Early this morning, openly gay “barbarians” demonstrated in front of Marcus Bachmann’s clinic.
The protestors entered the waiting room, chanting “You can’t pray away the gay --- baby, I was born this way!” Throwing glitter around the reception area, the group caused quite a stir. Nick Espinosa, who organized the protest, also had a hand in the glittering of Newt Gingrich and Mr. Bachmann’s wife, the Republican Presidential frontrunner.
This harassment follows an online video, in which Marcus Bachmann referred to homosexuals as “barbarians” who “need to be educated.” Bachmann claims that the video was doctored. His original statement referred to children, not homosexuals, and “Point of View” host Penna Dexter agreed that “Bachmann clearly used the word ‘barbarians’ to refer to children.”
While the clinic does “treat homosexuality,” Bachmann says, “we don’t have an agenda or a philosophy of trying to change someone,” and the remedy “is at the client’s discretion.”
This baseless attack joins the threat to the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in the Senate this week. After President Obama declared his refusal to support the “unconstitutional” DOMA in court, a member of his Justice Department rejected a federal ban on spousal benefits on the grounds that it, too, was unconstitutional.
Rejecting “tradition, morals and procreation as justifications for marriage restrictions,” the court filing claimed that the ban “was motivated in substantial part by animus toward gays and lesbians and their intimate relationship.”
Furthermore, when the House of Representatives took up the defense of DOMA, the Human Rights Campaign responded with a boycott. The House chose former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, now a partner at King & Spalding, so the Human Rights Campaign decided to boycott his entire law firm, and discourage lawyers from working there. When King & Spalding pulled out, however, Paul Clement stayed in the fight.
While glitter attacks seem rather childish and humorous, national boycotts do not have a ‘fun’ side. In their zeal for “Civil Rights,” gay activists have overlooked other people’s basic rights: property and legal defense.
http://minnesotaindependent.com/84976/bachmanns-clinic-gets-glittered-over-ex-gay-therapy-charges/
http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/125610083.html?page=1&c=y
http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-07-07/news/29745932_1_marriage-rights-couples-heterosexual-marriage
http://www.frc.org/op-eds/profile-in-courage-defending-marriage-paul-clement
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2: Love or Self-Esteem?
And, another warning: not everyone will appreciate this insight. Even I don't particularly like it. I wish I could merely praise the movie, without attacking it at all. But I must do justice to what I have seen, and I must call Hollywood out on its misunderstanding. It is impossible to change the circumstances of a final battle scene without altering the meaning of a story. If you disagree with that, or you don't care to investigate hidden artistic nuances, then this post is not for you, and I suggest that you do not read this. If my previous statements have increased your interest, then you will see something that others will not, and I invite you to hear my thoughts.
The lights fall on the audience, and ominous music strikes the ears of hundreds of anxious witnesses. The crowd claps, hollers, cheers with delight as the film begins to roll. But they are not watching a movie- they are watching a heist.
The snobs among us always complain that the movie does not measure up to the book. They ratted out The Count of Monte Cristo for being unfaithful to the character of Edmund Dantes. They slandered The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader because it glorified Reepicheep at the expense of Lucy's innocence. Few spoke against Deathly Hallows Part I, but many will, undoubtedly, attack its sequel. Let me tell you a secret- the snobs, those arrogant, snub-nosed critics, are right. They hardly know how right they are. But never have they been more right than in the film before the eager audience at midnight on Friday morning.
The film follows the book miraculously. Even minute details like the theif's downfall at Gringotts, the clankers for the dragon, the multiplying treasure- all figure into the film. Indeed, the movie departs only once or twice, and each slip up is acceptable. Harry, Ron and Hermione even jump off the dragon into the lake- just as they did in the book. In the Great Hall, Harry confronts Snape, as McGonnogall confronts him in the book, but as this change drastically improves the scene. The audience applauds as the aged woman then throws out the middle-aged man. Glorious.
Even Snape's death, his memories, Harry's walk to Voldemort and the appearance of the ghosts did more justice to the events than the book did- rendering them more tangible and even more dramatic. Man that I am, I confess a tear rolled down my cheek as Harry surrendered himself to death. Even the dialogue at King's Cross nearly repeated the novel, word for word. Impressive. Neville stands up to Voldemort, in front of the whole assembly, and pulls the sword of Gryffindor from the Sorting Hat. At that moment, I would have given the film five stars, nay six.
But then, everything goes wrong. At the precise moment when Neville is to kill the snake in front of the whole crowd of witnesses- death eaters and Hogwartians alike, the scene shifts. Voldemort grabs Nagini, and disappears. Harry runs away, not to confront Voldemort before the assembly, but to fight him in private, to win a victory that nobody but he himself can witness. Molly Weasley kills Bellatrix all right, but it lacks the finesse of the book. Molly does not redeem the Weasley family, long held to be blood-traitors, by taking out Voldemort's right hand woman in front of the massive crowd. Say what you will, but honor does not always go to the one who slays the dragon. It goes to the man who slays the dragon before a crowd of witnesses. If he kills the dragon himself, he may be proud. But he only redeems his name in front of the people by slaying it in public.
In the book, battle erupts, as it does in the film, but only AFTER Neville kills the snake. Molly kills Bellatrix, as she does in the film, but only AFTER everyone on the evil side but Bellatrix and Voldemort are dead. And Harry destroys Voldemort, or rather lets Voldemort destroy himself, as he does in the film, but only AFTER explaining to his foe, and to the whole crowd of witnesses, why Voldemort is wrong, why evil cannot prevail, and why love is stronger than death. He explains the secret of the Elder Wand, and Voldemort does not believe him. But as Voldemort falls back, he knows why he is dead. As the crowd turns to rejoicing, they know why they rejoice. They have seen the hero defeat the villain, they have witnessed it before their own eyes, and they can spread the tale to their descendants, father to son, for generations.
