Gitmocha Joe’s Freedom Café

As I watched my Chicago Cubs’ exceptional left-fielder, Alfonso Soriano, flail wildly at another curveball at least a foot off of the plate, I began to realize an important fact about the world. See, Alfonso can hit any fastball that a human being can throw within reach of his bat, but Alfonso cannot hit a good curveball even if it is thrown at his bat. This crystallized an important truth for me: being very, very good at one skill does not necessarily make one good or even passable at another, even related, skill.

So seems to be the case with Dr. James Dobson. Dr. Dobson is a very bright, educated and articulate man. His psychology books have sold in the millions and, by most accounts, are helpful and insightful assessments of human behavior and interpersonal relationships. Dr. Dobson is less capable as a Constitutional scholar.

In a soon to be aired radio address (a transcript of which has been released to media outlets), Dr. Dobson not only questions the politics of Democratic presidential nominee, Barak Obama, but challenges his “fruitcake” interpretation of the Constitution, as well. Mr. Obama[1] is a lawyer. With a degree from Harvard. Dr. Dobson is a psychologist.

That does not resolve who is right, of course. There are many fruitcakes with fruitcake ideas in every discipline. Let’s take a quick look at the two Constitutional issues for which Dr. Dobson takes Mr. Obama to task.

Mr. Obama’s position appears to be that “the religiously motivated must frame debates over issues like abortion not just in their own religious terms but in arguments accessible to all people.” Dr. Dobson is of the mind that the religiously motivated should not be required to subject their principles to the litmus test of public approval in order for those principles to be valid or respected in a democracy.

First, Dr. Dobson asserts that Mr. Obama (presumably by expecting religious citizens to translate their principles to non-religious or differently affiliated religious citizens) is attempting to govern by the “lowest common denominator of morality.”

Well, with respect to the Constitution, that is exactly so. That is, the Constitution is purposefully designed to function as a minimum standard beneath which the United States Government cannot go in governing its citizens. The Constitution guarantees citizens the right to free speech, but the extent and nature of that right is purposefully excluded from the Constitution. It appears that Dr. Dobson mistakenly expects the Constitution to function as an aspirational document that sets out moral and civil goals to which we should strive. Strike one on Dr. Dobson.

Secondly, the general place of human morality in the laws of a democratic society is a highly nuanced and debated area of jurisprudence, and, quite frankly, the clear majority of legal scholarship for the past 40 years or so has been in support of Mr. Obama’s position. Many of the leading American jurists and scholars, as diverse and varied as Oliver Wendell Holmes, John Rawls, Ronald Dworkin, and Richard Posner, have taken the position held by Mr. Obama. Their support of Mr. Obama’s position is not necessarily conclusive, but that is an impressive list of fruitcakes. Strike two on Dr. Dobson.

Dr. Dobson seems to labor under the same mistaken approach as the late Dr. Jerry Falwell – that the view of right-wing, conservative, evangelical Christians is the Christian view on morality and civic life, and maybe even God’s view. And if Dr. Dobson can’t hit the curveball of Mr. Obama and Oliver Wendell Holmes, wait ‘til he sees God’s split-finger fastball.

Lost Fox

But I repeat myself.

Ms. Coulter tries to establish the point that Barack Obama has a scary agenda contained amid the pages of his memoir, Dreams From My Father. I’ve read it. I don’t see the scary agenda.

Maybe I’m being obtuse . . . or maybe Ann is just being Ann. For those of you who have read it, what do you think?

joe

Ideas have consequences we are told, and rightly so.

I was in a discussion group the other night and found myself in the minority on evolution and the Christian faith. Being in the minority on a religious view is not necessarily an uncommon experience for me, but on this issue I was surprised at how out-of-touch I was with the other folks in the group.

Now, I have done a bit of reading on the subjects of evolution, natural selection and the intelligent design argument, but I am resoundingly unconcerned with the scientific investigation of Earth’s origins. Well, in our group was a gentleman (for he was a gentleman) who was resoundingly concerned with earth’s origins and the biblical account of those origins. In the lingo of the evolution versus intelligent design debate, he was a “young earth” creationist. Unfortunately for the other members of the group, this view relies as heavily on biblical texts as it does on science, and I am resoundingly concerned about biblical texts.

In the lingo of biblical text studies, the investigation and interpretation of biblical texts is called hermeneutics. I dig hermeneutics.

So, to make a long story short, there were an awkward few minutes as the gentleman and I, from widely divergent views, asked each other questions with rising voices and barely veiled incredulity. After the group had dispersed, the gentleman and I talked a bit about our worldviews and assumptions and such. I conceded that I did not have much concern about the theory of evolution and its ideological consequences. For me, let science find what it will, just leave my sacred literature out of it.

It was then that the rub of the disagreement was uncovered. The gentleman responded that to believe in an old-earth was an “unchristian” view because, among other things, failure to take the Genesis account of creation literally calls into question the trustworthiness of biblical texts regarding such subjects as the nature of God and the redemptive work of Christ.

