Good Quote to the Fringe?

This post comes from a Columbian Discussion Forum:

Just reading a book and was happy to see that my thoughts follow a person that was wiser than I will ever be.

Max Born - 1954 Nobel winner

"The belief that there is only one truth and that oneself is in possession of it seems to me the deepest root of all the evil that is in the world."

The poster then states:

"This statment was made about knowledge but I think it speaks truthfully to beliefs in general."

On the surface this sounds very wise. However, taken as posted, this comment is self-refuting. The claim of "the belief that there is only one truth and that oneself is in possession of it seems to me the deepest root of all the evil that is in the world" is itself a truth claim.

If it is true that there cannot be only one truth then Born's statement is false because he is claiming his belief as the only truth.

If there can be a single truth then Born's statement is also false because he claims that there cannot be only one truth.

Either way, Born's makes a false claim of truth which he himself is in possession of thereby committing the "deepest root of all the evil that is in the world."

UPDATED: 6/27/2006 to correct the spelling of Max Born's name.

Honoring the Wrong War in the Wrong Place at the Wrong Time

Comment read into the Congressional Record - Senate, June 21, 2006, S6261 by Senator John Kerry:

When I heard those two guys were captured, my heart sank because I immediately envisioned the worst. The worst happened. I thought about them throughout that time period, until they were found. I was not surprised that they were brutalized in the most horrific, disgraceful way, and may I add-and I know the Senator knows this-in ways that contravene every law of warfare. But I believe we have a better chance of honoring what they went there for and what all of our soldiers have died for, given something for, if we adopt a policy of reality.

"Honoring what they went there for"?!? Does the Senator want to honor them for going to "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time", the label he applied to the war during the 2004 Presidential campaign? After all, Kerry wants to go back to a the time where terrorists were just a nuisance; the nuisance of flying planes into skyscrapers, the nuisance of the U.S.S. Cole, the nuisance of the Beslan massacres, the nuisance of innocents like Nicolas Berg being beheaded simply because they want to help the Iraqis, the nuisance of Iraqi school buses and elderly homes being blown up.

Senator Kerry's rhetoric reveals his lack of moral clarity, courage, and credibility on this issue.

A dozen boys and a soldier were chosen

John Laird had an very good article in the June 18 Columbian titled, "A dozen boys and a soldier were chosen"*. Laird contrasts his Little League coaching experience this year with that of Sgt. Brian Radke, a local soldier who was critcally injured on Oct 5 of 2005. The picture he paints provides a glimpse of what is important in life, courage, sacrifice, and the existence of that which is greater than ourselves.

Six 11-year-old rookies weren't sure what would happen at their first meeting of the Hazel Dell Cardinals ... "Look at me and listen carefully," I announced. "I want you to focus on just three words: You were chosen."

"You're here because the coaches chose you. At the tryouts, we watched the way you arrived, the way you talked to your parents, the way you stood in line and the way you acted around your friends.

"We chose you for more reasons than just baseball. So you can be sure that this is where you belong."

Laird explained of his team's struggles and his challenge to them:

"As long as you have BR-USA embroidered on the side of your baseball caps, I will never allow you to feel sorry for yourselves. Get your chins up. There's no pouting in baseball."

As the story unfolds, you realize that BR-USA on their caps and their baseball season was dedicated to Sgt. Brian Radke:

... for the first time in 15 years of coaching, I saw 12 boys play for someone other than just themselves. I saw a dozen clumsy knuckleheads rally around five initials that stood for one soldier.
Oct. 5 in Baghdad is why the boys of BR-USA stopped feeling sorry for themselves while playing a silly game.

Laird continued:

Most baseball caps have a fairly short shelf life. After a year or two, they're gone. But I know a dozen boys who'll keep their BR-USA caps for many years to come, maybe for the rest of their lives. They'll do this not because of baseball, but because they'll need a reminder whenever they start to feel sorry for themselves.

Sgt. Brian Radke came home, and he heard three words from Hazel Dell Little League folks about their 2006 season: You were chosen.

*Article is available on The Columbian web site for four weeks.