The film removes this one aspect of glory, this one centerpiece of community. It corrupts the whole meaning of the story by making the final conflict a PRIVATE affair. But in Harry Potter, nothing is private. Everything revolves around love and self-sacrifice. Harry wins, not because he is stronger or more cunning, but because he sacrifices himself for his friends. Even in the film, the general philosophy attempts to prevail. But when Voldemort falls beneath his wand, when Harry at last rises above evil, by allowing it to devolve upon itself, they are alone.
Let me repeat that, they are alone. Yes, the special effects prove spectacular. Yes, the twin core connections inspire the audience and dazzle every eye. Yes, Voldemort descends into ashes, and is blown away by the wind. But nobody sees it! Is this not the greatest insult to Harry Potter? He has no glory. There is no proof that he destroyed Voldemort. Why does everyone seem to assume that he did? There is no evidence!
In the book, the whole crowd sees Voldemort fall, and when this demigod of evil falls, his body remains, arms splayed across the ground. It survives as a testament to the victory of good over evil, to the love of Harry and the hate of the dark lord. And the crowd sees it. The whole event takes on a collective consciousness as every member of the audience can say "I saw Harry defeat Voldemort. I witnessed the most important event in my time. It was there, before my eyes." Grandchildren will sit, wide-eyed in awe, and the love and community which grows so naturally out of the attraction between a man and a woman, finds its fulfillment in the cultural solidarity of that moment. All the wizarding world is changed forever, as the world changed when the airplanes hit the twin towers on September 11. As the Roman Empire converted when Constantine won on the Milvian bridge. As America stood back in awe as George Washington resigned, first from the army, then from the Presidency. It is not enough to know that these events happened, we long to see them with our own eyes- to be partakers in them, as we partake in an unspeakable beauty in the marriage vows, in the parental embrace, in the communal worship of God.
In the Book, the crowd gives Harry his final glory and victory. More honestly, Ginny's loving eyes, watching for him to prevail, Ron and Hermione's gasp as he discloses his final secret, Hagrid's anxiety as he stands before Voldemort, finally taking his place before the evil that would destroy him. It is the love, the connection, the community, dare I say it, the COMMUNION, that he shares with each of his friends in this final victory, that grants it the glory it deserves.
In the movie, there is no communion. There is no community, there is no connection, and if I did not know better, I would almost say that there is no love. There is just Harry and Voldemort, and the empty landscape to watch them destroy one another. It is like the final scene in the Matrix, where Neo defeats Smith. No one sees it, no one needs to, because it is primarily about Neo's self-esteem, his growth, his development, regardless of everyone else. His matter rests solely between the villain and the hero. Harry's matter, however, like that of a King yet to be given His Crown, rests, not only with him and Voldemort, but with all for whom he fights Voldemort. As the final battle between Jesus and Satan will be seen by all, and Evil's destruction will be made more awful by its public dishonor, so Voldemort's death concerned the entire wizarding world, and it cannot be a private affair.
Hitler's death was cowardly. He died alone, hidden away. He should have died before all the Jews who had been killed in the Holocaust. He should have died before their eyes: it was for their sake that he fell. The world is not always just, and neither is Hollywood.
By changing this scene, Hollywood rendered Harry Potter more like the Matrix and less like the Lord of the Rings. It made The Deathly Hallows more like Star Wars: The Revenge of the Sith and less like The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. It made a tale about love into a coming of age story. They are NOT the same.
Harry's self-esteem: 1. Love, Community, Communion: 0.
Let it not be said that I did not praise the film- it proved beautiful, even heart-wrenching. But the destruction of the central scene of the entire series cannot be overlooked. If Hollywood is to do justice to the books, it must film them again. Or at least, reshoot that one scene, that one VITAL scene, so as to honor the novels that took the world by storm. You can do that, at least- can you not?
.
The lights fall on the audience, and ominous music strikes the ears of hundreds of anxious witnesses. The crowd claps, hollers, cheers with delight as the film begins to roll. But they are not watching a movie- they are watching a heist.
The snobs among us always complain that the movie does not measure up to the book. They ratted out The Count of Monte Cristo for being unfaithful to the character of Edmund Dantes. They slandered The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader because it glorified Reepicheep at the expense of Lucy's innocence. Few spoke against Deathly Hallows Part I, but many will, undoubtedly, attack its sequel. Let me tell you a secret- the snobs, those arrogant, snub-nosed critics, are right. They hardly know how right they are. But never have they been more right than in the film before the eager audience at midnight on Friday morning.
The film follows the book miraculously. Even minute details like the theif's downfall at Gringotts, the clankers for the dragon, the multiplying treasure- all figure into the film. Indeed, the movie departs only once or twice, and each slip up is acceptable. Harry, Ron and Hermione even jump off the dragon into the lake- just as they did in the book. In the Great Hall, Harry confronts Snape, as McGonnogall confronts him in the book, but as this change drastically improves the scene. The audience applauds as the aged woman then throws out the middle-aged man. Glorious.
Even Snape's death, his memories, Harry's walk to Voldemort and the appearance of the ghosts did more justice to the events than the book did- rendering them more tangible and even more dramatic. Man that I am, I confess a tear rolled down my cheek as Harry surrendered himself to death. Even the dialogue at King's Cross nearly repeated the novel, word for word. Impressive. Neville stands up to Voldemort, in front of the whole assembly, and pulls the sword of Gryffindor from the Sorting Hat. At that moment, I would have given the film five stars, nay six.
