Top 10 Things Liberals Have Taught Me about Myself (Part 1 of 4)
You know, sometimes you just need someone else's perspective. Another viewpoint to explain reality to you and show you things about yourself that you never knew. Things that even your friends won't tell you, or don't know. Heck, they're probably guilty of it, too, and don't even realize it. Let me give a few examples of how my eyes have been opened... 1) I am a racist. More generally, I hate minorities. Yeah, really. I was shocked to find this out, but I guess it's true. There are many reasons. For one, I don't like Affirmative Action. I thought it was because ...
Is E.T. Hiding?
Sixty-plus years ago, a physicist by the name of Enrico Fermi postulated that, unless the evolution of life was unique to Earth, there should be many advanced species out there. If this is true, why haven't we detected them or they made contact? This is known as 'Fermi's Paradox'. Adrian Kent of the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo (Ontario, Canada) thinks he may have figured out the solution by applying Darwinian principles. As Mark Buchanan reports over at NewScientist: "[Kent] argues that it's plausible that there is a competition for resources on a cosmic scale, driving an evolutionary process between alien species on ...
Rights Are Right, Right?
Everybody's got "rights". Just ask 'em! Rights to freedom of _________. Natural rights. Human rights. Civil rights. Property rights. Privacy rights. Abortion rights. Women's rights. Gay rights. Marriage rights. Workers' rights. The right to a minimum wage. The right to free healthcare. The right to clean air. You name it, and somebody's gonna claim it. Everybody's so sure they've got all these rights,... but why? What are rights? Where do they come from? Simply put, a true 'right' is a just claim to something. Someone or something is obligated to allow or provide you that thing you claim and perhaps some associated protections, and others are then obligated to recognize that right. So, rights are, in ...
Should Christians Practice Yoga?
Holy Hamstring, Batman! It's so mainstream these days, but I've always been a bit leery of the idea of Christians practicing yoga. I've even seen books in the store for "Christian Yoga". "But, isn't it just stretching & breathing exercises and 'meditating'? And doesn't it relieve stress and make you healthier?," you ask. Actually, there's a bit more to it than that. The practice of Yoga is primarily based in Hinduism, and the different positions -- aka postures, or asanas -- and reasons for them are rooted in Eastern mystical beliefs. Simply put, those beliefs are counter to the worldview and associated ...
Can Someone Be Pro-Life and Support Capital Punishment?
If you watch national news, you may have noticed a lot of attention being given lately to a particularly horrible crime. One day in 2007, two home invaders terrorized and tormented a Connecticut family for 7 hours -- including savagely beating the husband/father, raping & strangling the wife/mother, raping the younger daughter (and possibly the older one, though that wasn't clear to me) -- before tying both daughters to their beds, dousing them with gasoline, and setting the house on fire. Fortunately, the girls died of smoke inhalation before the flames consumed them. Only the husband/father, Dr. William Petit, managed ...
Darwinists Talk to the Hand re ID Peer Review
If you are familiar with the Ed Sullivan Show from decades past, you probably know who Señor Wences was. He was the Spanish-born ventriloquist whose popular act consisted of him conversing with "Johnny" -- i.e., a puppet made from Wences' hand, on which he put eyes, nose, lipstick, a wig, and set atop a doll's body. As with any such act, while the ventriloquist does his/her best to make the puppet or dummy seem very "real", it is still under the complete control of the ventriloquist and says & does whatever s/he wants it to. In an article published today at ...
Is “The Man” Keepin’ You Down?
Who is "The Man," anyway? I don't know if the term is really used that much, anymore. But, my understanding was that it usually referred to groups & individuals of authority -- those in power and influence. It could be the government, some big corporation, "the Law" (i.e., cops, courts, the legal system in general). If used by a Black or Hispanic, the assumption could also be made that "The Man" referred to "white people", because they are/were the majority and usually in positions of power. Generally, the term was a way of focusing one's dissatisfaction with one's circumstances in life ...
Are The Gospel Accounts of the Nativity Contradictory?
Skeptics of religion -- and of Christianity in particular -- always like to pick apart the Bible, claiming that this or that is inaccurate or could never have happened or has been "proven wrong", or some such thing. I have yet to hear/read any "contradictions" that don't have some plausible explanation, particularly when one does not assume a purely naturalistic philosophy from the get go. But, much of the time, all one needs to do to resolve any paradoxes or textual difficulties is to approach the Biblical text with fairness and an open mind, as (hopefully) with any ancient document. ...
Secular Government vs. Secular Society (Part 1 of 2)
One of the ongoing arguments in the American public square is just how "religious" is our country and how much of that religiosity is -- or should be -- allowed in our government & society. One side typically has talking points about the Establishment Clause in the Constitution and the Separation of Church & State doctrine in, well, no official document. They point out the non-sectarian nature of our founding documents and institutions, claiming they were based on Enlightenment ideas. The other side counters with the obviously Judeo-Christian principles -- and, often, Christian beliefs -- exhibited and expressed by most ...
Bad Bongo!: Are Chimps Moral? (Part 1 of 3)
Every once in awhile, you hear someone trying to describe how evolution/Darwinism -- really, the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis -- explains "morality". Often the explanations involve recent observations of "morals" (or the rudiments thereof) among one or another type of animal -- elephants, whales, birds, cats, dogs, apes, etc. But, IMHO, there is always something missing. The naturalistic philosophers and scientists never really explain the concept of the transcendent, objective morality. At best, all they can do is suggest why certain individuals or communities -- human or perhaps not -- may adopt a certain code or guidelines to live by. Why is ...
Subscribe Me!
Jan 12
21
Young-Earth / Old-Earth Creationist Exchange, Part 3 of 3: A Literal Adam and Death Before the Fall
In this final installment, ‘Jeff’ and I returned to Eden and the subject of Adam (along with Eve, this time). As I recall, he expressed his appreciation that I didn’t give any credence to the ability of purely naturalistic processes to “create” the first life or the diversity of life we see now and in the fossil record. But, he was still concerned about my views on Adam, particularly as they pertain to sin and death. Recent discussions in Christian circles, including articles in Christianity Today, have been addressing whether or not the Biblical Adam & Eve were real, historical people. If so, were they Homo sapiens or something else? So, it wasn’t surprising that this came up in our exchange.