Being Wired Is All The (Road) Rage

It appears that those who engage in road rage should have society's sympathy rather than our judgement and punishment. The London Telegraph reported June 6 that "Road rage drivers are mentally ill, not thugs":

Road rage and other violent outbursts are caused by "intermittent explosive disorder", a condition which could affect up to 16 million Americans.

Dr Emil Coccaro, chairman of psychiatry at the University of Chicago's medical school and the report's co-author, said: "People think it's bad behaviour and that you just need an attitude adjustment, but what they don't know ... is that there's a biology and cognitive science to this."

So road rage isn't bad behavior after all. People cannot choose to control their anger. It's not their fault, they're just born that way. If that's the case, then what right does society have to judge that behavior? Isn't that discriminatory? Morality need now apply.

After all, it's only biology.

Nature, the Homophobe

How does same-sex marriage detract or threaten the institution of heterosexual marriage?

LR: We can also ask how does polygamy or plural marriages "detract or threaten the institution of same-sex marriage?" Yet, most same-sex marriage advocates have no problem banning those types of relationships. To be intellectually consistent, those relationships (and others) would need to be part of the institution, which would effectively eliminate any meaningful meaning to marriage. In other words, marriage would no longer exist.

Second, marriage throughout history has always been recognized as an opposite-sex relationship in recognition of our nature as human beings. Marriage brings together opposite genders into a complementary union. (See Designed for Sex).

Same-sex marriage advocates reject this appeal to nature but point to "loving, consenting adults" in same-sex relationships. Where do they get the notion of loving? Of consenting? Of adults? These concepts also go to our very nature as human beings.

We recognize love as filling a necessary human need for relationship. We do not violate the will (consent) of human beings. For example, it is wrong to own humans but not pets. And we recognize that adults will (generally speaking) have more wisdom to handle the powerful bonds (both emotionally and sexually) of the marital relationship. Animals instinctively mate when their bodies are ready but human maturity is more than just physical maturation.

So same-sex marriage advocates pick and choose which parts of nature to which they will appeal; accepting only the parts that will benefit their cause. Intellectual consistency demands that if appeals to nature are illegitimate and discriminatory than all appeals to nature should be dropped. Or explain why only parts of nature must be appealed to. Same-sex marriage advocates do neither.

In fact, marriage as a union between "two" people is equally discriminatory. Two finds its meaning in our nature as sexual beings. That is, two people coming together in a sexual union. That is the concept of couple (aka coupling). While multiple ways exist to engage in a sexual union, only one is the way nature made the sexual organs to function and that is through opposite-sex sexual unions. Sans appeals to nature, "two" becomes an arbitrary number to exclude relationships (like polygamy and polyamory) with which same-sex marriage advocates are uncomfortable.

Same-sex marriage doesn't just threaten marriage; it threatens the very way we view ourselves as human beings. If you have a problem with that then take it up with nature, the true homophobe.

FLAG DAY 2006

From the Federalist 06-24 Chronicle (6/14/2006):

On 14 June 1777, the Marine Committee of the Continental Congress adopted a resolution, which gave birth to our National Flag. The resolution read: "Resolved that the Flag of the United States be made of 13 stripes, alternate red and white, that the union be 13 stars, white in a blue field, representing a new constellation."

General George Washington explained: "We take the stars from heaven, the red from our mother country, separating it by white stripes, thus showing that we have separated from her, and the white stripes shall go down to posterity representing liberty."

Today, our Flag is a beacon for liberty, a symbol of hope for all people who "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—that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..."

Our flag flies over a national government, which, at its foundation, was predicated on the premise that it be concerned with what can be done FOR its citizens, not on what can be done TO its citizens.

Is Forcing Your Views On Others Wrong?

A lesson in clear thinking from an exchange in an online thread between a friend of mine and a person identified as Tiggr:

Tiggr: I think everyone is missing the real point of all this. Forcing your opinions and beliefs on anyone else is wrong. That is the crux of it all. Everything else is just posturing and rhetoric.

DGG: I think that Tiggr is missing the point too. The statement that "everyone is missing the real point" is a self-defeating statement because, if true, then Tiggr is missing the point too.

