School of Athens

The Boston Review has a great article up about Brazil’s new policy to require high school students to learn philosophy. From my experience, some people would look at this and think, “What a waste of time.” It wasn’t even that long ago that Stephen Hawking ignorantly stated that “philosophy is dead” (apparently unaware that such a statement is a philosophical statement…perhaps it would be better to say that Stephen Hawking is holding the memorial service for Philosophy and having her preach at the memorial).

Of course, having philosophy drilled into the minds of young people is always a good thing. After all, it used to be (prior to the 19th century) that people received liberal arts degrees not for a vocation, but to become better people. After gaining their degrees they would either take up a trade (and then apply their knowledge as they saw fit) or pursue an advanced degree where then they specified their vocational training. The liberal arts (which included philosophy, or reasoning) was always meant to round out an individual, to teach him how to think and not what to think. We have certainly lost that; one of the most common questions brought before anyone getting a degree in philosophy is, “But what are you going to do with that?” It never dawns on people that focusing four years of your life on nothing but thinking actually prepares you better for the world than getting a vague degree in business or management or even pre-law.

Studying philosophy opens people up to a world of ideas. It forces people to be open-minded because they must constantly be subject to changing their minds. They must evaluate everything they see and think through all possible solutions for problems they encounter. We can look to some of our political problems and see that good ole’ American pragmatism has ended up an abysmal failure. Thus, we must go back to our roots (our nation was founded by men trained in the classical arts) or accept the fact that our government will not last.

With that said, in some hypothetical world where I was allowed to develop a four year program for students in high school focused on philosophy, that they were required to take, I would make it look something like this, using the following books (as a side note, this list will also be helpful to anyone who wants to get into philosophy on his or her own):

First Semester

Textbooks: Socratic Logic: Socratic Method, Platonic Questions and Philosophy 101 by Socrates, both by Peter Kreeft.

The reasoning behind these two choices is very simple. The first book deals with proper thinking (logic, reasoning, etc). In order to study the history of ideas, one must first know how to think properly. Thus, it only makes sense to help students learn how to think in a logical manner. The reason I would pick Socratic Logic is that (1) it’s a very easy read since Peter Kreeft is a masterful writer, (2) it comes with built-in homework, but in an easy to understand format, and (3) the appendixes cover how to dialogue in a Socratic manner as well as how to properly structure an essay – all tools that are essential for the development of every student.

The second book is a very simple introduction to philosophy. The book doesn’t really present the various ideas, but instead shows the importance of philosophy. Kreeft finds a way to demonstrate to everyone why philosophy is important to study. This would help ground the student and answer the inevitable question, “Why do I need to know this?”

One research paper would be required. The paper would be the student’s explanation of why the study of philosophy is or is not important. After getting comments and grades back from the teacher, the student would be allowed to rewrite the paper, either changing his thesis or defending his thesis against his teacher’s critiques. The purpose of the papers, however, would simply be to help the student learn how to structure an essay and to think critically – the content wouldn’t be all that relevant.

The quizzes in this class would be more in the traditional multiple choice, short answer format as the majority of the semester would be dealing with reasoning and logic (leaving little room for open-ended questions).

Second Semester

Textbooks: The First Philosophers: The Presocratics and Sophists, Plato’s Republic, and Aristotle’s Metaphysics and Nicomachean Ethics 

The second semester would essentially begin the student’s leap into the world of philosophy by beginning with the Greeks. Before anyone says, “But this is Western!” it should be noted that Plato was influenced by Pythagoras, who was influenced by early Eastern philosophy while he was off in India studying. Thus, the hard line between East and West isn’t really all that hard; much of what we get from the Presocratics and even Plato matches up with Eastern thought.

That being said, it is important to understand the ideas that really shaped our modern world. Since we are dealing with Freshmen in high school, only exerts would be selected from each of these books (preferably the most important parts, with the other parts being summarized in lectures – but it would all be up to the teacher’s discretion). The overall goal would be for the student to learn the foundations of Western thinking.

In this class, one position paper (6-8 pages) would be required, with the focus being on anticipating objections to the student’s position taken in the paper. This too would help foster critical thinking. The tests would need to be more open-ended questions allowing for more short answers and essays; this is to ensure the students don’t simply regurgitate the lectures, but are in fact wrestling with the ideas.

