Wednesday, June 28, 2006

The Problem With Having Opinions

Is that some times they slip out when they shouldn't. Josh picked up on this in my previous post and has run with it. Specifically, he has exploited my description of the ultimate Progressive political objective as a utopian state. While I believe this to be correct (and I'm guessing Josh does as well), it is not self-evident that this is the case. Ultimately, the the Progressive aim is to establish a just society. Therefore, in order to establish whether Progressivism can be deemed consistent with Christianity (or any religion, for that matter), the following questions must first be answered:

1) What is a just society?
2) What powers should the state be entrusted to establish and maintain such a society?
3) With what powers can the state be entrusted to establish and maintain such a society?
4) What is the impact of overthrowing long-standing traditions in an attempt to establish such a society?

There are probably others as well, but these will do for a start. While questions of human nature and theology can legitimately come into play here, these questions are questions of political philosophy.

I'm not going to back away from my opinion that Progressivism is utopian, and if I am right, Josh is correct to say that Progressivsm cannot be legitimately reconciled with Christianity (assuming Christianity is true, something both Josh and I do). However, the religious Progressive, particularly the Christian Progressive has a way out. He may well concede that there is no way man can bring aout this just society on his own, but just as God works through man with all of his imperfections, so can he work through the state with all of its imperfections to bring about a just society. Of course, this almost renders politics irrelevant. After all, God could also work through a ficus plant with all of its imperfections to bring about a just society. Still, this cannot be seen as the conclusive answer to the argument of the religious Progressive, merely a witty retort to make his argument seem silly.

No, when it's all said and done, the compatibility of Progressivism with Christianity depends on the answer to my first question: What is a just society? I reject Progressivism as uptopian because I find what I understand to be its vision of a just society to be sorely lacking. I regard it a fantasy to believe that a Progressive society can be equated with a just society. It is only because I recognize my fallibility that I allow for the possibility that I am wrong.

Also, I don't think it reasonable to conclude that the NSP dismisses the Scriptures as a source of authority. There are clearly members of the NSP who think Scripture should be a legitimate source authority and those who think it shouldn't, and there is no way to tell from the article in "The New York Times" which faction, if any, represents the majority opinion.

And, on another point of agreement, I also do not see the NSP coming out against abortion or homosexual "marriage", or anything of the sort. Hence, I can't see them becoming much more than an Amen Corner for the secular left.

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

Is the Religious Left Doomed to Failure?

Over at Ingalls' Inklings, Josh takes aim at a conference of the Network of Spiritual Progressives.
It's a post that hits the ball out of the park. Unfortunately, he knocked it foul. The main reason for this is he comes at it from the wrong perspective, and in so doing misses the raisson d'etre of the NSP.

In the Fall 2002 issue of "The Public Interest", Professors Louis Bolce and Gerald De Maio published an article entitled "Our Secularist Democratic Party". This article laid out how secularists had become the dominant force in Democratic politics over the past 30-40 years. This led to large numbers of religious people leaving the Democrat Party for the Republican Party, causing what has been termed the Democrats' "religion problem". It is this problem that the Network of Spiritual Progressives (NSP) is looking to solve. Ultimately, the vagueness of the term "believer" is not a problem because the distinction the NSP is not so much concerned with religious consistency as with creating a broad public understanding that Progressivism is not equivalent to radical secularism. In other words, being religious (whether you're Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Zoroastrian, whatever) is not inconsistent with being a progressive.

Fundamentally, the NSP is a political organization (though it is unfair to say that its members place their faith in politics), and it is thus primarily concerned with ends. Furthermore, it is a coalition, so people's reasons for espousing the ends of the organization will not be consistent across individuals within the organization. The mebers of the NSP may have come from different places, but they are looking to get to the same place. That is enough to establish a working coalition. In this case, the NSP wants to establish a "Religious Left" to stand against the "Religious Right", and this is where they go wrong. In order to be a viable political faction, as opposed to mere window dressing, the NSP needs to establish itself as a reasonable alternative to the secular left. To achieve this, they must demonstrate the ability to influence the political direction of the left, particualrly on such issues as abortion and homosexual "marriage". Failing to do this, it seems to me inevitable that they will be seen as little more than an Amen Corner for the secular left, not a viable alternative to the Religious Right, so called.

Ironically enough, Josh also commits the same offense of vagueness for which he excoriates the NSP when he says that "Progress by definition implies deviation from the status quo." Progress does not imply a deviation from the status quo, it necessitates it. What's more, to progress is to move forward toward a certain objective. Progressivism has always sought movement toward a utopian state, largely defined in terms of material well-being for the masses, especially the lower classes and has viewed the state as the engine of progress toward this. Does this objective lead to "a fuller embodiment of Christian values and truths* in the world"? Does it contradict Christian values and truths? Ultimately, these questions cannot be settled without evaluating the means advocated and their consequences for all affected by them, something Josh refuses to do.