Anticipating where he was going, here’s what I said:
“Before you ask, I assure you I believe that the events recorded in Genesis 1-11 were literal, historical events involving (from 1:26 forward) actual, fully human people made in God’s image (Homo sapiens sapiens). I just happen to think that they took place a few years earlier than you do, as allowed by Biblical text (without unnecessarily assuming metaphors) and as indicated by scientific discovery.
I think the Bible clearly teaches that 1) only Man is a spiritual creature and 2) sin is a matter of spiritual rebellion (though often manifested in the physical). Only humans make moral choices that bring “death through sin.” Both Romans 5 and I Cor. 15 state that the death Adam experienced — initially spiritual “death” or separation from God, and later physical death — when he & Eve disobeyed God in the Garden was visited on “all men.” No reference to plants, animals, or other critters. Thus, I have no problem with non-human death before the Fall. In fact, without an ad hoc assumption of divine preservation, it is hard to believe no plants, bugs, or bacteria would have been killed even accidentally — in Eden or outside of it — even in those first few days. Plants & bugs get trampled on or eaten; even bacteria, whose lives are often measured in hours, are used in animal & human digestion.
I agree that God could have created full-”grown” trees/plants just as easily as He did an adult-sized man. But, none of this ever need call into question what God CAN do or COULD have done. Rather, it is about what He DID do, even if we don’t fully understand how or why He might have done it that way. What does the Biblical text indicate or allow for — assuming “high view” and good hermeneutic — and what does careful scientific study tell us about General Revelation, the Book of Nature? In both science (i.e., study of the natural world) and theology/hermeneutics (i.e., study of God & His Written Word), we rely on “man’s understanding”, both others’ and our own. We are all “mere men.” But, God is the God of Truth and the Author of both “books”, and when interpreted correctly, they harmonize. I believe they do, starting with the Big Bang (i.e., Gen. 1:1; the creation ex nihilo of all matter, energy, space, & time) through “Mitochondrial Eve” and “Y-Chromosomal Adam” (i.e., origin of humanity from very small population in northern Africa or vicinity thereof a few thousands of years ago) and beyond. It’s exciting to see how scientific discovery catches up with Scripture!
Btw, you may find the following posts from my blog of interest:
Must Christian Accept Evolution? and Living on a Razor’s Edge (actually begins a 3-part series).”
I was looking forward to his response. But, at this point, ‘Jeff’ decided he had had enough dialog on the subject for the time being, and we agreed to end it. It was a good discussion, though. As stated earlier, it gave us a chance to address a few of the YEC/OEC differences and I was able to clarify some misperceptions he had about my OEC position. Maybe we’ll get a chance to continue some other time….
Jan 12
19
Young-Earth / Old-Earth Creationist Exchange, Part 2 of 3: The Days of Creation and Evolution
A couple days ago, I started this series about my Facebook discussion with ‘Jeff’, a Young-Earth Creationist. The Young-Earth vs. Old-Earth dialog in general involves important worldview & spiritual issues, so it can be quite frustrating when the “other guy” doesn’t seem to understand or accede a point or perhaps mischaracterizes your view. Many such exchanges can get rather emotional — heated, even — but this one remained calm & respectful. If I had been forward-thinking and recorded his side of the exchange, you would have seen this on his side, too.
I don’t think either of us thought we would change the other guy’s mind, especially in such a relatively short & limited dialog. But, for my part, at least, I considered it good practice for articulating our respective positions. I hope it benefited others who were “listening in”, too. Also, from his comments I detected some incorrect assumptions about what I believed, so I wanted to take the opportunity to clarify (however briefly) my (and most OECs’) position on a couple things.
He responded to my earlier post and, a couple days later, I responded in kind:
“Regarding Genesis 1:11, it may not be as “clear” as you think, since the Hebrew verb dasha’ (“produce”) has broad meaning. It can be used if plants sprouted up immediately by divine fiat OR if they matured by natural processes OR by some combination of the two. So, in this case, the linguistic clues are insufficient for us to be sure to what extent miracle was involved in early plant life on Earth. I do believe, of course, that God created the initial forms of life de novo.
Just to clarify, I am an Old Earth Creationist of the Day-Age variety (though sympathetic to the Analogical Day approach). As such, I do not believe that a proper reading of the Bible demands either a 24-hour-day interpretation of Creation or a global Flood. I believe (for various reasons) that the “yom” of the Creation Week were long periods of unspecified length — one of the *literal* definitions for the word, btw. Genesis does indeed give an accurate accounting of what God did, and I think Genesis 1 jibes nicely with what scientific discovery has revealed. But, the Bible is not comprehensive on the subject by any means, and we must look to scientists to fill in the rest of the puzzle. Not all scientists are “godless”, of course. Even among those who are, while their interpretations of and conclusions drawn from evidence can be biased by a strong methodological and metaphysical materialism, the raw data is generally still good (assuming accurate measurements, adherence to scientific method, etc.). And, Scripture (e.g., Psalm 19) does seem to indicate that the facts of nature are a reliable source of information.
Incidentally, I am glad you indicated that we need to look “throughout the Bible”, not just Genesis, for information about God’s creative work. Passages in places like Job and the Psalms have some great info. However, I think that YECs sometimes make unnecessary assumptions and place unnecessary restrictions on what is allowable. For example, the language is sometimes more broadly defined (as with dasha’ and yom) and sometimes more specific (e.g., the types of animals mentioned in Gen. 1 & 6-9) than YECs might assume or prefer. Of course, I am convinced that a consistent reading of Scripture — theologically conservative and faithful to both genre and language — (as well as of nature) actually favors an OEC position.
I do NOT believe — as you seem to assume I do — in macroevolutionary development of either plants or animals. I am *not* a theistic evolutionist (or “evolutionary creationist”, as some prefer to be called), because I find both the scientific and Biblical/theological support sorely lacking. (In fact, the science points to Intelligent Design by Someone who sounds a LOT like the God of the Bible.) I do *not* believe that evidence of billions of years demands an acceptance of evolutionary theory, either gradualistic neo-Darwinism or some variation. Indeed, even *if* such was naturalistically possible (i.e., via “nature” selecting survivors based on random selection, genetic drift, lateral gene transfer, etc.), the math/statistics indicate it would take many orders of magnitude more billions (trillions?) of years just to produce any “advanced” lifeforms (after God presumably kickstarted it all). Yet, science shows us that *as soon* as the Late Heavy Bombardment ended, the first traces of life suddenly appeared on Earth roughly 3.8-3.9 Gya. Darwinists/materialists have no credible explanation for this (and many other things, as you know).