Third Semester

Textbooks: Fountain of Knowledge by John of Damascus, City of God by Augustine, The Metaphysics of the Healing by Avicenna (Ibn Sina), and the Philosophical Writings of Duns Scotus

The objective would be to introduce students to Western Christian philosophy, Islamic philosophy, and scholasticism. These three branches have influenced the Western world tremendously, so it’s good to study their origins. While all three works cover and assume the existence of God, these books are meant to challenge the student into evaluating and interacting with the ideas, not necessarily accepting them.

In this class, one position paper (8-10 pages) would be required. The tests would be more essay based.

Fourth Semester

Textbooks: A Shorter Suma of the Suma or On Being and Essence by Thomas Aquinas, The Prince by Machiavelli, Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes

Essentially this semester would serve as the break in the history of philosophy, covering the major philosophers up to the Enlightenment. It would show where scholasticism and classic philosophy ended up, with the thinking of Aquinas, Machiavelli, and Hobbes. The students would need to write a position paper (10-12 pages) explaining how one or all three of these philosophers were influenced by those who came before them. It provides the student time to see the connections between everything they’ve read up to this point.

Fifth Semester

Textbooks: The Second Treatise on Government by John Locke, Discourse on Methods: Meditations on First Philosophy by Renee Descartes, Ethics by Spinoza, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion by David Hume

Here is where students would be thrown into the Enlightenment (beginning with reading Sarte). They would learn the beginnings of it with Descartes, the influence it had on ethics (via Spinoza, where they would also learn of Spinoza’s opposition to Descartes), the influence it held on the government (via Locke, where they’d learn about the beginning of democracy), and the impact it had on religion (via Hume, where they’d learn about modern-day atheism). Here students would be required to take a position (10-12 pages) on one of the Enlightenment issues presented, either arguing for a certain philosopher’s viewpoint or against it. The tests would be completely essay based.

Sixth Semester

Textbooks: Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant, Thus Spake Zarathustra by Nietzsche, Civilization and Its Discontents by Sigmund Freud, Either/Or: A Fragment of Life by Soren Kierkegaard

This class would be interesting because they would read the last great Enlightenment thinker (Kant) and begin with the post-modern period (via Nietzsche). Kierkegaard would introduce the students to existentialism while Freud would introduce the students to modern philosophy. The class would serve as a transition from the ideas of the Enlightenment into postmodernism.

The students would need to do a position paper (12-14 pages). The tests would be essay based.

Seventh Semester

Textbooks: The Plague by Albert Camus, Being and Time by Martin Heidegger, Of Grammatology by Jacques Derrida, The Essential Zizek, by Slavoj Zizek

The beginning of their senior year, the students should be prepared to cover modern continental philosophy from Camus and Heidegger to Derrida and Zizek. The objective would be for the students to evaluate the beliefs, understand why those beliefs exist, and then to critique those beliefs.

No paper would be required as they would begin on their senior thesis paper. This paper only applies for the class and does not hold the majority grade for the class, thus there is no fear of failing to graduate if the paper is less than stellar. However, the paper would be a project that dealt with a subject in philosophy that they wanted to research and take a position on. They would need to research other philosophers for this paper as well as utilizing the ones they’ve already covered. All told, the paper would need to be 20-30 pages long.

Eighth Semester

Textbooks: Why I Am Not a Christian by Bertrand Russell, God and Other Minds by Alvin Plantinga, Practical Ethics by Peter Singer, After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory by Alasdair MacIntyre

Their final semester would cover two of the biggest issues in analytic philosophy – theism and ethics. Both sides of theism issue would be presented, with students reading about how God doesn’t exist (or how it’s irrational to believe God exists) and about how God does exist (or how it’s at least rational to believe God exists). On ethics, one of the more popular ethicists would be covered (Singer) as well as a counter to Singer via MacIntyre. The main objective of this class would be for the student to take everything they’ve studied and apply it to modern philosophical problems, whether it be over the existence of God, ethics, and so on. They could even take this chance to develop their own political philosophy, ethics within business, vocations that need philosophers and why, and the list goes on. This could even be their senior project. So long as they could demonstrate that they held the ability to synthesize and evaluate everything they’ve read up to this point.