Further, the statement that "forcing your opinions and beliefs on anyone else is wrong" is interesting because every statute or regulation enacted by a governmental entity is a means of forcing one's or society's beliefs on someone else. Forbidding murder is one method of forcing a belief against murder on everyone else in society. Thus, that can't be the point! The question cannot be whether or not we are forcing our beliefs on everyone else, but whether or not the belief is a legitmate one. What Tiggr must mean, then, is that only those beliefs held by Tiggr are appropriately forced on everyone else. Otherwise, the comment is nonsensical.

One should deal with the issues and not engage in personal attacks or self-defeating statements.

"It's Beautiful!"

Spoiler alert: for newly arrived interstellar aliens who have not yet picked up the DVD.
Towards the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark, Rene Belloq has captured the Ark of the Covenant (and Indiana Jones and Marion) and opens it to see what treasures therein lie. Magnificent spirits emerge swooping around the cave until one immensely beautiful spirit hovers before Belloq.

"It's beautiful!" he exclaims in sheer delight at the vision until a moment later it morphs into a unimaginable horrible creature which engulfs and destroys him as he screams in agony and excruciating pain.

I wonder if Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, upon passing from this life, saw a vision of 70 virgins, beautiful beyond description, welcoming him with open arms. "They're beautiful!" he exclaims in sheer delight at the magnificent vision only to be bewildered as they merge into one virgin and then aghast as the one virgin morphs into the Holy and Righteous God that judges in perfect justice.

I wonder if Zarqawi thinks all the evil he perpetuated during the wisp of his life is now worth his eternal screams of agony and the weeping and gnashing of teeth. Zarqawi now knows true terror.

Return to the Planet of the Blogs

Due to many of things such as work (no response from the Gates Foundation yet on my request for them to underwrite my living expenses), family, tasks and issues which required my attention, and - yes - sometimes just because, I have not blogged for awhile.

I know some in the blogosphere live and breathe this stuff. Good for them. But while I like to write and think that the last 11 months have reinforced there are many things much more important than whether or not I write. I may miss it (and I did) but, for me, this is not the be-all of my existence.

While I may or may not post each day, my hope is that when I do that I might, in some small meaningful way, be able to add something to the issues of our day.

I can just hear all those who don't like my views very much: "Damn you! Damn your views all to hell!"
(My apologies to Charleton Heston)

Designed for Sex

Note: During the next several weeks (as with the last few weeks), I will be blogging sporadically due to lack of net access. - Larry

Touchstone magazine has an article titled, Designed for Sex: What We Lose When We Forget What Sex Is For
by J. Budziszewski.

In the article Budziszewski, an authority on natural law, tackles our human nature regarding sexuality. This is not a quick read. Prepare yourself for the hard work of thinking through the issue. But when you are through, whether you agree or not with Budziszewski, you will have a better understanding of the concept of natural law, which, as Budziszewski notes, has been the "main axis of Western ethical thought for 23 centuries". Here is an excerpt.

In the case of every other biological function, only one body is required to do the job. A person can digest food by himself, using no other stomach but his own; he can see by himself, using no other eyes but his own; he can walk by himself, using no other legs but his own; and so on with each of the other powers and their corresponding organs. Each of us can perform every vital function by himself, except one. The single exception is procreation.

If we were speaking of respiration, it would be as though the man had the diaphragm, the woman the lungs, and they had to come together to take a single breath. If we were speaking of circulation, it would be as though the man had the right atrium and ventricle, the woman the left atrium and ventricle, and they had to come together to make a single beat.

Now, it isn’t like that with the respiratory or circulatory powers, but that is precisely how it is with the procreative powers. The union of complementary opposites is the only possible realization of their procreative potential; unless they come together as “one flesh”—as a single organism, though with two personalities—procreation doesn’t occur.

A Label that Sticks

In my June 26 post, Identity as Criteria, I mentioned Paul Scalia's article dealing with people wanting to be identified using the criteria of their sexual orientation rather than their humanity. I promised that if First Things posted the article online that I would provide the link.

A Label that Sticks by Paul Scalia. Enjoy!

The Time That Is Given To Us

The terrorist attack on London should be a reminder to all of us that the War against Terror is actually a World War. We are each involved whether we like it or not. The terrorists are now threatening Denmark and Italy. Most of us had no problem going into Afghanistan. But many question the wisdom of Iraq; that it has no connection with the War on Terror. But the group claiming responsibility connected the action with both Afghanistan and Iraq. If this group is truly responsible, then clearly they see a link that many have questioned.