To be continued…”
As you can see, I was able to better explain (though still not comprehensively) certain points of an OEC model and let ‘Jeff’ know where I was coming from on the subject. In particular, I was able to disabuse him of the notion (common among YECs) that, since I believe the Earth and universe are billions of years old, I must also give credence to some sort of large-scale, Darwinian evolution to explain nature’s diversity. I felt it was important to clarify this point, in order to draw us & our positions closer together, so to speak.
Part 3 will follow this weekend….
Jan 12
17
Young-Earth / Old-Earth Creationist Exchange, Part 1 of 3: Bellybuttons and the Appearance of Age
One of the issues covered in this blog is the whole Creation/Evolution/Design debate and related topics. In my writing in this area, I occasionally make some statement to indicate that I am neither a Theistic Evolutionist nor a Young-Earth Creationist, when it comes to theories about the beginnings of the universe, Earth, diversity of life, humanity, etc. The former position — which basically tries to insert God into an otherwise naturalist, basically evolutionary theory — has only recently starting gaining some momentum in certain Christian circles. The latter position, though, is much more prevalent among Christians, particularly Evangelicals.
In short, Young-Earth Creationism (YEC) a) stresses a literal, “plain reading” of Scripture; b) assumes that the “days” of Genesis 1 are 24-hour days; c) takes the genealogies of Gen. 5 & 11 to be fairly comprehensive, giving an age of 6-10,000 years for all creation; and d) usually requires that the fossil record be explained by a catastrophic, global flood (Gen. 6-9). It has been my experience that many evangelical Christians are brought up or socialized to believe that the YEC view is the only acceptable, orthodox position on these matters. If they are aware of the Old-Earth Creationist (OEC) position, they are usually taught that it puts science above Scripture and “compromises the Gospel”. (Neither of which is true, I assure you.) Some have even called OECs heretics and apostates!
Last September, I had a brief dialog on Facebook with a Young-Earther that I thought might be of interest (even instructive) to my readers, whether you follow the debates or are unfamiliar with the issues. If you are a Young-Earther and not very familiar with the Old-Earth Creationist position, this may help you get a little more understanding of OECs. Contrary to the way many such exchanges go, this one was pretty reasonable and irenic. I only wish I had saved my interlocutor’s comments, as well. (That may be the first time I’ve used “interlocutor” in a sentence.)
We obviously didn’t go into anything in extensive detail, but we did hit several areas of concern. The first thing we addressed was the “Appearance of Age” argument that YECs often use to explain why so many things on Earth and throughout the Universe look to be sssooooo much older than 6-10,000 years.
But first, here’s a little more context. A mutual friend posted something somewhat humorous in his FB status that included a negative statement about Abraham Lincoln and a reference to Adam’s navel. (Yeah. Don’t even try to figure it out.) I left a humorous comment in return (as I often do) but also stated that I doubted that Adam had a navel. A gentleman named “Jeff” responded strongly (but not obnoxiously) with a comment that made it clear he was a Young-Earth Creationist and disagreed with my view. I don’t always take the bait, but this time I decided maybe I could have an intelligent discussion with this guy. So, I responded as follows:
“Heh! I figured I’d provoke a response from those remarks! ;> I need to do a lot more reading on Lincoln and the Civil War era before commenting on that. (Let’s just say I’m not ready to vilify Mr. Lincoln quite yet.) As for the other, I’m quite familiar with the “maturity” arguments of YECs.
It is true that some things were created in a state that would have appeared “mature” or “fully grown”, say, to a time-traveler who went back to observe. That would be the natural assumption, since most people understand that living things tend to grow & develop over time until they reach a “mature” state. Indeed, the Bible indicates that Adam began his life with an adult-sized body & capabilities. (Same with Eve, later.) But, if our hypothetical time-traveler were to examine Adam closely during those first few minutes/hours after he was formed, I believe he would find Adam was “brand new” in every respect. No liver spots; no scar tissue; no indications of changes in blood & bone chemistry, visual acuity, muscle & skin tone; no memories of past events. Similarly, if there were any nearby, adult-sized trees that God had created ex nihilo roughly 72 hours earlier (which I doubt), I don’t think they would have had tree-rings. These are the reliable indicators of age, and their presence at this time would have attested to false history.
By the same token, for Adam or Eve to sport a navel would have been “evidence” of a birth that never happened. (Though, this wouldn’t have been an issue until many years later when their offspring started questioning them about it.)
I certainly understand the appeal of the appearance-of-age hypothesis for the YEC. It gives one a way to explain how/why an earth & universe that are supposed to be only 6-10,000 years old actually looks — by multiple, often independent, methods — billions of years old, as does the history of life. Of course, besides the issue of God’s integrity, it also means that we can’t be sure of our own or anyone else’s past existence. Taken to its logical conclusion, we/they could have been created an instant ago with implanted memories and all the indicators of natural age (as above) and a social history (e.g., photographs, material possessions, family & friends). We would feel and appear older than we really are. Taken further, God could have built an appearance of age throughout the universe (e.g., creating light in transit from distant stars), testifying to events that never took place (even when the Bible refers to them). But, it would all be a lie.
This is one of many reasons why I can no longer buy into the YEC position.”
Btw, in a more recent conversation on this topic, I also added:
“By His very nature, God cannot and does not trick or deceive, either in word or in deed. And He doesn’t hide revealed truth from those who seek and want to understand it. The Scriptures tell us we can learn about God by studying His creation. If we can’t believe what the evidence tells us about God’s creation (and YEC leaders are on record admitting that the Earth and Universe do indeed appear to be billions of years old), then how can we trust God or know what His creation really says about Him?”
At this point in the original exchange, I apologized to the friend whose comments got us going…
“Sorry for usurping your thread, [dude]. (Though, technically, you started it!) ;>”
It was a good start to our dialog and gave me a chance to give him some things to chew on that he may not have really considered before.
Stay tuned for Part 2 in a couple days….
Here we go, folks! The GOP primary season is officially underway, with one down (i.e., Iowa caucus) and three more primaries scheduled just in January (i.e., New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida). Rick Santorum got a nice surge over the past 2-3 weeks, enough to essentially tie with Mitt Romney in Iowa, who officially won by 8 votes (though several votes are in contention). Santorum’s surge appears to have come largely from evangelicals and other social conservatives who identify with his strong pro-life/pro-family message. But, Santorum also has a strong opinion on national defense, particularly when it comes to Iran. Many conservatives think along the same lines, so that probably helped him, too.