But then, everything goes wrong. At the precise moment when Neville is to kill the snake in front of the whole crowd of witnesses- death eaters and Hogwartians alike, the scene shifts. Voldemort grabs Nagini, and disappears. Harry runs away, not to confront Voldemort before the assembly, but to fight him in private, to win a victory that nobody but he himself can witness. Molly Weasley kills Bellatrix all right, but it lacks the finesse of the book. Molly does not redeem the Weasley family, long held to be blood-traitors, by taking out Voldemort's right hand woman in front of the massive crowd. Say what you will, but honor does not always go to the one who slays the dragon. It goes to the man who slays the dragon before a crowd of witnesses. If he kills the dragon himself, he may be proud. But he only redeems his name in front of the people by slaying it in public.
In the book, battle erupts, as it does in the film, but only AFTER Neville kills the snake. Molly kills Bellatrix, as she does in the film, but only AFTER everyone on the evil side but Bellatrix and Voldemort are dead. And Harry destroys Voldemort, or rather lets Voldemort destroy himself, as he does in the film, but only AFTER explaining to his foe, and to the whole crowd of witnesses, why Voldemort is wrong, why evil cannot prevail, and why love is stronger than death. He explains the secret of the Elder Wand, and Voldemort does not believe him. But as Voldemort falls back, he knows why he is dead. As the crowd turns to rejoicing, they know why they rejoice. They have seen the hero defeat the villain, they have witnessed it before their own eyes, and they can spread the tale to their descendants, father to son, for generations.
The film removes this one aspect of glory, this one centerpiece of community. It corrupts the whole meaning of the story by making the final conflict a PRIVATE affair. But in Harry Potter, nothing is private. Everything revolves around love and self-sacrifice. Harry wins, not because he is stronger or more cunning, but because he sacrifices himself for his friends. Even in the film, the general philosophy attempts to prevail. But when Voldemort falls beneath his wand, when Harry at last rises above evil, by allowing it to devolve upon itself, they are alone.
Let me repeat that, they are alone. Yes, the special effects prove spectacular. Yes, the twin core connections inspire the audience and dazzle every eye. Yes, Voldemort descends into ashes, and is blown away by the wind. But nobody sees it! Is this not the greatest insult to Harry Potter? He has no glory. There is no proof that he destroyed Voldemort. Why does everyone seem to assume that he did? There is no evidence!
In the book, the whole crowd sees Voldemort fall, and when this demigod of evil falls, his body remains, arms splayed across the ground. It survives as a testament to the victory of good over evil, to the love of Harry and the hate of the dark lord. And the crowd sees it. The whole event takes on a collective consciousness as every member of the audience can say "I saw Harry defeat Voldemort. I witnessed the most important event in my time. It was there, before my eyes." Grandchildren will sit, wide-eyed in awe, and the love and community which grows so naturally out of the attraction between a man and a woman, finds its fulfillment in the cultural solidarity of that moment. All the wizarding world is changed forever, as the world changed when the airplanes hit the twin towers on September 11. As the Roman Empire converted when Constantine won on the Milvian bridge. As America stood back in awe as George Washington resigned, first from the army, then from the Presidency. It is not enough to know that these events happened, we long to see them with our own eyes- to be partakers in them, as we partake in an unspeakable beauty in the marriage vows, in the parental embrace, in the communal worship of God.
In the Book, the crowd gives Harry his final glory and victory. More honestly, Ginny's loving eyes, watching for him to prevail, Ron and Hermione's gasp as he discloses his final secret, Hagrid's anxiety as he stands before Voldemort, finally taking his place before the evil that would destroy him. It is the love, the connection, the community, dare I say it, the COMMUNION, that he shares with each of his friends in this final victory, that grants it the glory it deserves.
In the movie, there is no communion. There is no community, there is no connection, and if I did not know better, I would almost say that there is no love. There is just Harry and Voldemort, and the empty landscape to watch them destroy one another. It is like the final scene in the Matrix, where Neo defeats Smith. No one sees it, no one needs to, because it is primarily about Neo's self-esteem, his growth, his development, regardless of everyone else. His matter rests solely between the villain and the hero. Harry's matter, however, like that of a King yet to be given His Crown, rests, not only with him and Voldemort, but with all for whom he fights Voldemort. As the final battle between Jesus and Satan will be seen by all, and Evil's destruction will be made more awful by its public dishonor, so Voldemort's death concerned the entire wizarding world, and it cannot be a private affair.
Hitler's death was cowardly. He died alone, hidden away. He should have died before all the Jews who had been killed in the Holocaust. He should have died before their eyes: it was for their sake that he fell. The world is not always just, and neither is Hollywood.
By changing this scene, Hollywood rendered Harry Potter more like the Matrix and less like the Lord of the Rings. It made The Deathly Hallows more like Star Wars: The Revenge of the Sith and less like The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. It made a tale about love into a coming of age story. They are NOT the same.
Harry's self-esteem: 1. Love, Community, Communion: 0.
Let it not be said that I did not praise the film- it proved beautiful, even heart-wrenching. But the destruction of the central scene of the entire series cannot be overlooked. If Hollywood is to do justice to the books, it must film them again. Or at least, reshoot that one scene, that one VITAL scene, so as to honor the novels that took the world by storm. You can do that, at least- can you not?
.
Women unmasking Planned Parenthood: Defund it!
Two women speak out against Planned Parenthood, explaining why Americans should defund it.
Earlier today, National Right to Life President Carol Tobias released a video, in which she explains that “Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion chain in America.” Although the organization “has carefully crafted a public image as a protector of women’s health, its bottom-line depends on performing more and more abortions.”
“In order to make abortion seem like a small part of what it does,” Tobias claims, “Planned Parenthood lists every service it does, equally.” Despite this wealth of services, every one out of eight women who visit Planned Parenthood get an abortion.
Although the organization claims that “increased funding will enable it to reduce the number of abortions,” its own reports disprove this. From 1998 to 2009, government funding for Planned Parenthood has increased from $165 million to $363 million. During that same period of time, the number of abortions also increased, from 165,509 to 332,278. Indeed, Planned Parenthood performed 27.4 % of all abortions in the United States in 2009.