It seems to me that the gentleman’s hermeneutics were dictated by an a priori assumption of his hermeneutics – that the biblical account of creation was intended literally, and the assumption that Darwinian evolution has negative – specifically, unchristian – ideological consequences.

This view was brought into sharp relief as I thought about the conversation I had earlier that day. My wife and I had lunch with a nice married couple just hours before this discussion group met. This couple relayed to us their fears of the husband’s family learning that he and his wife drank alcohol over the Memorial Day weekend. This couple was in their early thirties and their children were now 3 and 5 years old, and the five year old was old enough now to recognize beer and might let it slip to the husband’s family. His family was deeply religious and had been raised in very conservative Southern denomination. It was certain he would be disowned by his family.

This, then, is the heart (though not the head) of my concern. Ideas do have consequences, including ideas arising out of badly handling sacred texts that are the bedrock of believers’ deepest values and dominant worldviews. These ideas are ultimate ideas – a priori ideas, ideas that are attributed to God, himself.

Proclaiming as unassailable Truth that which is marginally supportable can not only be distracting from the purpose of God in Scripture, but can do positive harm by creating a plethora of litmus tests for orthodox faith. Ideas have consequences, and religious ideas can have devastating consequences. May we handle them with the due care that they demand.

Lost Fox

A recent comment (found here) makes me think that atheism has its own hard-line faction, its own fighting fundamentalists, i.e. those who employ combative, inflammatory language against their opponents.  Surely, if there is such a faction, its poster boy must be Richard Dawkins.

Hard-liners from across the philosophical spectrum seem to share a similar modus operandi, leading me to believe that fundamentalism is more a function of personality than worldview.  What do you think?

joe

“Evolution is necessarily atheistic.”  This position is held by, I would guess, all atheists and many Christians, but still there are individuals like Kenneth Miller who wish to harmonize hard-core, Darwinian evolution with faith in God.

Atheists ask: “If life has been evolving gradually over vast eons of time, then why not take Occam’s razor and remove God from the equation?”

Some Christians ask: “If nature ‘red in tooth and claw’ is God’s intended norm for planet Earth, how can it harmonize with New Testament teaching about sin, death, and redemption?”

What do you think: are Darwinian evolution and Christianity compatible or no?

joe

It seems we have it on good scientific authority that the Judeo-Christian view of God is childish. A recently published letter from Albert Einstein to philosopher Erik Gutkind shows Sir Albert taking a reasoned and thoughtful swipe at the Bible and the faiths of Jews and Christians alike.

This letter reminds us of other great scientific minds that have attempted to ply their trade in the realm of theology. Biologist Richard Dawkins is notorious and vocal about his atheism and disdain for the Christian faith, in particular. Stephen Hawking, once married to a devout Christian, has taken a more agnostic view. Astronomer Carl Sagan enjoyed the mysticism of religion, but was pretty convinced that – even so – the material world was all there was. Cornell’s William Provine goes so far as to proclaim that science proves not only is there no God but no free will, no foundation for ethics, and no reason or ultimate purpose.

Other great scientific minds have found no quarrel between science and faith. Biologist Kenneth Miller regularly speaks against Creationism and intelligent design proponents, but is a devout Catholic. Geneticist Francis Collins of the Human Genome Project thinks Jesus is just alright. In fact, roughly 40% of scientists are persons of faith (dependent on the type of science and the surveyor asking the questions). Many big brain folks have figured the very concepts of reason (Thomas Nagel), morality (Immanuel Kant) and human consciousness (Descartes) show some evidence of Something.

Seems to me these wrestlings show that great minds have no more (and no less) insight into the “God” issue than the rest of us. So, then, I’d like to propose a little idea that was a big hit during the Reformation: namely, personal conscience.

If the Jews and Christians of the Bible are correct, you will be giving an account to the Supreme Being for yourself. No clever cross-references or footnoted quotes from Einstein, Darwin or even St. Augustine are going to pull any weight. Pretty much just you and Holiness, tête-à-tête.

Peace be with you. And maybe a bit of spiritual wisdom as well.

Lost Fox

“My first exposure to murder occurred when I was eleven. This was in 1944, in the communal riots that characterized the last years of the British Raj, which ended in 1947. I saw a profusely bleeding person suddenly stumbling through the gate to our garden, asking for help and a little water. I shouted for my parents, while fetching some water for him. My father rushed him to the hospital, but he died there of his injuries.” ~ Amartya Sen, Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny

Sen, Nobel Laureate in Economics, points out that the Hindu-Muslim riots occurred because one identity, for a time, suppressed all other identities. In this case, the only thing that mattered was one’s religious upbringing. In other similar episodes, like the genocide in Rwanda or the Balkans, ethnicity became the antithesis; if a human being was located on the wrong side of the line, he could be attacked and killed.