Yet, other GOP candidates have very similar and arguably just as firm stances on both issues. So, what was it that convinced so many Iowans to vote for Santorum, who otherwise has been languishing in the single digits in most national polls? Is it his youthful appearance? His big family? His tireless campaigning throughout the state — probably only matched by Michele Bachmann? I’ve read several comments by people who saw or even met him in person, and they say he’s just a “real”, regular guy. Is that it?
The purpose of this post is not to focus on Santorum. (He’s currently my second choice, in case you’re curious.) I really just want to look at some of the reasons why we voters choose who we choose. How do we make that decision? Of course, I’m not a sociologist or political expert of any kind. so I’m just gonna make a few observations and suggestions, one “average” voter to another.
A few diligent citizens learn just about everything there is to know about each candidate and his/her personal and professional past. Of course, most of us don’t have the desire or time to spend in such in-depth research. Many others will be pretty much single-issue voters. Social conservatives will usually focus on the candidates’ records and statements about abortion and the pro-life issue. Some of those may combine that with a look at candidates’ “scores” on traditional family vs. same-sex marriage & the “gay agenda”. Others will be most concerned with the candidates’ records on 2nd Amendment rights vs gun control legislation. Others still will be more focused on matters of fiscal/economic policy and/or national security/defense. But, I think it’s safe to say that many voters — perhaps the majority — are somewhere in between, just trying to get a handle on most of the issues, what each candidate’s general ideology seems to be, weighing the pluses & minuses for each candidate. Hopefully, all of this is done within a mindset that recognizes and desires to keep the founding principles of our nation as laid out in our founding documents.
There are, of course, other factors that come into play, consciously or subconsciously, when deciding what we think and how we feel about a candidate. Are they physically attractive? Do I like their smile? Are they well-dressed and well-groomed? Do I (dis)like the sound of their voice? Do they have a good “origins” story? Can they personally identify with what I am going or have gone through? What personal “baggage” do they carry? How do they handle themselves, especially when “under fire”? Are they easily perturbed? Are they a Washington “insider” or an “outsider”? Have they ever run a company or organization before? Successfully? Et cetera. Whether we admit it or not, some of the stuff we look at is somewhat frivolous and, in the end, irrelevant. (Some people will vote for a candidate mainly, or solely, because of their race or gender. Can you believe that?!) Other things may or may not be all that significant, depending on who the candidate is and what “experts” you read or talk to.
Now, I feel I should say a few words about “baggage”, “flip-flopping”, and accusations of lies & corruption. I’m already getting really tired of hearing all the crap being throw around from all sides. That’s to be expected to some degree, at least. But, what is frustrating is seeing people largely accepting the charges without much fact-checking or critical thought. Sure, there are definitely certain statements made and actions taken by the candidates in the past that need to be addressed, because they raise questions of morals/ethics, or (ir)responsibility, or an inconsistent record that may point to an “ideology” whose positions change according to the political winds. However, a few reminders:
1) While we may favor Candidate A, we should be careful not to demonize Candidates B, C, D, & E too much or assume that all accusations against them (and the implications thereof) are accurate or typical. (Besides, our guy may need the other guys’ support in the general election, if s/he is fortunate enough to be nominated.) By the same token, we should try to be somewhat objective about our favored candidate and not see them through rose-colored glasses. Even our guy probably screwed up once or thrice.
2) People do change their minds & attitudes for valid reasons. They mature, get more “real world” experience, discover new information, or are just persuaded otherwise. Sometimes an ideology, especially if it follows a paradigm shift (e.g., changing political parties or religions/denominations), just needs time to gel, as one gets more (new?) information and gains more understanding. We need to acknowledge this and, barring solid evidence that a candidate hasn’t really changed or doesn’t really believe what they currently claim they believe, give the candidate the benefit of the doubt. We should be more concerned with each candidate’s current positions, current behavior, and how they intend to fix the nation’s problems.
3) A lot of the accusations made in debates and smear campaign ads are little more than sound bites. Sometimes an official study or record of activities will be referenced, but we rarely get the full story. What are the rest of the facts? What is the historical context of the statement/action? After all, some decisions are strategic — e.g., in order to be more favorably positioned, perhaps get bipartisan support, on a more pressing or important matter in the future — and are not necessarily a betrayal of one’s principles. It’s frustrating, but negotiation and compromise are the name of the game in American politics, and it’s a whole lot better than dictation from on high (i.e., from a totalitarian executive).
If the issue is something that we are really concerned about, it behooves us (and is only fair to the accused) to look into the matter a bit more. There are usually written records and recorded statements than can be verified and should be taken in context. A fair-minded review of the facts may paint a little different picture than do the ads of a candidate’s competitors and detractors. (See Gingrich’s attempts to answer some of the complaints & allegations against him, for example.)
As much as we might like to throw some zingers at our friends/associates who support the other candidates, focusing on the negative stuff just distracts from what should be the real issues and simply makes those doing the attacking appear petty, desperate, and/or dishonest. (Just watch some of the debates to see what I mean.) Once a questionable vote/position has been reasonably & effectively countered or corrected, they and we need to just move on and concentrate on contrasting the candidates’ positions & approaches on the substantive issues.
President Obama explains his "nuanced" methods for bringing our nation to its knees
Finally, we need to consider if a candidate has the necessary finances, organization (both on the payroll and volunteer), and momentum to carry them through not only the primaries but into the run for the general election. (Yes, these are practical rather than ideological considerations. Some ideological purists may balk at this, but they are just as important.) Also, is it reasonable to expect said candidate to reach sufficient numbers of key groups — e.g., minorities, TEA Party activists, evangelicals, fiscally-minded and security/defense-minded independents, etc. — to beat the Obama machine? Can they effectively counter Obama’s “progressive” platform with articulate, fact-based, yet passionate explanations of how & why conservative approaches to our problems are (and always have been) better for the nation and everyone in it? In other words, is s/he electable? (And, no, you can’t rely on Divine Intervention to get an underdog elected. God gives no such guarantees.)
Essentially, we’re all looking for which candidate is the best “package”, representing the best overall combination of policies and concerns that we ourselves favor. But, the candidate also needs to have a good chance of getting into office, so that they can implement changes which will get the U.S. out of the big-government, spending-addicted, quasi-socialist quagmire we’ve been driven into.