_____________________

Now, of course the above is a pipe dream, and not an ideal one at that. However, it’s just what I’d like to see at some point. Of course, if such classes were added, it’d only make sense to offer electives for students who are highly interested in philosophy. Those electives could cover metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, social institutions (government), anthropology, economics, and law. This would allow students who are interested in philosophy (or in vocations impacted by those categories, which is almost all vocations) to hone their studies. It would also introduce them to other thinkers, such as Plotinus, Cicero, Anselm, Blaise Pascal, Karl Marx, Adam Smith, Renee Descartes, Jean-Paul Sartre, Richard Swinburne, and the list goes on.

Some may debate the practicality of having this in a high school and certainly there are legitimate arguments against it. Perhaps I’ll never see anything like this instilled in a high school. Even so, there’s no excuse for this current program not to exist across college campuses. Whether one is going to be a doctor, a lawyer, or anything else, he should understand philosophy as philosophy guides everything we do. To be ignorant of ideas is to be ignorant of the self; ignoring philosophy is like ignoring one’s need to eat healthy food. And if our society is to last, we need to go back to our roots, otherwise we’ll have nothing to stand upon.

Taken from digitalburg.com

The “Occupy Wall Street” protest is quite interesting to me. On one hand, I understand and agree that something is wrong with any nation where greed goes unchecked. At the same time, some of the solutions I’ve heard only take one tyrant (an oligarchic Wall Street) and replace it with another (an authoritarian Washington). If the movement is to achieve anything worthwhile and noteworthy of change, it should be towards creating a more stable economy while also furthering freedom, not in taking one dictator and replacing him with another dictator.

With the above in mind, rather than sitting and complaining about the greed in Wall Street (or Washington for that matter), I’d like to offer a few practical solutions for CEOs to follow as well as a few idealistic solutions. First, with the practical solutions:

1. For employees with a minimum of 6 months employment, offer them a profit share in the company – this is best accomplished via buying or giving employees stock. While I’m not sure on the laws, giving employees stock in the company for achieving certain goals makes them part owners and spreads the wealth of the company to those working for the company. For instance, if you have a store that is performing at 40% guest satisfaction, you could promise every employee x amount of stock if they increase that to 50% guest satisfaction. This would allow employees to take ownership of the company and give them something more than an hourly wage or the promise of a raise. While this cuts into the take-home profits for CEOs (temporarily), it creates a happier workforce, which in turn could actually increase profits; after all, no one works harder than a business owner, so if you can turn your entire workforce into co-owners of your company, then why not?Let us also not forget that not every employee will be enticed by the above offer. Yet, this shows the strength of the suggestion – if an employee is still lethargic after being offered a co-ownership of the company, then he’s probably not fit to work at your company. Thus, the above program offers a way to weed out employees who could potentially bring down your business. You end up receiving a workforce who wants to be there, who is motivated to be there, who is qualified to be there, and who shares in the successes of the company.
2. Celebrate a “jubilee-type” income (give away your income every 7 years). Many executives make upwards to a million dollars after benefits; many others make far more than that. Thus, it isn’t too much to ask them to show some frugality in saving up their income for 6 years and on the 7th year donate every penny of income that year to charity, to employees who need help, or back to the company. For those who make quite a bit of income this charitable spending goes a long way towards helping those who are less fortunate. At the same time, on the practical level, it elevates one to near sainthood in the media and among the masses; who can complain about corporate greed if you’re giving away your income every 7 years, especially if you’re giving that back to your employees as a bonus?
3. Always give away more than 50% of your income after tax (this is for those bringing home a substantial income). While you could give away your income every 7 years, another thing to help dispel the belief in corporate greed is to give away 50% or more of your net income. Again, not all CEOs of all corporations will be able to do this (some corporations are small, thus some CEOs really do not make that much). But for those who are bringing home well above half a million dollars, living off half the net income isn’t asking that much; it’s still much more than what the average American has to deal with. Again, by giving away your personal income, who can protest you or call you greedy?
4. Give back to the company, especially to help the most underprivileged of your employees. When giving back your personal income, one thing to look at is possibly setting up a charitable program within your own company to help your employees. One company – Darden – has set up a program called “Darden Dimes” where employees can donate as little as 10 cents of each paycheck towards the program. If an employee within the Darden company needs help, they can receive a prepaid gift card to help them through a troubled time. If all companies did this, with CEOs pumping hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars into it every year, this would increase employee satisfaction and faith in the company. This, in turn, would increase guest satisfaction (because guests would walk into a happier environment), which in turn would increase overall profit.
5. Give back to the community, especially in education ventures. Imagine if the richest of Americans offered to help people with medical bills, or finding jobs, or building up lower income housing to help those in the area. We complain about welfare, government spending, and the like, but what if the richest of Americans took their money and invested it into private ventures that addressed issues related to the poor. It would render the government to a secondary role for those in extreme poverty; in other words, the government wouldn’t have to spend as much, meaning they wouldn’t have to tax people as much, meaning the whole debate about cutting spending or raising taxes could cool down a bit. While there isn’t enough money in the world to fix these problems (there will always be those in poverty), if every American who makes over half a million dollars a year donated to these private organizations in a substantial fashion, perhaps it could help alleviate and reduce the problem.If one were to choose where the money would go, I would argue that it should go into reshaping and reforming our educational system. Put money into programs that actually teach students rather than prepare them to take a government-issued test. Put the money into programs that help us reform education so we’re producing thinkers and not test-takers. Remember, all of these students aren’t just future consumers, but future employees; if they don’t know how to think now, they’ll make for bad employees in the future, which will ruin profits in the future. Thus, it makes sense to invest in them now so you can make more later.

