the fact that the USA was badly shaken by that huge blow, as well as the fact that we lost millions of square feet of office space, had something to do with it. We're still feeling the aftermath. How many businesses have left New York City to go into New Jersey as a result? How much capital was lost?

It's too simplistic and dishonest to blame the bad economy on tax cuts. Empirical evidence shows tax cuts work (look at the boom after World War II, when the federal bureaucracy was slashed along with taxes, or the cuts that went into effect under Kennedy and Reagan), and it seems President Bush's tax cuts are finally starting to kick in. It should be no surprise that their effect took a while to manifest itself, since it takes a while for people to start receiving the benefits of the cuts and to act (spend or save) accordingly.

Yes, tax cuts don't need to be spent to be effective, which is why "tax cuts for the rich" are just as helpful as any tax cut (although, it's true, the Republicans hurt themselves by allowing way to many tax loopholes for corporations; Democrats pander to their own interest groups, like unions, but the Republican alliances can be easily attacked from a class warfare perspective).

I shouldn't even have to address the statement that we can create jobs and new tax revenues by rebuilding the USA's infrastructure. I wouldn't mind seeing nicer highways, bridges, and tunnels; that would be very nice, and I'm all for it. I do mind the ridiculous assertion that the process would create new sources of revenue. The government would just tax the paychecks it is handing out to construction workers; it would give them money and then take some back.

I can't stand watching Democratic conferences or conventions for too long, and it's upsetting that such a huge part of the population buys the stuff they're spouting.

California Dreaming

Rush Limbaugh is right. Candidate Arnold S is not the conservative many Republicans want him to be.

That much should be obvious to those who have heard him talk politics. When he announced his intent to run, Arnold sounded quite liberal; he said he thought that, in a state as great as California, the government must help children, the elderly, etc. You know, the standard appeal-to-the-heart liberal mush that is responsible for deficits and incredible levels of government spending.

That said, I think I favor Arnold over any other current candidate that I know of (I'd like Bill Simon to run, not sure if he is or not). Better a bad Republican than a Democrat or--good grief--an Independent like Arianna Huffington, whose non-stop rants about SUVs get tiresome.

Can anyone more conservative than Arnold get elected in CA at this point? Doubtful. However, his candidacy (and victory) could open the door for future Republican efforts in that state. Don't forget that Ronald Reagan was California's governor a few decades ago. I hope the Left Coast has enough sense left to make such recollections reality once again. It's just a matter of getting the door open.

Then again, I may be entirely too optimistic.

Hmm

While looking through my wallet for a friend's number (I have one of those Costanza wallets with eight-year-old receipts in it), I found Judge Reinhold's business card.

I'm not quite sure why I have that.

Well, my day has come full circle.

What?

I saw a bit of the American Constitution Society convention on TV today.

Judge Stephen Reinhardt, of the US 9th Circuit, made the absurd comment that we live in a "conservative age" as he tried to imagine the joys of being a judge in a liberal age.

Balderdash. Hillary Clinton made a similar point at that convention; when it came to presenting examples, the best she could do was cite Bush v. Gore. Come on.

The assertion that we live in a "conservative age" is unfounded, yet rhetorically powerful. Those in attendance at Judge Reinhardt's talk cheered wildly when he made his point.

I wonder, though. If this is a conservative age, what would a liberal one look like?

Also, such naked politicking by a judge and a legal society is pretty disgusting, not to mention dishonest. Judge Reinhardt and others at the conference kept going on about the importance of preserving the Constitution, yet the best they could do is say they want to go back to the jurisprudence of the Warren Court. The only thing they would preserve is the unconstitutional creation of fictions not actually located in the Constitution.

To preserve is to ignore and manipulate, in other words.

(Quiz via Eve)


Sig Sauer P226. Greatest gun ever! Feel special.
Beautiful and reliable but can still scare the
living bejesus outta anyone.


What handgun are you?
brought to you by Quizilla

If anyone ever needed a chill pill...