Does the candidate whose platform you prefer meet those criteria? If not, I recommend that you alter your vote before you get to the caucus/primary ballot box.
Note: No one ever said it would be easy!
Politics by .
“And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.” — John 1:14 (NASB)
I didn’t want to let the Christmas season go without a Christmas-related post, so… I went back to my discussion on an old marketing forum with a gentleman who referred to himself as “Michael the Heathen Gnostic”. (You may have read other posts I adapted from this discussion.) We hit several topics about religion in general and Christianity in particular, (un)reliability of the Bible, (in)consistency of Gospel accounts, Church dogma, Gospel of Thomas, what it means to be “gnostic”, etc. Not surprisingly, when I asked for examples of “contradictions” in the Bible, Michael referred to familiar “Christmas” and “Easter” accounts. (I’ve blogged about these in the posts “Are The Gospel Accounts of the Nativity Contradictory?” and “Bible Contradictions at the Empty Tomb, Parts 1 & 2“.)
In discussing the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ birth & childhood, Michael espoused a theory I hadn’t heard before about why the traditional Nativity story promoted by “the Church” has Jesus & family in the lowliest of settings. I don’t know if it was original to him, or not. One quickly sees his conspiracy-minded suspicions of the early Christian Church (especially Roman Catholic leadership) and their supposed manipulation of “duped” believers from the get-go in order to maintain power. Unfortunately for him, there is no real evidence to back it up.
We begin with Michael (whose comments are always preceded by “>”) giving an example of a never-to-be-questioned dogma of “the Church”, followed by my responses:
“> For instance… the accepted
> “truth” of the birth is that
> Joseph and Mary stayed in a barn with the
> animals and Jesus was born and slept in a
> animal food troff. BUT, not all four Gospels
> say this.
Actually, only two of the Gospels describe any of the circumstances around Jesus’ birth.
Regarding the accounts of Jesus’ birth, living quarters, and visit by Magi, I hope my post of a couple weeks ago has shed a little more light on this apparent discrepancy.
> Thus, the Church has chosen what must be the
> most lowly description possible to put forth.
> MY opinion is to the draw attention away
> from the true status of Mary, Joseph and
> Jesus, lest the “flock” begin to
> question the Church’s authority.
> That is… if the Gospels showed that family
> to be anything other than peasants of no
> importance, readers of the Gospels would
> question why the Church was the authority on
> the religion and not its founder or those
> more closely related to the founder.
OK, let’s see if I follow you… You suggest that “the Church” emphasize(d) the born-in-a-stable and lay-in-a-manger parts from Luke’s Gospel, rather than the found-at-a-house-by-Magi account in Matthew, in order to stress the “lowly origins” aspect. The idea is that somehow this makes “the Church” a more important source of authority. Is that about it?
Interesting theory, though I wonder what your evidence for such intent is — either by a particular bishop or Pope or a concerted effort by “the Church”. (If I read you right, by “the Church” you generally seem to refer to the Roman Catholic Church and the earlier “catholic” Church prior to Pope Leo I.) I also just don’t see this as a strong argument at all for “the Church” to make for such a claim. Btw, at what point in church history did this particular effort supposedly begin? Part of the original corruption or later?”
So, for Michael, it’s all a massive power-play. As I acknowledged to Michael, there has indeed been corruption within the Christian Church — somewhere, to some degree — probably throughout all time periods and traditions. Often it is about power. Some people, as groups and individuals, let the lust for acquiring & retaining power guide their actions. Sad and shameful, but true. No argument.
But, the idea that there was and has been a concerted effort by the dark overlords of “the Church” to hide the fact that sacred texts were (re)written to emphasize Jesus’ lowly origins in order to somehow strengthen the authority claims of “the Church” is baseless speculation from a mind that is generally skeptical and suspicious of all organized religion. I’ve done a bit of reading on textual criticism and the origins of the Biblical manuscripts and come across nothing to back up Michael’s assertions. To come up with something like this, one has to accept the revisionist historical fiction of Dan Brown (The Da Vinci Code) or maybe Michael Baigent et al. (Holy Blood, Holy Grail), whose books Michael likes. In other words, “the fringe”.
My next few remarks were about the fact — which Michael and I agreed on — that the Magi likely did not visit Jesus at the manger, despite traditional and commercial representations showing them there. Of course, to Michael, this is all part of the Church’s plot to confuse & deceive the unwashed masses (pardon the pun). Because the Magi found Jesus at a house (not a stable), he thinks Joseph & family were not really poor. (I addressed the timing of the Magi’s travels in the above-linked post.)
“As to confusion regarding these passages, it certainly isn’t relegated to those in the R.C. Church. I see a similar thing among many in Protestant churches, too. In general, this is probably due to less-than-careful readings of the accounts in question (if read at all), and it is re-inforced by kids books, cartoons, plays, Nativity scenes, etc., that include the Wise Men at the stable scene. “Story compression” to simplify things? Laziness and/or misunderstanding? Or CONSPIRACY to maintain control (or the legacy thereof)? In any case, what has been the true impact on the overall gospel message? Negligible, I’d say.”
I then decided to ask Michael a few questions in regards to his general theory about the early Church manipulating sacred texts in order to control lay believers.
“Incidentally, if Church leaders essentially made the N.T. (including Jesus’ sayings in the Gospels) to say just what they wanted it to say, why didn’t they “clear up” the inconsistencies? In the above example, why didn’t they change or just remove the Magi episode altogether?
Why would they leave in embarrassing things, like the Twelve [Apostles] squabbling amongst themselves? Or Peter’s constantly speaking & acting impulsively?
Why not “straighten out” or change the difficult teachings that Church leaders (and laypersons) have disagreed on and argued over for centuries?
Why not make it undeniably clear that the Church of Rome is most important and that the Bishop of Rome (later the Pope) should have supreme religious power, etc?”
I thought these were reasonable questions, considering the accusations & assumptions being made, but Michael never responded to them. Maybe he realized that he didn’t have any good responses? I don’t know. (If I’d thought of it at the time, I would’ve also pointed out that one of Jesus’ brothers, James, was a leader in the primitive Church. And Mary herself was obviously well-revered.)
From what I could gather, Michael is/was a decent chap — basically “good”, according to the common understanding. He had some bad experience during six years of religious (presumably Roman Catholic) schooling in his childhood/youth, and it left a bad taste in his mouth for the Roman Catholic church in particular and organized religion in general. (He was quite fond of the idea of gnosticism. Though, in the course of our dialogue, I had to correct his misunderstanding of what this involved. (I.e., not just a pursuit of knowledge.)) This, coupled with a natural skepticism and desire for independence, had made him rather accepting of gnostic texts and alternate explanations of the origins of Christianity.