A possible antidote to this madness: cultivate friendships among the “enemy”. If you can picture a specific person you care about when the hatemongers start spewing their venom, you will be less likely to buy their lies and more likely to roughly usher them to the nearest watering trough.

joe

My son’s godfather is an Armenian. Well, I guess in today’s hyphenated language, he is an Armenian-American. During World War I, Danny’s grandparents fled to America from Turkey during the Ottoman exportation of Armenians (emigration to the Turkish; genocide to the Armenians). His parents met in a diaspora of Armenians in the American Midwest. He has an impressive intellect, the looks of a model and the drive of an entrepreneur. Yet, he is in his mid-thirties with no family even though he longs for one. To marry a non-Armenian would be one step closer to the degradation of a once prosperous and generous people.

This comes to mind during the recent political news surrounding whether or not the United States should official recognize the millions of deaths and resulting expatriation of Armenians from Turkey as genocide. Practically, the Armenian population is small, both in America and in the world. Armenians have their own small, struggling country of 3 million between modern Turkey and Georgia. Modern Turkey’s current position in the world as a democratic Muslim country in the heart of fundamentalist Arab countries is unique and valuable to the West and to American. During the presidential terms of the last three American presidents, the healing and recognition requested by the Armenian people through such a pronouncement has been surrendered to the pestilence of present crises.

What does it matter if ethnicities and cultures come and go?

Here in America, we have the meta-narrative of the “melting pot” where people from all races, countries and creeds can come and be valued on their individual merits. Live Free or Die. The Wild West. Don’t Tread on Me. Manifest Destiny and all the rest. “I” matters. Much has been written about the American (and Western) fascination with individuality. It certainly informs our views of disenfranchised foreigners. You are welcome here, but you must melt into Us.

Is there ultimate, true, real value inherent in the ethnic or cultural heritage of different peoples?

The tribes of Western and Central Europe – the Franks, the Angles, the Prussians – have been swept aside or have been enveloped into monolithic ethno-cultures represented by, and in, the various countries of modern Europe. We do not hear many callings for their return, with the notable exception of the Celts. What cultures do we care to keep, to discard?

Surprising to many Americans (whose culture spreads to the far reaches of the globe), the French have a national Ministry of Francophony dedicated to preserving the French culture. In the past month, many French groups and government officials, including the Minister of Francophony, were distressed by a song submitted by a Frenchman in an intra-European popular song competition. The offending musician had submitted – and had won the nomination as France’s entry in the competition – a song sung in English. Modern France seems concerned with its cultural and ethnic identity – or at least with the language that identity is expressed in.

Like many Americans, my family has come from all over the world: France, Germany and Latin America. One set of grandparents are from Spain. With the marriage of my youngest brother, there will be no more families with two Hispanic parents, and the Spanish language will become a language spoken only at family reunions and funerals.

I am not advocating diversity-as-virtue. I’m not sure that I need skinheads and jihadists next door to properly appreciate their views. In fact, I am not sure I am advocating any position, really. I am just wondering if we should care more about such losses than we do.

In the meantime, I hope Danny finds a nice Armenian girl in Nashville.

Lost Fox

A very good discussion is being had here between theologians Bishop N.T. Wright (formerly of Oxford and Cambridge) and Bart Ehrman of UNC-Chapel Hill. One reason it is of interest is that it addresses one of humanity’s ultimate concerns: the problem of evil.

The discussion so far has done a fair job of steering clear of esoteric and highly specialized nomenclature and categories and has been a pointed and human tackling of the issue. The discussion is wide ranging and, without getting too bogged down in it here, I did want to point out an implication of an answer from Prof. Wright that was duly noted by Prof. Ehrman.

Wright proposes that the New Testament (and, thus, Christianity) claims that the Kingdom of Heaven – that is, God’s making right the wrongs of the world and establishing justice – began at the resurrection of Jesus and is ongoing now. We have missed this as the Hebrews missed the Messiah in the New Testament. It does not look like God is doing a very good job from our perspective, but Wright would say that we are looking for a different kind of righteous reign. Instead of a Power from on High coming to reign over us, God is using his emissaries – Christians – to establish his reign of justice and peace on earth preceding his final arrival.

Setting aside one’s view of Wright’s reading of the New Testament for a moment, presume his view is true and consider this: If God is reconciling the world to Himself and establishing a kingdom of justice and peace through his followers, does this sufficiently answer the problem of evil and pain, as a particular evil?

Does an ultimate redemption of creation and its creatures properly account for the daily horrors of life and painful death of millions of people? For the starving children, deformities, tsunamis and mudslides that destroy cities, homes and families?

I don’t know, I’m just asking.

Lost Fox

“Given that median incomes are static in the West (eight years of data), likely due to fierce global competition from below , these increases in core inputs are going to quickly reach an unsustainable percentage of the average household’s disposable income.” ~ John Robb

This is more than a little disturbing to me personally.  Are the barbarians really at the gates or does Robb exaggerate?

I have a sinking feeling that he may be right.