On Being Good

One of the great debates between the Christian and the scientist is the degree to which we are animal or spiritual. Many scientists wish us to be wholly scientific in our approach to humanity and understanding of ourselves. It is really a rather shallow outlook on human nature or, even, the necessary consequences of a purely scientific view of who we are.

Science has apparently discovered the part of our brain which helps us to recognize justice. It thus asserts, at least in some quarters, that goodness is innate within us physically. Yet that attitude ignores a very real point. The possibility that good occurs in us naturally is an entirely different question from the judgment of what is good, or the expectation that people will do good.

How do we know what is good except to be able to judge it in our individual and societal actions? Or are our scientifically minded friends suggesting that we just 'do things' and they happen to be good? Either way, any judgment about good, any assertion that 'this is good' cannot come wholly or entirely from within ourselves; there are too many of us with too many of our own nuanced ideas of good and bad.

Or are you saying that everyone from childhood, without guidance of any kind (parental, societal, or spiritual) will necessarily elect to do good? No Lord of the Flies scenarios possible? To claim that we are innately good begs the question of why people (and it should be obvious that all people do bad things sometimes regardless of physical construction) do bad things. Why does the thief steal, if he knows in his heart and head that it's wrong? Further, what's free will, if we are born with, say, no choice but to do good? Indeed, if we have no choice but to do good, if it is 'just what we do' then even calling our actions good comes into question. What's so good about doing what we cannot help but do?

It should surprise no one that we are hard wired to recognize justice; we are, at the end of the day, physical as well as spiritual creatures. It should not be shocking news that a just and all knowing God in the very act of creation would make our physical selves able to recognize spiritual, eternal, and absolute truths, truths outside our own will, thus enabling us to see (so to speak) justice. That science has discovered as much enhances rather than detracts from our knowledge of God. It strengthens, not weakens, our relationship with Him. It makes our spiritual side and our physical side properly complimentary. It raises us from the mere animal into a higher plane of existence.

Science does not tell us who we are in our entirety. It only sets us on that road. How far we trail along that path is ultimately up to us. And the questions we discover along that way will not be answered empirically.

The Left Demands Schitzophrenic Religion

The left does not understand religion. It cries for the separation of Church and State on the one hand yet demands that religion do its job on the other. Well, you can't have it both ways.

When it comes to feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, and providing medical care, liberals very easily remind Christians of their Christian duty. It's almost droll: when these issues are raised, you know you're supposed to be doing this and that, aren't you, Christians? Yet mention the right to life or the sanctity of marriage, and Christians are scaling that false wall of separation.

It simply cannot be both ways. If you're going to insist that the Church live up to Its call then you cannot also tell Her that She cannot preach the entire call. If feeding the hungry is a moral good despite, perhaps, being a duty in which religious practice is steeped, then so too is defending the unborn. If housing the homeless is a moral good based to a great degree on religious sentiment, then so to is the recognition of marriage as between one man and one woman.

Likewise, you cannot demand that Christians leave their duty to their creed at the voting booth curtain. If you expect them to vote for government solutions when the question of worldly poverty arises, then you must expect them to vote their religious duty towards ending abortion. We simply aren't talking about wholly religious issues on things such poverty and life. We're talking about basic moral questions the answers to which define ourselves as a society.

Yes, and define ourselves as Christians. If we are expected to be whole Christians then we must live up to that. And society must allow it if it is to be just, civil, and moral.

What those do when they demand we not vote our creed in practical application is nothing short of effrontery. It is insulting and immoral in itself. The left doesn't get that. That's why it's so critical that, on November 6th, we vote our creed.

Rats leaving a sinking ship

Are we witnessing an Romney Tsunami? Several prominent newspapers have come in with endorsements of the Massachusetts Republican, newspapers which supported President Barack Obama in 2008. The Orlando Sentinel, the Tennessean, The New York Observer; they all endorsed Barack Obama in the last election, yet are siding with Mitt Romney this time around. There are others as well.

Is this genuine, or are they merely following the pack? With Romney surging ahead in many of the polls, you have to wonder. Still, when the papers who supported Barack Obama not that long ago are now abandoning him, it is a telling sign of his accomplishments. Or lack thereof.

When the Orlando Sentinel chides the President for a lack of bipartisan efforts on the budget, it plays right into the hands of the GOP. What has Paul Ryan said so often? The House has passed several budgets in recent years while the White House and the Democratic controlled Senate have not. And the budget is not the only issue where the White House has failed to be truly bipartisan, says the newspaper.

Isn't it the Democrats who preach 'reaching across the aisle'? Isn't it the Democrats who are supposed to be inclusive and tolerant? We see that they are not. And that is what this election is about: exposing the fraud of the left. They talk the talk. They do not walk the walk. When even those of the same stripe begin to admit as much, then whom to vote for in November becomes an easy choice.

Romney 2, Obama 0.

Who won the debate last night? That question seemed to be on the mind of every per...political wonk out there. Now it's in the hands of the spin doctors in both parties.

But who won? Really?

Likely as not, Mitt Romney. While President Barack Obama was much more on the offensive yesterday evening, Governor Romney was no less on that attack than in their first go 'round. So as to actually won, the jury is out as it was very close. But when thinking about who won from the standpoint of practicality, Romney did.

He scored so well in the first debate that the President needed to come out not merely swinging, but swinging for the fences. Arguably he was trying to do that, yet without the best results. It was like, as at the very best for the outcome was indeed close enough to be considered a draw, his team scored a run the inning after the opposition hit a grand slam. It was an improvement. It was hardly a triumph.