The racial demographics of abortion, especially in New York City, reveal a very ugly side to this apparently sterile practice. In 2009, the summary of vital statistics for the city of New York revealed that Non-Hispanic blacks accounted for 47 % of abortions in the Big Apple. Hispanics accounted for 32.5 %, with Non-Hispanic whites at 11 %, and Asian and Pacific Islanders at 6 %. In other words, abortion hits the black and Hispanic communities harder than any others.
In response to this, Dr. Alveda King, Martin Luther King Jr’s niece, led a rally in New York back in January, to begin a “New Civil Rights Movement” against abortion. As “abortion started in New York with Margaret Sanger,” it is fitting that Dr. King carries on her uncle’s legacy there.
Speaking “from my heart,” Dr. King declares that “we know that abortion is harmful, that abortion is genocide, and that Planned Parenthood lies.”
Dr. King agrees with Carol Tobias that the organization “has a huge sack of tricks,” and seeks to “rob America and the world of our greatest resource…our children.”
Earlier today, National Right to Life President Carol Tobias released a video, in which she explains that “Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion chain in America.” Although the organization “has carefully crafted a public image as a protector of women’s health, its bottom-line depends on performing more and more abortions.”
“In order to make abortion seem like a small part of what it does,” Tobias claims, “Planned Parenthood lists every service it does, equally.” Despite this wealth of services, every one out of eight women who visit Planned Parenthood get an abortion.
Although the organization claims that “increased funding will enable it to reduce the number of abortions,” its own reports disprove this. From 1998 to 2009, government funding for Planned Parenthood has increased from $165 million to $363 million. During that same period of time, the number of abortions also increased, from 165,509 to 332,278. Indeed, Planned Parenthood performed 27.4 % of all abortions in the United States in 2009.
The racial demographics of abortion, especially in New York City, reveal a very ugly side to this apparently sterile practice. In 2009, the summary of vital statistics for the city of New York revealed that Non-Hispanic blacks accounted for 47 % of abortions in the Big Apple. Hispanics accounted for 32.5 %, with Non-Hispanic whites at 11 %, and Asian and Pacific Islanders at 6 %. In other words, abortion hits the black and Hispanic communities harder than any others.
In response to this, Dr. Alveda King, Martin Luther King Jr’s niece, led a rally in New York back in January, to begin a “New Civil Rights Movement” against abortion. As “abortion started in New York with Margaret Sanger,” it is fitting that Dr. King carries on her uncle’s legacy there.
Speaking “from my heart,” Dr. King declares that “we know that abortion is harmful, that abortion is genocide, and that Planned Parenthood lies.”
Dr. King agrees with Carol Tobias that the organization “has a huge sack of tricks,” and seeks to “rob America and the world of our greatest resource…our children.”
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Never Forgetting
In 100-degree heat, with the U.S. Capitol shining behind the rostrum, more than 50 dignitaries and spectators gathered today to mark the fourth anniversary of the Victims of Communism Memorial.
Lithuanian ambassador Zygimantas Pavilionis highlighted the importance of the site and its message. “Communist regimes have been forgotten everywhere,” he said. Lee Edwards, chairman of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, pointed out that this ideology still rears its head in strange places, such as the National D-Day Memorial, which until recently included a bust of Soviet dictator Joe Stalin. Former U.S. ambassador to Estonia Aldona Wos recounted her father’s decades-long struggle with Communism and quoted Ronald Reagan, reminding listeners that “freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.”
As representatives of more than 13 countries and eight commemorative organizations presented wreaths to adorn the monument, their point was powerfully made: The men and women who fought for freedom and suffered under Communism deserve to be remembered. As Dr. Edwards proclaimed, “We cannot, we must not, we will not forget their sacrifice.”
— Tyler O’Neil is a student at Hillsdale College and an intern in NR’s Washington office this summer.
Lithuanian ambassador Zygimantas Pavilionis highlighted the importance of the site and its message. “Communist regimes have been forgotten everywhere,” he said. Lee Edwards, chairman of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, pointed out that this ideology still rears its head in strange places, such as the National D-Day Memorial, which until recently included a bust of Soviet dictator Joe Stalin. Former U.S. ambassador to Estonia Aldona Wos recounted her father’s decades-long struggle with Communism and quoted Ronald Reagan, reminding listeners that “freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.”
As representatives of more than 13 countries and eight commemorative organizations presented wreaths to adorn the monument, their point was powerfully made: The men and women who fought for freedom and suffered under Communism deserve to be remembered. As Dr. Edwards proclaimed, “We cannot, we must not, we will not forget their sacrifice.”
— Tyler O’Neil is a student at Hillsdale College and an intern in NR’s Washington office this summer.
Friday, February 11, 2011
The Threat of Terrorism and the Principle of Personal Liberty
“There are laws that enslave men, and laws that set them free. Either what we hold to be right and good and true is right and good and true, for all mankind, under God, or we’re just another robber tribe.”
In the minds of many Americans the words “the threat of terrorism and the principle of personal liberty” may conjure images of airport scanners, perverts “looking for bombs,” or t-shirts that proclaim the Fourth Amendment in metallic ink. Many claim that the TSA violates each individual’s “right to privacy.” While complaints about privacy bear some merit, and even illustrate how an unrestrained federal government abuses its power, this speech will address a deeper problem, namely that of Islamic Fundamentalist terrorism and the threat that it poses to the American understanding of Personal Liberty.