Dennis Prager made some interesting comments yesterday. We think of the dead. These are people that woke up in the morning, off on their day, expecting to see their families that night. And the injured. These are people who in an instant became brain-damaged, lost their sight and/or hearing. Some will be burned horribly; disfigured so badly they will refuse to go out in public.

They weren't wearing uniforms. They were just normal everyday people going about their lives. But that's the goal of terror. To make people fear living even routine, boring, normal lives.

Prager said that evil arises in each generation. This is true. My grandfather's generation had the Nazis. My father's generation had the Cold War. My generation has the evil of Islamic fascism. We may wish that it is not so but it is.

In the Fellowship of the Rings, Frodo says "I wish the ring had never come to me. I wish none of this had happened." The ring represents evil.

Gandalf responds:

So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us. There are other forces at work, Frodo, than the will of evil. Bilbo was meant to find the ring. In which case you also were meant to have it, and that is an encouraging thought.

There are other forces at work. Our only decision is what we will do with the time that is given to us. Will we fight evil or will we allow it to fester.

Lord will you give Britain the strength to deal with this attack, comfort for the victims and their families, peace to those who would otherwise be filled with fear, and resolve to world to stand against the darkness that would bind us.

This Date in American History - July 6, 1775

Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms - July 6, 1775

July 4th is the day that we celebrate this country's Independence from a tyrannical government, which was proclaimed through the signing of the Declaration of Independence. But, nearly a year to the day earlier, another Declaration was issued; this to justify the colonists' creation of an army.

"We are reduced to the alternative of chusing an unconditional submission to the tyranny of irritated ministers, or resistance by force. -- The latter is our choice. -- We have counted the cost of this contest, and find nothing so dreadful as voluntary slavery. -- "

The final draft is the work of John Dickinson and Thomas Jefferson. In an ironic twist of history, Dickinson was actually opposed to a separation from Britain. His task was to temper Jefferson's first draft, which was considered to harsh. Dickinson's opposition to Independence led him to abstain from voting on and signing the Declaration of Independence.

The Declaration of Causes text is located at http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/arms.htm

Feelings, Nothing More Than Feelings

A comment on my blog entry The Darkened Heart, brought "Interview with Arrested Soulforce Family" to my attention. The interviewer was really excited about his "scoop" on the family that the pro-gay theology organization, Soulforce, placed in the spotlight during their protest of Focus on the Family back on May 1st. The interview turned into a lost opportunity for the him and for his readers. It provided no real information beyond what the news articles had already provided. The interview was just another avenue for the Reitans to emote.

I analyze the interview and include the questions that could have been asked to clarify and to explore the intellectual foundation upon which the Reitan family's arguments supposedly rest.

Independence Day

Today is the 229th anniversary of the founding of these united States.

"Yesterday, the greatest Question was decided, which ever was debated in America, and a greater perhaps, never was nor will be decided among Men. A Resolution was passed without one dissenting Colony, 'that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, and as such they have, and of Right ought to have, full power to make War, conclude Peace, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which other States may rightfully do.'" --John Adams to Abigail Adams, July 3, 1776

Regarding Independence Day:

"We have this day restored the Sovereign to whom alone men ought to be obedient." --Samuel Adams

Founder Benjamin Rush recalled Independence Day 1776: "Do you recollect the pensive and awful silence which pervaded the House when we were called up, one after another, to the table of the President of Congress [John Hancock] to subscribe what was believed by many at that time to be our own death warrants?" He lamented, on the 35th independence celebration, "scarcely a word was said of the solicitude and labors and fears and sorrows and sleeplessness nights of the men who projected, proposed, defended, and subscribed [signed] the Declaration of Independence." (emphasis added)

The Declaration lays the framework for the break with the throne. It provides in the first paragraph and a half a definition of human rights, what makes them unalienable, and the purpose for government tied to those rights. The document then lists the "abuses and usurpations" by the King. In conclusion, the Founders declared their right to be independent.