Also, I think Josh reads too much into "the pervasive use of 'we,' our,' and 'I.' The quotes used by the author in the article represent the judgments of the reporter and editor as to what was important to the story. It may be that this was a correct assesment, but it may also be that the reporter missed the point or was distorted what happened in seeking to create the impression of division.

*I would also caution Josh about appending adjectives to the word truth. Truth is truth is truth. There is no such thing as a uniquely Christian truth, Muslim truth, Wiccan truth, or atheist truth. There are things beliefs held as true by these different groups, but they are either true or false. They aren't true for one group and false for another. This is the religious subjectivism against which he has warned.

Sunday, June 25, 2006

Act of War or Just Another Crime?

In a piece for OpinionJournal.com, former FBI director Louis Freeh lays recounts his experience heading up the investigation into the bombing of the Khobar Towers in 1996. Prior to reading this piece I was 95% certain that Iran had had a hand in the attack. Now I'm absolutely certain they were responsible for it. The men who carried out the attack were acting as surrogates of the Iranian government, which ordered the attack and provided training and funds for the attack. This was an act of war by the government of Iran against the United States. There are simply no two ways about it. So why are the Mullahs still in power in Iran? Why were they not overthrown in 1979, when the American embassy was seized (another act of war)? Or when Hezbollah (Iran's terrorist group) bombed the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983? Why haven't their military meddlings in Iraq (providing weapons and funds to insurgents, among other things) invited swift and severe reprisals? Why do we choose to ignore what is in front of our face and seek a diplomatic solution with an enemy for whom the only acceptable diplomatic solution is our complete surrender with some economic benefits thrown in for good measure?

Now, I'm not necessarily advocating going to war with Iran, but it looks more and more to me like that's what it's going to take, and if that's what it's going to take, the United States is going to have to be the major force taking care of business, largely because both theoretically and practically we're the only ones who can. Britain and Australia would come with us, I think. I could also see Poland and some of the other smaller members of the Iraq coalition joining in as well. Heck, I could even see Canada getting involved now that they've got a decent Prime Minister who seems to understand that concrete action accomplishes more than endless, vacuous negotiation.

As I've said before, I don't think invading Iran and overthrowing the Mullahs is necessarily the answer, but in order for any of the other alternatives (either a reasonable diplomatic resolution or revolution from within) to be successful, the legitimate threat of force has to present. The United States doesn't have to be overly belligerent or bellicose, but it does have to make clear that failure to reach an acceptable solution will result in the demise of the current Iranian regime. The Iranians have no reservations about waging war against us. It's about time we changed that.

That's All We Need

The New York Times is reporting (a couple of years late in my opinion) on the increasing cooperation between Iran and Syria. Needless to say, this strikes me as being pretty much a non-story. Both Iran and Syria have been meddling in Iraq in attempts to undermine the effort to establish a legitimate, democratic government in Iraq allied with the U.S. Syria has been the major conduit by which al Qaeda operatives have entered Iraq, and Iran has provided funds and weapons to insurgents. Furthermore, there has been a fair amount of cooperation between the two countries where groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah are concerned.

However, there is one paragraph in the story that I think worthy of a story in and of itself:

Arab governments once hostile to Iran have begun to soften their public posture after decades of animosity toward Tehran. President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt met Iran's national security chief, Ali Larijani, in Cairo recently, and Saudi Arabia's foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, visited Tehran this month and declared the two nations to be good friends. In addition, Iranian officials recently sent messages of friendship to every Persian Gulf state.

This paragraph raises, in my mind, serious questions about why these Arab governments are choosing to extend olive branches to Iran now. Obviously, they are engaging Iran diplomatically for prudential reasons. It is also reasonable to conclude that they believe Iran to be pursuing nuclear weapons. After all, if Iran were merely pursuing nuclear power plants it would not alter the political landscape in the Middle East sufficiently for these governments to feel the need to be firmly on Iran's good side.

That's not quite what worries me, though. It is possible that these Arab governments are making nice with Iran simply to make sure they have all of their bases covered no matter how the Iran-vs-the West nuclear showdown plays out, but I don't think so. My reading of this is that these Arab nations have taken stock of the positions of Iran and the West and the actions each side is taking and have concluded that the West's attempts at a diplomatic solution will fail and Iran will acquire nuclear weapons because not even the United States, let alone the EU-3 and the UN, have the will to do what is necessary to prevent Iran developing them.

The Fundamental Irrationality of Soccer

Though I've always preferred American sports, I do enjoy watching and playing soccer, but I may have to reconsider. The Weekly Standard has published an article arguing that playing soccer is contrary to human nature because the use of hands is forbidden, and, more importantly, the head is used as a club. Much as I hate to say it, he's got a point. I may just to rethink my opinion of . . . What's that? WHAM!!!

Soccer is the most beautiful and ingenious sport ever contrived by man, requiring the most athleticism, intelligence and natural talent. Life is meaningless without soccer, just a black hole of nothingness, a dreary abyss of chaos. Soccer is order and goodness and truth. The universe only makes sense when viewed through the prism of soccer.