As Bernard Lewis remarked, “most Muslims are not fundamentalists, and most fundamentalists are not terrorists, but most present-day terrorists are Muslims and proudly identify themselves as such.” Indeed, Al-Qa’ida, the Saudi establishment, and the ruling Iranian hierarchy “claim to represent a truer, purer, and more authentic Islam than that currently practiced by the vast majority of Muslims.” Regardless of the truth or falsity of these fundamentalist claims, many Muslims across the United States and in the world at large are not fundamentalists or terrorists, and so do not pose the threat discussed in this speech. Islamic Fundamentalist terror, however, forms the centerpiece of this discussion.
In 1928, Hassan al-Banna founded the Muslim Brotherhood, which aimed “for the establishment of a world Islamic state governed by Koranic law, ruled by a single caliph.” This association openly supports terrorism in the name of jihad. In this capacity, it has reached American shores. On September 11, 2001, hijacked planes struck the World Trade Center, killing thousands. Another plane crashed into the Pentagon, and the hijacking of United Flight 93 resulted in the deaths of all passengers. “Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the architect of [these] attacks, told U.S. interrogators he was drawn to violent jihad in Kuwait after joining the Brotherhood and attending its desert youth camps.” These attacks destroyed more than Personal Liberty; they took the lives of thousands of Americans.
But the Muslim Brotherhood, not content with the first attack on U.S. soil since Pearl Harbor, has also infiltrated the United States of America. The organization itself crossed the Atlantic in 1962. The annual report for 1990, however, lists “several committees and organizations” working for the Brotherhood, including the Occupied Land Fund, which became the Holy Land Foundation. In the case United States v. Holy Land Foundation, the United States government found the organization guilty of funding the terrorist organization Hamas.
A senior Brotherhood member described their work in America as “a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating the Western civilization from within.” This “civilization jihad” also emerges in the phenomenon of honor killings. In August, Fox News reported that Texas teenagers Amina and Sarah Said dated non-Muslim boys, which incited their father to murder them. Human Events reported that, while many Muslim spokesmen deny the connection between Islam and honor killings, the Yemen Times invoked Islam to insist that “violence against women is necessary for the stability of the family and the society.”
These honor killings incite anger among Americans, who consider them identical with murder. They violate the very principles of Personal Liberty. Among Americans, Personal Liberty invokes associations of individual natural rights, positive rights, common law and established custom. It indicates a sacred sphere of choice which no external force can justly violate, and which the American government was established to defend.
The Declaration of Independence states:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
The First Amendment to the Constitution outlines this Personal Liberty which no man can justly attack and which government exists to protect. It lists five liberties against which Congress cannot legislate, namely those of religion, speech, press, peaceable assembly, and petition. These protected freedoms provide a working definition of Personal Liberty. Free association in particular, through the institution of marriage, illustrates the principle of Personal Liberty.
As G. K. Chesterton explains, “the small state founded on the sexes is at once the most voluntary and the most natural of all self-governing states.” While many Americans may find themselves dumbfounded at the idea, the Family stands as the freest and most natural human institution. Chesterton explains, jokingly, that “it is not true of Mr. Brown that he might have been a Russian; but it may be true of Mrs. Brown that she might have been a Robinson.”
In discussing the vow that establishes a family, Chesterton describes the mindset of the pre-Christian world of status. Men, having been born into their condition, be it slavery or kingship, found themselves subject to the iron law of society, without the liberty to choose their place. “When Christianity had been for some time at work in the world,” however, “this ancient servile status began in some mysterious manner to disappear.” The civil society of the Middle Ages, as opposed to that of the Ancient World, grew around the vow. The vassal pledged himself to his landlord, and “by swearing to be his man, he proved that he was not his chattel.” The freedom of the Middle Ages consisted in “the notion of the free choice of a fixed estate.” This sentiment survives, Chesterton concludes, “before and after the marriage vows at any ordinary wedding in any ordinary church.”
Marriage proves at once free and, at least in the promise itself, final. Indeed, few choices match its freedom or its deep personality. Even arranged marriages express personal liberty, as the parents negotiate for the good of their son or daughter. Indeed, they render the decision more personal, as it involves more persons. Marriage provides a good example of personal liberty, to illustrate the great value of this principle. While marriage does not form the whole of personal liberty, it provides a glimpse into its historical roots and its deep meaning for the West in general, and America in particular.
This sort of freedom, the Declaration of Independence asserts, derives from our Creator, and falls equally upon all men. In order to prove, against the Anarchist, that our government is not a band of robbers, we must show that this freedom is “right and good and true, for all mankind, under God.” The United States of America, “conceived in Liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal,” having weathered a great civil war, which tested whether “any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure,” and having achieved a prominent status in all the world, demonstrates the vitality of this principle. No worldly success can prove the justice of a cause, but the United States has demonstrated that these principles are not transient, and that men derive an astounding strength from their dedication to the principle of Personal Liberty.
Islamic Fundamentalist Terror, by murder and subversion, undermines the rights of the Declaration. Openly hostile to Western Civilization, the Muslim Brotherhood also opposes the American principles of government by the consent of the governed and religious liberty. “A world state governed by Koranic law” stands in stark contrast to the Declaration of Independence and the First Amendment to the Constitution. While “peace is the end of war, … it is appropriate that” Americans “have moderation, courage and endurance, for as the proverb has it, “there is no leisure for slaves,” and those who are incapable of facing danger in a courageous spirit are slaves of whoever comes along to attack them.” War, while it never constitutes the purpose of life, proves necessary when life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness come under serious threat.
Defending Personal Liberty from the threat of Islamic Fundamentalist terror may require scanners at airports, cases against Muslim Brotherhood front groups, and even preemptive wars to weaken the global force of terrorism. Despite the costs, Americans should defend their liberty with the spirit that Winston Churchill expressed on May 28, 1940. Indeed, let us live by these words: "If this long island story of ours is to end at last, let it end only when each of us lies choking in his own blood upon the ground."