So, it isn’t really surprising that he would be intrigued by and prone to such theories as this. Unfortunately, this is an example of an otherwise bright & rational individual resorting to wild and unsubstantiated speculations in order to “disprove” orthodox Christian teaching and allow him to live his life without obligation to a Higher Authority. (Of course, left to our own devices and desires, this is what we would all prefer.) He had (has?) a real hunger for knowledge but chose to paint Christianity — particularly “the Church” — with a malevolent brush and refused to see & accept where the actual evidence leads from fair & rational investigation. More importantly, I think it blinded him to the true Gospel message and the significance of the Incarnation.
“…but [Christ Jesus] emptied Himself [i.e., set aside his divine privileges], taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.” — Philippians 2:7,8
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” — John 3:16-18
“Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.” — Romans 8:1,2
Happy New Year, all!
Religion by .
“It’s the end of the world as we know it,
It’s the end of the world as we know it,
It’s the end of the world as we know it,
And I feel fine….”
As of today, December 21, 2011, we have 365 days until the end of the world.
That is, if you believe in the ancient Mayan calendar, which ended at December 21, 2012. Actually, the calendar in question doesn’t specifically prophesy or predict catastrophe. It does mention the return of a Mayan god on that day, though, which marks the end of the 13th Baktun (roughly 394 years each). So, as far as we know, the calendar-maker may have just decided his “long count” calendar was long enough and didn’t feel like continuing with another volume. It may be that the only thing he was predicting was his need for a new job or hobby. But, pointing that out doesn’t sell as many books, magazines, or tabloids. And the movie wouldn’t have been very exciting, either. (“2012: Just Another Year”)
Besides, why think the Mayans had privileged info, anyway? Other groups — like the ancient Egyptians and Chinese — were pretty advanced in that stuff (i.e., math and astronomy), too, but they didn’t predict the end of the world. We’ve got a lot more and better technology now and nothing indicates an imminent doom for planet Earth or big portions thereof.
Planetary alignments? Nothing scheduled, and they wouldn’t be a problem, anyway. Never have been.
Solar storms? They usually don’t do lasting damage. Even so, there is “no evidence that one will happen on Dec. 21 next year,” according to astronomer Don Yeomans, manager of NASA’s Near-Earth Object program office at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL).
Magnetic pole reversal? First, while this does occur somewhat regularly, it’s not sudden. It takes thousands of years. Again, “there’s no evidence of a flip on Dec. 21, 2012,” Yeomans said. “Even if it did flip, it would not cause any real problems, other than us having to change our compasses from north to south.”
(Near-)Collision with Nibiru? Speculation and conspiracy theories abound regarding this mysterious “Planet X” that no one has ever seen and NASA’s efforts to “cover up” its supposed existence and parallel orbit on the other side of the Sun. But, despite warnings from the residents of Zeta Riticuli (via UFO aficionado Nancy Leider), there is no real danger of Nibiru suddenly popping out to cause havoc with Earth on 12/21/2012 or any other date.
“There’s no evidence whatsoever that Nibiru exists,” Yeomans said. Besides, “it can’t hide behind the sun forever, and we would’ve seen it years ago.” (Of course, he would say that….)
Then, of course, there is the concern of some Christians and other religious groups that something cataclysmic — the Rapture, asteroid collision, worldwide earthquake, nuclear armageddon, etc. — will happen soon, and it may as well be next December. Of course, such predictions occur periodically by UFO cultists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Millenarians and enthusiasts of Biblical prophecy who think that they have figured out something that no one else has. And, they are always wrong. Just ask Harold Camping.
But, if you are an orthodox Christian (as I am), there are at least a couple passages in Scripture that you should remember whenever you are tempted to believe such ‘prophecies’. For example:
“But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers that are in the heavens will be shaken. Then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And then He will send forth the angels, and will gather together His elect from the four winds, from the farthest end of the earth to the farthest end of heaven…. Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away. But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. Take heed, keep on the alert; for you do not know when the appointed time will come.” — Mark 13:24-27,31-33 (NASB)
Jesus Himself told us that no one will be able to nail down when exactly the beginning of the end will occur. Got it? Also, author David C. Pack reminds us:
“Many are familiar with the term ‘Tribulation’ or ‘Great Tribulation.’ The Bible speaks of this event as one of terrible trouble and indescribable horror. Jesus referred to this time as unparalleled in history: ‘For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be’ (Matt. 24:21). The prophet Daniel also speaks of this period in chapter 12, verse 1. Jeremiah references it in a similar way in chapter 30, verse 7.
The Bible reveals that a certain very specific amount of time must elapse between the start of the Great Tribulation and the Return of Jesus Christ -— or ‘the end of the age.’ So understand. If it can be proven that there are not enough years in God’s plainly revealed timeline for 2011 to be the end, then all the hysteria is for nothing!” (Note: This was in reference to Camping’s latest dire predictions, which obviously didn’t pan out. Again. Same can be said for 2012 being the end.)
So, we know from Scripture that things will get really, really bad before the end. Without getting into any specific schools of thought on how the “end times” will play out, while there are a lot of disasters and suffering going on, I don’t think we are quite there, yet. More specifically to the point of this post, the planet will not be destroyed nor humanity wiped out until the very last days before Judgment Day (Revelation 19 & 20). Then, according to Revelation 21 & 22, that is when the eighth day of God’s creation begins with a replacement of the current, created order:
“Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, ‘Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be his people, and God Himself will be among them.’” — Rev. 21:1-3 (NASB)
There is a lot that has to happen before any of that takes place, so I’m pretty sure the Earth has many more years to keep spinning while humanity keeps looking to the skies….
P.S. Merry Christmas, folks!
Taxes are all over the news, these days. No wonder, since they affect all of our lives. Payroll taxes, income taxes, death taxes, “sin” taxes, etc. There’s a slew of them. But, the one I’d like to address is the (in)famous capital gains tax, which is currently about 15% (down from 20%, thanks to President G.W. Bush). Liberals generally want to raise it (as does Obama); conservatives want to keep it low or abolish it altogether. To the liberal mind, capital gains are where the “rich” get, maintain, or increase their wealth, so any cuts to the capital gains tax rate are considered gifts to the rich. And, of course, the “rich” are often castigated by the Left for having “too much” money and not paying their “fair share” of taxes, anyway.