Along with the practical solutions (ones that are driven by profit motive), there are some idealistic solutions I would offer. These, of course, are harder to obtain, but would naturally cause greed to disappear.

1. Recognize that you will be held accountable for your actions, in this life or the next. Though a belief in God exists for the vast majority of Americans, acting as though God exists seems to be passé. However, God does exist and He will hold you accountable for how you’ve spent your money. One can look to the Scriptures and see that there are over 1,000 verses concerning poverty; half of those condemn those who do nothing to help it or make money off the impoverished. For the richest Americans, especially those who attend church on a regular to semi-regular basis, do understand that how you treat the poor will weigh heavily in the coming judgment.
2. Recognize that the happy life is one of virtue, not one of vice. All humans pursue happiness, of this there is no doubt. What we define as “happy,” however, differs amongst humans. In our modern world, we tend to think of material things as being happy, and it’s true they can bring temporary happiness, but they do not resemble true happiness. Think of it this way – when you were younger you wanted that cassette player so you could be happy. If you got that same cassette player now, would you be just as happy? Of course not, because it’s out of date. Thus, happiness based on material items is constantly in flux, never satisfied, and always seeking; one is never truly happy because one is always seeking after the next change. Rather, true happiness is found in the pursuit of virtue and the obtaining of virtue. True happiness is found in the things that do not change, not in material wealth, which is always in flux.
3. Recognize that material wealth will bring you nothing. The world has lost many millionaires to death; in fact, to date, every single millionaire or billionaire that has lived has also died. We can think of the recent tragic death of Steve Jobs, who in spite of his millions, still passed away (as a side note, Jobs serves as an example of a CEO who had a giver’s heart). Your wealth will not follow you, nor will it follow your children, nor will it follow your children’s children. At some point, your wealth will run out; and no matter what, it cannot save you. It may prolonge your life, but it will never prevent its inevitable end. So why pursue that which is temporary? Why not use that which is temporary for eternal gains? Why not build a legacy of giving, or helping people, of helping a community, of helping a society, and in so doing establish an eternal legacy that will never end?
4. Recognize that living a good life is far more important than living a material life. The best things in life are so expensive that they can’t be bought. Having a big screen TV or the best car is nice and makes life easier, but it’s not nearly as good as having a family to come home to. Living in a multi-million dollar mansion is wonderful, but it’s minuscule compared to helping out someone who is desperate for help. The good life is the one lived in pursuit of true happiness, of a happiness that is good in and of itself; the good life is the one lived in service to others.

It is my hope that someday we’ll live in a society where these principles are put into practice. It is my hope that the problem will fix itself. But from what I’ve studied in history, it seems rather sad that in order to fix the problem of our current oligarch, will turn to a different type of tyranny and suffer all the more for it. 

Consider the corruption within the government. During any sex scandal for a politician, someone generally raises the point that what a politician does behind closed doors doesn’t matter. So long as a politician does a good job in office, who cares what he does in the bedroom? But such a sentiment ignores several things.

For one, if a politician is willing to break a vow with his spouse, a covenant with the one that he loves, how more likely is he to break his vow to his constituents? After all, his spouse is the one he’s come to love, the one he’s been intimate with (in more than a physical way), the one he’s spent quite a bit of his life with, and so on. If he is willing to cast her aside for something a bit better, then why would he remain faithful to his constituency, who are nothing more to him than a voting base? In other words, not only should we pay attention to what a public leader does in the bedroom, we should care quite a bit that he’s upholding vows in his private life so we have some assurance he will uphold the vows in his public life.