In the minds of many Americans the words “the threat of terrorism and the principle of personal liberty” may conjure images of airport scanners, perverts “looking for bombs,” or t-shirts that proclaim the Fourth Amendment in metallic ink. Many claim that the TSA violates each individual’s “right to privacy.” While complaints about privacy bear some merit, and even illustrate how an unrestrained federal government abuses its power, this speech will address a deeper problem, namely that of Islamic Fundamentalist terrorism and the threat that it poses to the American understanding of Personal Liberty.
As Bernard Lewis remarked, “most Muslims are not fundamentalists, and most fundamentalists are not terrorists, but most present-day terrorists are Muslims and proudly identify themselves as such.” Indeed, Al-Qa’ida, the Saudi establishment, and the ruling Iranian hierarchy “claim to represent a truer, purer, and more authentic Islam than that currently practiced by the vast majority of Muslims.” Regardless of the truth or falsity of these fundamentalist claims, many Muslims across the United States and in the world at large are not fundamentalists or terrorists, and so do not pose the threat discussed in this speech. Islamic Fundamentalist terror, however, forms the centerpiece of this discussion.
In 1928, Hassan al-Banna founded the Muslim Brotherhood, which aimed “for the establishment of a world Islamic state governed by Koranic law, ruled by a single caliph.” This association openly supports terrorism in the name of jihad. In this capacity, it has reached American shores. On September 11, 2001, hijacked planes struck the World Trade Center, killing thousands. Another plane crashed into the Pentagon, and the hijacking of United Flight 93 resulted in the deaths of all passengers. “Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the architect of [these] attacks, told U.S. interrogators he was drawn to violent jihad in Kuwait after joining the Brotherhood and attending its desert youth camps.” These attacks destroyed more than Personal Liberty; they took the lives of thousands of Americans.
But the Muslim Brotherhood, not content with the first attack on U.S. soil since Pearl Harbor, has also infiltrated the United States of America. The organization itself crossed the Atlantic in 1962. The annual report for 1990, however, lists “several committees and organizations” working for the Brotherhood, including the Occupied Land Fund, which became the Holy Land Foundation. In the case United States v. Holy Land Foundation, the United States government found the organization guilty of funding the terrorist organization Hamas.
A senior Brotherhood member described their work in America as “a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating the Western civilization from within.” This “civilization jihad” also emerges in the phenomenon of honor killings. In August, Fox News reported that Texas teenagers Amina and Sarah Said dated non-Muslim boys, which incited their father to murder them. Human Events reported that, while many Muslim spokesmen deny the connection between Islam and honor killings, the Yemen Times invoked Islam to insist that “violence against women is necessary for the stability of the family and the society.”
These honor killings incite anger among Americans, who consider them identical with murder. They violate the very principles of Personal Liberty. Among Americans, Personal Liberty invokes associations of individual natural rights, positive rights, common law and established custom. It indicates a sacred sphere of choice which no external force can justly violate, and which the American government was established to defend.
The Declaration of Independence states:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
The First Amendment to the Constitution outlines this Personal Liberty which no man can justly attack and which government exists to protect. It lists five liberties against which Congress cannot legislate, namely those of religion, speech, press, peaceable assembly, and petition. These protected freedoms provide a working definition of Personal Liberty. Free association in particular, through the institution of marriage, illustrates the principle of Personal Liberty.
As G. K. Chesterton explains, “the small state founded on the sexes is at once the most voluntary and the most natural of all self-governing states.” While many Americans may find themselves dumbfounded at the idea, the Family stands as the freest and most natural human institution. Chesterton explains, jokingly, that “it is not true of Mr. Brown that he might have been a Russian; but it may be true of Mrs. Brown that she might have been a Robinson.”
In discussing the vow that establishes a family, Chesterton describes the mindset of the pre-Christian world of status. Men, having been born into their condition, be it slavery or kingship, found themselves subject to the iron law of society, without the liberty to choose their place. “When Christianity had been for some time at work in the world,” however, “this ancient servile status began in some mysterious manner to disappear.” The civil society of the Middle Ages, as opposed to that of the Ancient World, grew around the vow. The vassal pledged himself to his landlord, and “by swearing to be his man, he proved that he was not his chattel.” The freedom of the Middle Ages consisted in “the notion of the free choice of a fixed estate.” This sentiment survives, Chesterton concludes, “before and after the marriage vows at any ordinary wedding in any ordinary church.”
Marriage proves at once free and, at least in the promise itself, final. Indeed, few choices match its freedom or its deep personality. Even arranged marriages express personal liberty, as the parents negotiate for the good of their son or daughter. Indeed, they render the decision more personal, as it involves more persons. Marriage provides a good example of personal liberty, to illustrate the great value of this principle. While marriage does not form the whole of personal liberty, it provides a glimpse into its historical roots and its deep meaning for the West in general, and America in particular.
This sort of freedom, the Declaration of Independence asserts, derives from our Creator, and falls equally upon all men. In order to prove, against the Anarchist, that our government is not a band of robbers, we must show that this freedom is “right and good and true, for all mankind, under God.” The United States of America, “conceived in Liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal,” having weathered a great civil war, which tested whether “any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure,” and having achieved a prominent status in all the world, demonstrates the vitality of this principle. No worldly success can prove the justice of a cause, but the United States has demonstrated that these principles are not transient, and that men derive an astounding strength from their dedication to the principle of Personal Liberty.
Islamic Fundamentalist Terror, by murder and subversion, undermines the rights of the Declaration. Openly hostile to Western Civilization, the Muslim Brotherhood also opposes the American principles of government by the consent of the governed and religious liberty. “A world state governed by Koranic law” stands in stark contrast to the Declaration of Independence and the First Amendment to the Constitution. While “peace is the end of war, … it is appropriate that” Americans “have moderation, courage and endurance, for as the proverb has it, “there is no leisure for slaves,” and those who are incapable of facing danger in a courageous spirit are slaves of whoever comes along to attack them.” War, while it never constitutes the purpose of life, proves necessary when life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness come under serious threat.