Uncle Scrooge McDuck
The “capital” in question refers to various sorts of investment — from stocks & bonds to art, real estate, even a business. Sometimes this capital is sold. The “gain” is the difference between original purchase price and sale price, assuming the latter is greater than the former (i.e., there’s a profit). Unfortunately, the tax on such gains does not take into account the effect of inflation on the sale price. This means that the asset’s value appears to have appreciated more than it really did, and the individual ends up paying an “inflation penalty.”
So, that’s what it is. Now, I’d like to take exception with the claim that cuts to the capital gains tax rate are a negative for the economy and only benefit the wealthy. Or, rather, I’d like to let Steve Forbes make the point:
“Experts agree that capital gains tax cuts produce an especially large bang for the buck. They’re a great way to boost the economy. That’s because high capital gains rates cause what is called a ‘locked-in’ effect. Investors hold off on selling assets to avoid the tax. But if capital gains taxes are cut, those same people sell — and invest. ‘Locked-in’ wealth is released. Growth soars, along with a surge in tax receipts.
The Bush administration’s 2003 capital gains tax cut was a key reason that the economy finally recovered from the 2000-2001 recession. Donald Luskin, chief investment officer of Trend Macrolytics, LLC, analyzed the Congressional Budget Office’s annual ‘Budget and Economic Outlook’ report in 2006. He concluded that the cuts actually ended up generating more money for government, not less, as had been feared. ‘Instead of costing the government $27 billion in revenues, the tax cuts actually earned the government $26 billion extra.’” (Italics added by me.)
So, Washington ended up with $53 billion more to play with than anticipated. Nice! (Although, I’m not sure I want to know where that money went. Too depressing.) But, liberals still demonize tax cuts of all kinds, especially if they can manipulate the data to make a conservative like Bush look bad because of it. After all, it was just a tax cut for the rich, right? The middle-class got screwed, as usual, right? Wrong on both counts. The numbers say otherwise:
“Nor did the rich get a free ride from those cuts. According to Stephen Moore’s study for the National Center for Policy Analysis [NCPA],
‘[T]he rich did not get a huge tax cut from the capital gains [tax] cut; in fact, the percentage of income taxes paid by the rich increased from 34 percent to 39 percent from 2003 to 2005 (the most recent year for which data are available). The capital gains tax cut did not only benefit wealthy Americans; more than half of all tax filers with capital gains had incomes of less than $50,000 in 2005 and more than two-thirds had incomes of less than $100,000.’”
This may seem a bit surprising, since we usually think of only the “rich” having the kind of assets that can be sold for appreciable gains. But, a lot more people are investing these days than were, say, 30 years ago. At least half of American households own stock, the most common such investment. That’s the middle-class, folks, where most of us reside.
“Many have wondered why capital gains are taxed at all. Capital and income are two very different things. Income is the fruit that comes from ongoing enterprise. Capital fuels the enterprises and investments that drive growth and generate income for many. Reducing the amount of capital through taxation reduces this societal benefit. Free-market skeptics fail to understand this Real World economic truth — the ‘gain’ produced for government by taxing capital is far outweighed by the cost to the economy and to people.”
As is usually the case, real world examples demonstrate that conservative economic principles/policies work for the betterment of the nation (and many of our friends), while “progressive” economic principles/policies do not work — except to make things worse. (Witness the last few years in the U.S. and the past few decades of socialist & semi-socialist policy in most of Europe now coming to a head.)
I would love to see the capital gains tax rate eliminated, or at least reduced to the single digits. (Not that I personally have any capital to “gain” from.) By releasing some of that “locked-in” wealth and encouraging investment & entrepreneurship, it would be a welcome step in getting this economy back on track.
Politics by .
Tonight I’d like to comment on two pieces of news:
Stupid #1
As you probably heard last week, a 9-year-old North Carolina boy got some national attention after he said he thought his teacher was “cute”. The prepubescent lad, Emanyea Lockett, was accused of “sexual harassment” and suspended from school. Gimme a break!
Gaston County School District has now issued a statement retracting the “sexual harassment” accusation:
“We regret this situation happened. The superintendent has attempted to contact the family to offer an apology to the parents and student. The school system is also sending an official letter of apology to the parents and student….”
I applaud this, but…
Stupid #2
The district seems to have overreacted in their admonishment of Jerry Bostic, Principal of Brookside Elementary. Bostic told the Gaston Gazette that he was given an hour to decide whether to quit or be fired.
“One mistake in 44 years, and I’m not given the benefit of the doubt. I really don’t believe I was treated fairly.”
As much as I think suspending a 9-year-old for “sexual harassment” is an example of politically-correct stupidity, I think forcing the principal to retire over this is going overboard. Sounds like the district is throwing Bostic under the (school) bus.
Stupid #3
On an entirely different topic and much bigger scale…
You’ve heard about this big pipeline to-do, right? TransCanada Corporation wants to build the $7.5 billion Keystone XL pipeline that would transport tar sands crude oil from Alberta — through states like Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska — on its way to refineries on the Gulf Coast. It would create jobs in those states, add more than $20 billion to the U.S. economy, and provide the U.S. with 700,000 barrels/day of crude oil from a friendly, democratic, non-oppressive government that does not promote terrorism. Most thought this was a “no-brainer”.
Proposed path of Keystone XL Pipeline
But, they need President Obama to give this Canadian company the ‘OK’ to proceed. He’s caught between a rock and a hard place. Approve it and tick off his environmentalist activist friends (who hate fossil-fuels, of course, and tend to put salamanders and owls over the welfare of humans); reject it and tick off his labor union supporters (who, naturally, like to have their members employed). He chose the latter. More precisely, despite a detailed, 3-year study on the proposal, Obama said he needed more time to look into it and delayed his final decision until after the 2012 elections. So, in one stroke, Obama has effectively
1) eliminated the opportunity for 20,000+ desperately-needed jobs for Americans;
2) turned his back on multiple billions in new revenue (including $5.2 billion in State property taxes);
3) let slip a chance to make progress toward North American energy security, since Canada has indicated its Plan B is to work with China; and
4) insulted yet another U.S. ally.
“No-brainer”, indeed.
Once again, Obama lets his “progressive” ideology and radical, “transformational” agenda — not to mention his re-election campaign concerns — get in the way of what is good for the United States, her citizens & residents, and her friends. Stupid!