As such, it means Mitt Romney won. Yes, yes, we'll hear for about another day the fact checkers going nuts. But so far as that goes, each candidate apparently struggled enough in trying to pin the other down that no one of us in the voting public can ever actually know to the greatest detail who was the most right. They could be throwing any numbers at all out there and who would really know the difference? Even with the fact checkers, well, who checks them? Simply because CNN can find people to say A while Fox News has folks who say B means little in itself. The general populace doesn't know nor have the time or interest to look into most debate points themselves.

Romney won because Obama could not set himself apart from his opponent in any substantive way. With the foreign policy debate set for next week and the Benghazi maelstrom looming so low above the President's head, the best expectation is that the GOP challenger will be in the best position heading into November.

What Do You Cut in School?

A school in New York City does not have physical education classes for its kindergarteners. This has outraged parents, who want structured gym classes so that their kids learn to understand the value of physical activity and as it would keep them from outside recess (one parent said this was because the school was in a bad neighborhood). The school received a failing grade in a review last year, all of which seems to point out that criticism is justified.

But not because of a lack of `phys ed.

No one disputes that children who are physically active are better than those who aren't. Yet of all the things expected of our schools, isn't this the least important? Isn't being active something far more of a parent's responsibility than that of the schools? Why in the world, anyway, should the lack of physical education appear to matter more to those Brooklyn parents than the fact that the school is failing all around? Shouldn't learning sums and how to read rate higher than that pale concern?

The obvious retort is that children who are physically active tend to be better students all the way around. Still, that begs the question of whose job it is to keep them active, and it blows the question of academic integrity out the window. Further, being in good shape hardly matters if you can't communicate with everyone around you, or if you lack the basic skills which you need to hold almost any job out there.

The article goes on to cite that only 6 states actually require a recommended 150 minutes of phys ed (oh heck, skip that: gym class. Prettying up what we call it really doesn't matter) per week in elementary schools. We should be horrified at that? Not if play time isn't a true part of a school's daily grind.

And that's what it is, when all gets said and done. Play time. That's not a bad thing by itself. Yet not every good thing is or ought to be the province of the schools. Especially for skills as relatively unimportant as hitting a ball with a bat or shooting a ball through a goal. When the question of school budgets come up along with the discussions about about to keep and what to cut, gym class ought to be the first item to go.

Pink?

It was all over the National Football League yesterday. It has been all over the World Wrestling Entertainment shows for the last several weeks. It isn't a color you would expect on either production. It's pink, and it's meant to spread breast cancer awareness. There are several objections which may be made about that, not the least of which is that pink is hardly the color of a manly man. But this isn't about men. It isn't about anyone in particular. It's about a deadly disease, and it's serious. We can debate about the degree to which it is taken seriously by those calling attention to it. We might say that it is nothing more than an attempt at ratings glory, and that is that. We might say, as such, that it is shallow and unworthy of our attention. And it might be little more than that. Yet, is it? Is anything which puts before us a reminder of something which kills people wrong? Is it ever wrong to remind people that there are diseases out there which threaten to kill half our population and encourage us to act against them? Even if it is presented to us not, perhaps, for the best of reasons, is it wrong to do something which calls us to work against a deadly affliction wrong? Of course not. We must support any and all reminders of our duty towards our brothers and sisters. We are all in this together, and we must fight all which afflicts any of us, together. We must support any and all calls which remind us to fight for life; for the lives of those around us, in our offices, in our everyday experiences; in our homes. It's as simple as that.

Joe Biden and personal beliefs

Okay, it's been two days now, but it still isn't too late to talk about the vice presidential debate this past Thursday.

Perhaps the most telling moment of the entire debate came late, when a question was asked about abortion. Paul Ryan came out against it in all cases except rape, incest, and life of the mother. Vice President Joe Biden came out for it. Neither position was unexpected. Yet the stance taken by Vice President Biden was surely the weakest. He's personally against it, but can't force his beliefs on others.

Really, Joe? Really? How long have you been in politics? Between your years in the Senate and the Vice Presidency and a county council seat in Delaware, just about 43. And what have you done in all those years? You've made laws. You've forced your personal beliefs on others.

Any lawmaker who says he can't force his personal beliefs on others is a charlatan. He does it all the time: makes judgments about what is good for the people and works to put in place statutes which compel them to do his will. That's not a criticism, or said with any disdain. It's what lawmakers do. It's okay in itself.

But what is not okay is when a lawmaker says he cannot convert his personal beliefs into law. Aren't all your beliefs personal, Mr. Vice President? Aren't you the person who holds them? Even after debating a point, even after the consideration of what may or may not be the best thing to do in a given situation, isn't what you support a personal view? Again, in itself, that isn't necessarily wrong. It's what you have come to believe. And the circumstances by which you came to be believe them hardly matter. They're your beliefs, and you are trying to transform them into public policy.

To be sure, one cannot make what are solely points of faith into public policy. It would be wrong to make a law which says you must accept that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, as that is entirely a matter of faith. But abortion, the question at hand, simply isn't a question of faith. It's a question of right and wrong which exists outside of any particular faith. It's a question which you have legislated about, Mr. Biden, by trying to force Catholic institutions to provide abortion related services.

Why is that personal belief all right, Mr. Vice President? Because it has gotten you elected to office? If such is the case, then you are worse than a charlatan. What you are then should not be said. It is understandable that you turned your head down when discussing abortion. You know and understand the real embarrassment of your position.

Lawmakers enforce their personal opinions on the people all the time. To say anything else is simply stupid. It treats the people with disdain rather than respect. And it calls into question a lawmaker's virtue, and, in this particular case, the virtue of a Vice President of the United States.