Defending Personal Liberty from the threat of Islamic Fundamentalist terror may require scanners at airports, cases against Muslim Brotherhood front groups, and even preemptive wars to weaken the global force of terrorism. Despite the costs, Americans should defend their liberty with the spirit that Winston Churchill expressed on May 28, 1940. Indeed, let us live by these words: "If this long island story of ours is to end at last, let it end only when each of us lies choking in his own blood upon the ground."
Saturday, July 31, 2010
The Scout Law: Reverence
Growing up in the United States of America, I have always felt a primary loyalty to my native land. Having acheived my Eagle Scout and serving at Boy Scout Camp Buffalo Bill this summer, I realize the moral strength of the Scout Law.
In order to become an Eagle Scout, I had to memorize the twelve-point law established by the Boy Scouts of America. "A scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent." As a Christian, I especially value the twelfth point, that of reverence.
In the beginning of Matthew's account of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says, "blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the Earth." On the face of it, this statement seems absurd. How can a person gain the Earth when he is meek? Meekness involves accepting the world around you, acknowledging the greatness of things beyond yourself, and, in a sense, renouncing them to be themselves. But by this method, a man inherits the Earth, he does not conquer it. Indeed, only the man who can look at a mountain for what it is, and not strive to destroy it to fit his convenience, can truly appreciate that mountain. He possesses it more surely than any miner or logger, because he sees it, and because he reveres it.
Similarly, Proverbs says that "the Fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the holy is understanding." Wisdom guides a man's way in life. It may lead him to riches and honor, but most importantly, it will help him to make the decisions that he will not regret when he has grown old. Proverbs says that this great light proceeds, not from study or from hard work, but from the fear of the Lord, from reverence for the God who made the World, and died to save sinners.
Modern America seems to be abandoning this reverence on all sides.
Many women proclaim that their unborn children are "their body," and that they can do whatever they want with them. If they possessed the meekness to see a child for what it truly is, they would not so rashly cut up the wonderful thing that grows in their belly.
No man who truly understands the Constitution of the United States should desire such radical programs as Obamacare or the economic stimulus of the Federal Government. If our President could humble himself before the document that drew this nation together again after the debacles of the Articles of Confederation, he may not so rashly follow the interpretation that ignores the Founders' intentions to limit government and preserve individual liberty.
If married couples had the meekness to realize the gravity of their marriage vows, they would not so rashly throw them away for small causes. In cases of infidelity, the promise has been broken, and the marriage may be annulled. But if a man and a woman vow to love and serve one another "in sickness and in health, 'til death do us part," they should honor their commitment, and preserve the little nation of the family that their vows create. Each family is precious, and provides the home and childhood that each citizen needs. When a couple abandons their vows, they do not only commit perjury: they destroy a nation.
These three problems, abortion, excessive growth of government, and frivolous divorce, illustrate the lack of reverence in modern America. If we humble ourselves, we shall be exalted. If we boast ourselves, like Hitler's Nazis, the Russian Communists and the Italian Fascists, we shall surely fall. How long did Hitler's "thousand year reich last?" How greatly are the mighty fallen, but how greatly are the humble risen! In World War II, the United States did not plan on ruling the world, and it defeated those nations that desired to dominate all before them.
So, during this 100th anniversary of the Boy Scouts of America, I challenge Americans to be reverent, and honor the good that surrounds us. While President Barack Obama has declined to appear at the National Jamboree, thus sending an insult to the Boy Scouts of America on their 100th anniversary, the American people may prove more loyal to an organization that makes such a difference in the lives of their children. Boy Scouts does not only teach young boys how to sail, row, paint, care for the environment, work with leather, survive in the wilderness, and live an outdoor life. It plants the seeds of virtue in a man, and those seeds, when watered properly, blossom to form the true citizen, the man who cares for others and for the integrity of his country. Wise citizens will make a peaceful and prosperous nation, while those who cannot humble themselves shall fall. May God bless America, and may America revere God.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
The Nature of Truth: Fate and Free Will
Truth never turns out to be as simple as we thought it was.
While touring the floor of the United States House of Representatives, I ran into a Congressman from New York. I shook his hand, introduced myself, and mentioned that I study at Hillsdale College. After he gave me his card, I researched him and found out that he had been my grandfather's representative for many years. I sent him a resume and a cover letter, and spent the summer after my Freshman Year interning on Capitol Hill.
Fate, Providence, the Divine Force, or whatever you want to call it, seemed to act in that situation to put me in the right place at the right time. These events do not seem to follow from arbitrary chance. Nevertheless, I know that I made the decisions that led to that experience. If I had not followed up on our meeting, if I had not applied for the job, I would not have gotten to work on Capitol Hill regardless of the inner workings of fate. It seems that fate and free will both exist, and both worked in the same event.
A personal example cannot prove this assertion, so I suggest that my readers look into their own lives. Many experiences arise not merely from our own choices, but also from our surroundings. Take Julius Caesar and Martin Luther as examples. Caesar decided to cross the Rubicon, declaring the famous "alia iacta est," or "the die is cast," changing Rome from a Republic into an Empire for five hundred years. Yet he could not have done this if Rome had not been experiencing many civil wars preparing her for this pivotal moment. Something had to have been manipulating the strings, and Caesar capitalized on it. Similarly, when asked to recant his heresy, Martin Luther declared "here I stand, I can do no otherwise. God help me," and his Reformation spread throughout Christendom, splitting the Christian Church for five hundred years. Nevertheless, the efforts of John Wycliffe and Jan Huss had prepared the Church for this split, and the circumstances of Luther's life also impacted this momentous decision.