P.S. Just to clarify, I do not think Obama is intellectually stupid; he is stupid from a wisdom standpoint. That is, he is foolish. He has foolishly chosen a philosophical & political path that seems to mix radical Alinskyite-ism, liberal “progressivism”, Marxist socialism & class warfare, etc., all of which have nothing but negative impacts on those affected. He is wiley and dangerous because of his position and power and willingness to abuse both to push his agenda.
Politics by .
Y’know, sometimes it amazes me how otherwise-intelligent people can fail to see or understand some things that seem so obvious to me. The benefits of free-market capitalism is one of those things. Despite the evidence from the past couple hundred years, some people — even among our leaders in Washington, D.C., apparently — still seem to think that capitalism is bad and a government-controlled or “planned” economy (e.g., in a socialist or communist state) is good — both morally and practically superior.
Hear that sound? That’s the rocks rattling in my head as I shake it in disbelief. I’m not an expert on economic matters by any means, but even I can understand the basics and see the real-world proof of what works best for a society/nation and what doesn’t.
In How Capitalism Will Save Us, Steve Forbes and Elizabeth Ames relate how John Mackey, founder of Whole Foods markets (no pun intended), had a paradigm shift regarding business & profits:
“[Mackey] once thought that ‘business and capitalism were based on exploitation: exploitation of consumers, society and the environment.’ At one time an ardent believer in capitalism’s bad rap, Mackey admits, ‘I believed that “profit” was a necessary evil at best, and certainly not a desirable goal for society as a whole.’ However, when he founded Whole Foods, his view of the world began to evolve.
‘Becoming an entrepreneur completely changed my life. Everything I believed about business was proven to be wrong. The most important thing I learned about business in my first year is that business wasn’t based on exploitation or coercion at all. Instead I realized that business is based on voluntary cooperation. No one is forced to trade with a business; customers have competitive alternatives for their labor; investors have different alternatives and places to invest their capital. Investors, labor, management, suppliers — they all need to cooperate to create value for their customers. If they do, then any realized profit can be divided amongst the creators of the value through competitive market dynamics. In other words, business is not a zero sum game with a winner or loser. It is a win, win, win game — and I really like that.’
Mackey’s transformation was helped along by exposure to free-market thinkers: ‘I stumbled into reading Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Ayn Rand — I read all of them. I said to myself, “Wow, this all makes sense. This is how the world really works. This is incredible.”‘
All of this caused him to conclude: ‘Business, working through free markets, is possibly the greatest force for good on the planet today. When executed well, business increases prosperity, ends poverty, improves the quality of life, and promotes the health and longevity of the world population at an unprecedented rate…. How many people in our greater society comprehend [this]?’
… [F]ree-market principles are, for better or worse, the best description of how people go about their business each day and how markets actually function in the Real World.”
Mackey gets it. As a new business-owner, he ran up against reality and it taught him a few things. He became aware of the truth of how the business world works when not over-regulated or interfered with. It’s heartening to know that some people can see the light and change their ways. And Mackey seems to have taken those lessons to heart and put them into practice, ‘cuz Whole Foods is doing pretty well, these days.
Politics by .
Note to self: Need to come up with something Thanksgiving-themed to post before traveling for the holidays. Hmmm, what to write, what to write…? Ah, I know…
“Everybody’s been too damn polite about this nonsense:
…’Occupy’ is nothing but a pack of louts, thieves, and rapists, an unruly mob, fed by Woodstock-era nostalgia and putrid false righteousness. These clowns can do nothing but harm America.
‘Occupy’ is nothing short of a clumsy, poorly-expressed attempt at anarchy, to the extent that the ‘movement’ -– HAH! Some ‘movement’, except if the word ‘bowel’ is attached — is anything more than an ugly fashion statement by a bunch of iPhone, iPad wielding spoiled brats who should stop getting in the way of working people and find jobs for themselves.”
Ahem. Yes, well, don’t hold back, dude…. That was from the award-winning comics/screen writer and living legend, Frank Miller. Never afraid to speak his mind or be provocative, Miller expressed his, er, frustration with the “Occupy” movement in his blog a few days ago. He’s getting a bit of flack from his industry buddies and some fans, but I doubt Miller’s too worried about it. He’s been called names before and lived to tell about it and continue making a good living as a writer. (Whether the quality of his writing is still top-notch is debatable.)
Miller does come across a bit harsh, but he’s got a valid point. In his blog rant, he also strongly asserts that the Occupiers ought to be a lot more concerned with threats like al-Qaeda and Islamicism than with the need to put on childish displays of anarchy. But, the point I’d like to address is about these (predominantly) young people who have largely been the beneficiaries of capitalistic endeavors, from the schools they attend(ed) — often at parents’ expense — to the iPods, Abercrombie & Fitch duds, and frappaccinos they enjoy. Yet, their primary beef seems to be against “the banks” and corporate greed and the free-market, capitalist system in general. (Oh, and apparently some think they should have their school loans totally forgiven. How, exactly, have they demonstrated that they deserve such a multi-thousand dollar gift?! Or, is this just all about punishing the banks?)
Last post, I quoted from Steve Forbes on the superiority of capitalism. Here’s another bit from the recent article “Occupy Wall Street Crowd Blind to Benefits of Capitalism” by Gary Wolfram, William Simon Professor of Economics and Public Policy, Hillsdale College:
“The Occupy Wall Street movement has shown a lack of understanding of how the market capitalist system works. They appear to think that the cell phones they use, food they eat, hotels they stay in, cars they drive, gasoline that powers the cars they drive and all the myriad goods and services they consume every day would be there under a different system, perhaps in more abundance.
But there is no evidence this could be or ever has been the case. The reason is that only market capitalism solves the two major problems that face any economy — how to provide an incentive to innovate and how to solve the problem of decentralized information. The reason there is so much innovation in a market system compared to socialism or other forms of central planning is that profit provides the incentive for innovators to take the risk needed to come up with new products…. [C]learly a system that provides monetary rewards for innovators is much more dynamic and successful. The profit that the Occupy Wall Street protesters decry is the reason the world has access to clean water and anti-viral drugs….
Market capitalism is the key to the wealth of the masses.”
I’ll buy that! And I am extremely thankful that I live in a country where we are still, for the most part, free to pursue the American Dream, thanks to a representative democracy government and free-market capitalist economy.
Happy Thanksgiving, everyone!
Politics by .