It's this guy (via Catholic and Enjoying It).

Pretty much all of his barbs can be turned right around on him though. For instance:

But please, by all means, keep trying. Keep ripping away at the rich dense frantic fabric of this gorgeous inexplicable life. You represent all the dark threads, the ugliness and the tension and the low vibration and you are necessary to remind anyone who's paying attention of what to watch out for, what to methodically purge, what to use as easy leverage to vault forward.

Quite.

Obey your Master...

In a previous post I wrote that the Metallica song "Master of Puppets" reminds me of Strauss's view of tragedy as well as the parable of the Prodigal Son.

Simply put, Strauss wrote that tragedy is what happens when he lives as he should not; the unphilosophical life will lead to pain. Comedy is what happens when one stumbles upon a good consequence even though one lives such an unphilosophical life; the comic element comes because the good outcome is a lucky fluke.

This has parallels to religious life. I don't think one can be fully happy and fulfilled when living incorrectly. Man has two created natures, one physical and the other spiritual. His physical nature is such that living contrary to it (getting injured, eating poison, etc.) will result in, shall we say, a less-than-optimal existence. Similarly, his spiritual nature is such that living contrary to it (wallowing in vice, etc.) will result in, shall we say, a less-than-optimal existence.

I didn't always think so. A made a point similar to this about three years ago and Eve asked me a question: why do the people who live the best sorts of lives--saintly people incredibly close to God--seem to be the most miserable? I didn't have an answer to that.

I do now, and it relates to the Prodigal Son (I should hope that you are al familiar with the story; if not read it here; if you ever get a chance to learn Greek do so, by the way, because the original beats any translation I've ever looked at).

What so powerful about this parable is how far the son fell. The son of a rich man, he ended up desiring to eat from a pig's trough

This is an amazing way to look at sin. He was living a good life in his Father's House and decided, of his own free will, to leave. The consequences were miserable. His act of free will trapped him. Whereas at Home he could move freely, in the world he was trapped, a victim of starvation.

Yet he still would (or could?) not go home. He was, of course, well aware of the riches that awaited him at his Father's Table, yet he hungered for the trough, for the repulsive filth pigs buried their snouts in.

This is one of those fundamental insights unique to Christianity, an idea that adds a deeper layer of tragedy to Strauss's understanding. Yes, living a disordered life is tragic, but the real tragedy is that we cannot leave that life. We can literally be eating of the husks and still not budge. It was bad enough that Oedipus was too blind to see the harm he was doing to himself and his nation; what's worse is that, even if he could see, he would not have had the strength to stop (this is where Christian and classical understandings of heroism need to part ways).

Our free will is not thoroughly extinguished, though. We can have moments of clarity. The Prodigal Son did come to his senses. The protagonist in "Master of Puppets" did realize that he was a slave to the drug. The difference, though, is that the Father spotted his Prodigal Son and ran out to him, while the man fought on his own and failed. The Old Oligarch put this well here, where he compared our wills to boulders (trust me, it's apt).

This is the answer to Eve's question, why the good can appear to be so miserable. It's also why, at least according to my experience, the times before and after sacraments like Confession and Holy Communion can be so difficult. Christianity can explain man's lack of power and control, the apparently contradictory act of repeatedly doing what you know to be wrong and disgusting. Good people, who are constantly in a state of repentance (based on the chronicles of saints that I've read it seems they keep failing like the rest of us, but they get back on the bike and try again unlike most people's resignation to sin) have an acute awareness of the power of sin. They are quite happy--as I'm at my happiest when my sacramental life is at its strongest--while simultaneously having a knowledge that can weigh heavily on them, a knowledge of the weakness that they and the rest of mankind is so vulnerable to.

(One last point: those who strive hardest to live a good life are also the first targets of the forces of evil. That's not just simple superstition. I've seen enough in my short life to trust the chronicles of monks who claim to have done battle, so to speak, with Satan; that's actually why I wanted to be a monk for a time.)