As you celebrate this Independence Day, reflect, not just on our liberty, but the basis of that liberty, the vision the Founders were truly putting their lives on the line for, and the men and women through these 229 years who have fought, sacrificed, and died for that vision.

For more information, see these links at the National Archives and Records Administration:

Transcription of the Declaration:
http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html

Main page for the Declaration of Independence, which provides background information, history, high-resolution images:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charters_of_freedom/declaration/declaration.html

Making of the Charters: "A New World Is AT Hand" exhibit:
http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/charters.html

Britney and Kevin's Unborn Child

What exactly resides in the womb of the human mother? . In this morning’s Oregonian article, “Blazers trade down, then trade up”, John Canzano writes how the Portland Trailblazers, in drafting another player out of high school, has become an extremely young team.

“Player personnel director Kevin Pritchard, way back in his coaching days, suggested that getting "REAAAALLLY young" (he said it just like that) wasn't such a bad thing. I'll trust him there. But we're talking about a team that just got so young (new average age around 23.5 years) that you half expect the Blazers will consider using that conditional pick in 2006 on Britney and Kevin's unborn child. “ (emphasis added)

Unborn child? When removed from the rhetoric of the pro abortionists, people will naturally refer the unborn as a “baby” or a “child”. In our hearts we know exactly what the unborn is. It is only when those who have the power to destroy these children for there own convienence use words like fetus, embryo, cell mass to hide the truth.

The Establishment Clause in its Historical Context

Washington Post columnist George Will provides some historical background that shows why Monday's Supreme Court rulings on the Ten Commandments actually violates the Framers' (including Thomas Jefferson who, though not an actual Framer, is the authority upon which modern day Separatists rely) intentions regarding the First Amendment. See "Thou Shalt Split Hairs".

The fallacy of Separation of Church and State

Melinda Penner of Stand To Reason makes some salient points today that "Non-establishment is what the First Amendment affirms, not 'separation of church and state'" in her blog entry, "The Ten Commandments and the Supreme Court".

Identity As Criteria

Paul Scalia, a priest of the Diocese of Arlington, Virginia and chaplain of the Arlington chapter of Courage, makes an interesting observation in the current issue of First Things. His comments are in the context of school organizations identifying children by their sexual orientation:

"The child is lovable, and is loved. That love, more than anything else, instills in adolescents the trust and confidence they need to struggle with whatever painful and saddening realities they face.

"Difficulties arise when the child insists on being accepted and loved not as a person but as a 'gay,' 'homosexual,' or 'other' - when he wants to be loved according to that label. Clearly this situation ... requires parents to insist continually that, no, their child is not just the sum of his sexual attractions, that they can love their child while rejecting some of their actions.

"Adolescents need to hear precisely this: People's sexual inclinations do not determine their identity."

While Fr. Scalia is specifically addressing sexual orientation, his thinking applies much more broadly, for example regarding race or ethnicity. This labeling divides and ultimately reduces a person's humanity to mere criteria; emphasizing certain criterion and reducing others. If the chosen criteria are not recognized then those holding the criteria see themselves reduced; second class citizens.

It is their clinging to a set of criteria as their identity which ultimately reduces their humanity.

I will include a link to the article, if and when, First Things places the article on their website.

Update (7/23/2005): First Things has indeed provided a link to this article, A Label that Sticks.

History of Repeated Injuries and Usurpations

The History of the present King of Great Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States, To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World, ... For quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us."
- Declaration of Independence

"... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
- Taking Clause of the Fifth Amendment

“A Republic, if you can keep it.”
- Benjamin Franklin

The Supreme Court ruled today in Kelo v. New London that "cities may bulldoze people's homes to make way for shopping malls or other private development . . . giving local governments broad power to seize private property to generate tax revenue."

Does anyone, who has even a tiny knowledge of the Founders' and the Framers' worldview believe today's Supreme Court decision aligns with their intent on property rights? That under the tyranny of King George that they believe it was okay for a government to take away private property and give to another private entity?

Then: When quartering the King's Army one still retained possession of one's property. Sometimes homes were burned to the ground.

Now: Local governments can simply take your property, bulldoze it, and give it too someone else.

The Founders and Framers must indeed be proud.