Many argue against the idea of providence that chance could have produced the same result. They say that it is no miracle that human life evolved on planet Earth because, if the conditions were different, human life would not have evolved here. Yet Ockham's razor works against such an argument. William of Ockham argued that, if presented with two different explanations for a phenomenon, a rational person should accept the simplest explanation.
For instance, a condemned criminal stands before a firing squad of six shooters. All six fire, and all six miss. They reload, and the same result follows. They repeatedly fire, and repeatedly miss. Finally, they take the criminal to the warden, who exclaims, "I can't believe that they all missed." The criminal calmly replies, "of course they all missed, because if they hadn't, then I wouldn't be here to talk to you about it. It just so happened that they all missed." This insane reply (exerpted from Dinesh D'Souza's book What's So Great About Christianity) misses the remarkable nature of the event, and so fails to explain all the evidence. Besides, if a man throws a coin 400 times, and each time it turns up heads, any rational person would suspect a plot. This common experience of fate suggests just such a plot. Chance may explain the data, just as an infinite number of universes where each universe experiences a different result may account for such a small probability. Nevertheless, such events rely on so miniscule a chance that a conspiracy explains the evidence in a much simpler manner, and thus follows Ockham's rule of reasonable deduction.
Truth, in this case, consists in a confluence of two apparently contradictory ideas. Any free-will Atheist or mere Arminian would complain that this explanation does not take free will seriously, just as a determinist or a Calvinist would claim that it does not take fate seriously. Nevertheless, ordinary people experience both, and accepting one in order to disprove the other does not explain the odd occurrence of both. Such philosophies may consistently explain one half of the truth, but they fail to explain the whole truth. It appears that Truth consists not in a circle of mental consistency but in a cross-roads of two contradictory ideas. It does not resemble the circle of eternal recurrence, for that would be too simple to explain the data. It rather resembles the cross of Christ, where eternal truth meets timely change. For Parmenides was right when he said that whatever truly is must be eternal, but Heraclitus was also right when he said that everything that exists is in constant change. Each side of the coin is true, but that does not disprove the other side. If we seek truth, we must be willing to accept both, even if we must suffer apparent contradiction.
While touring the floor of the United States House of Representatives, I ran into a Congressman from New York. I shook his hand, introduced myself, and mentioned that I study at Hillsdale College. After he gave me his card, I researched him and found out that he had been my grandfather's representative for many years. I sent him a resume and a cover letter, and spent the summer after my Freshman Year interning on Capitol Hill.
Fate, Providence, the Divine Force, or whatever you want to call it, seemed to act in that situation to put me in the right place at the right time. These events do not seem to follow from arbitrary chance. Nevertheless, I know that I made the decisions that led to that experience. If I had not followed up on our meeting, if I had not applied for the job, I would not have gotten to work on Capitol Hill regardless of the inner workings of fate. It seems that fate and free will both exist, and both worked in the same event.
A personal example cannot prove this assertion, so I suggest that my readers look into their own lives. Many experiences arise not merely from our own choices, but also from our surroundings. Take Julius Caesar and Martin Luther as examples. Caesar decided to cross the Rubicon, declaring the famous "alia iacta est," or "the die is cast," changing Rome from a Republic into an Empire for five hundred years. Yet he could not have done this if Rome had not been experiencing many civil wars preparing her for this pivotal moment. Something had to have been manipulating the strings, and Caesar capitalized on it. Similarly, when asked to recant his heresy, Martin Luther declared "here I stand, I can do no otherwise. God help me," and his Reformation spread throughout Christendom, splitting the Christian Church for five hundred years. Nevertheless, the efforts of John Wycliffe and Jan Huss had prepared the Church for this split, and the circumstances of Luther's life also impacted this momentous decision.
Many argue against the idea of providence that chance could have produced the same result. They say that it is no miracle that human life evolved on planet Earth because, if the conditions were different, human life would not have evolved here. Yet Ockham's razor works against such an argument. William of Ockham argued that, if presented with two different explanations for a phenomenon, a rational person should accept the simplest explanation.
For instance, a condemned criminal stands before a firing squad of six shooters. All six fire, and all six miss. They reload, and the same result follows. They repeatedly fire, and repeatedly miss. Finally, they take the criminal to the warden, who exclaims, "I can't believe that they all missed." The criminal calmly replies, "of course they all missed, because if they hadn't, then I wouldn't be here to talk to you about it. It just so happened that they all missed." This insane reply (exerpted from Dinesh D'Souza's book What's So Great About Christianity) misses the remarkable nature of the event, and so fails to explain all the evidence. Besides, if a man throws a coin 400 times, and each time it turns up heads, any rational person would suspect a plot. This common experience of fate suggests just such a plot. Chance may explain the data, just as an infinite number of universes where each universe experiences a different result may account for such a small probability. Nevertheless, such events rely on so miniscule a chance that a conspiracy explains the evidence in a much simpler manner, and thus follows Ockham's rule of reasonable deduction.
Truth, in this case, consists in a confluence of two apparently contradictory ideas. Any free-will Atheist or mere Arminian would complain that this explanation does not take free will seriously, just as a determinist or a Calvinist would claim that it does not take fate seriously. Nevertheless, ordinary people experience both, and accepting one in order to disprove the other does not explain the odd occurrence of both. Such philosophies may consistently explain one half of the truth, but they fail to explain the whole truth. It appears that Truth consists not in a circle of mental consistency but in a cross-roads of two contradictory ideas. It does not resemble the circle of eternal recurrence, for that would be too simple to explain the data. It rather resembles the cross of Christ, where eternal truth meets timely change. For Parmenides was right when he said that whatever truly is must be eternal, but Heraclitus was also right when he said that everything that exists is in constant change. Each side of the coin is true, but that does not disprove the other side. If we seek truth, we must be willing to accept both, even if we must suffer apparent contradiction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)