Or we can consider a multi-million dollar CEO and how he only gives a tiny fraction of his income to the poor. He is simply doing what feels right, or following his own ethic. If we each decide what is true for us, then he has decided what is true for him and there is nothing anyone can do about it, at least not without upholding some absolute moral standard. Yet, we’ve been told for so long that absolute morality is passé, out of date, oppressive, tyrannical, and so on. Yet, when it comes to the rich exploiting the poor, we quickly want to create an absolute standard!

If we truly want to save our government from corruption and save our economy from the elite (whether that elite be in our government via socialism or in the private sector via an oligarchic capitalism), then we must begin to promote an ethical way of life for all, and then shame public officials who consistently refuse to live up to that ethical standard.

Whether we like it or not, the only solution to our woes is to embrace an absolute ethic, something that all humans at all times in all places can follow. The solution isn’t smaller government, more regulation, bigger government, a freer market, or so on; in all of these instances, if we have men who love vice setting the rules, then the rules will ultimately be subverted. If we have men who love virtue setting the rules, however, then at some point there is no need for rules, because they wouldn’t dare shame themselves by showing themselves to love vice.

When people aren’t interested in doing the right thing, or are only interested in what’s good for them, then a society cannot last. When elected officials put regulations on businesses in order to secure a vote, then they don’t really intent to stick by those regulations, especially if it’ll cost them campaign donations. Rather, the regulations become lip-service. Or, worse, what if the government officials do exert their power and regulate a business, but they exert the power in order to demonstrate their authority? Then we have traded in one form of tyranny (an oligarchy) for another (an authoritarian government). In both, powerful and rich individuals do what makes them feel right and do what is in their own interests.

We must move back to some form of moral absolutism, to some moral standard where the rich and powerful realize they have an obligation to others. We must move to a place where men are valued not by what they own or by their vocations, but by what they do in virtue. If we cannot reform our ethics, then we will never reform our economics.

Recently, Christian Watershed author Joel Borofsky published an article on ViewsHound.com dealing with the supposed complexity of the abortion debate.  Follow this link to the article: The Abortion Issue isn’t that Complicated.

If you haven’t heard already, Rebecca Black is “about to blow up” and she wants everybody to know about it.  All of you “haters” out there who said, “see you later,” are, in fact, total losers and she wants you to bemoan the fact that she is doing things you never dreamed of.  What’s the secret to her success?  As she explains it: she just “trusted herself” and forgot everyone else, and, as a result, she is now having her moment . . .

The egotistical lyrics of overnight sensation Rebecca Black’s new song, My Moment, are simply a reflection of the vanity of Western culture and the yearnings of a superficial generation.  Now, more than ever, our youth desire to have “their moment”–to be famous, to be glamorous, to be sexy, to be the locus of everyone’s attention–and they will stop at nothing until they do.   In fact, today’s youth feel that their life is somehow incomplete or unimportant without some sort of material or “social” success.

This self-centered mindset is a direct outgrowth of our tendency to teach children that maintaining a high level of self-esteem is the primary goal of life.  Unsurprisingly, our children now believe that they are, in fact, the center of the universe and will stop at nothing to attain life experiences which reinforce this. Our obsession with self-esteem, coupled with the rampant materialism pervasive in our culture, has given rise to a generation of narcissistic hedonists whose sole purpose in life is to have “their moment.”  “Surely I will be happy with myself,” it is believed, “ if I had a voice like her or a sexy body like him or an expensive new car or money or power or success . . . if I could just have my moment!”

The question is, what happens if you never have “your moment?”  What happens if you never become the next American Idol, or make music videos, or attend parties with famous celebrities?  Do these things really have anything substantial to do with your value or worth as a person?

What if Rebecca Black had never been invited to perform her song Friday on the Today Show?  What if her music video had been deleted from youtube?  What if she never had “her moment?”  Would she then have no value or worth as a person?  Would she have no purpose or shot at true happiness?  Would the “haters” have won?  It is when we ask these questions that we begin to see the utter futility in attaching all of our value and worth to finite things.

The fact of the matter is, the things of this world are transitory; they do not last forever.  Fame is fleeting, beauty eventually fades, pleasure lasts only for a season, we grow old, we die . . . Besides, there are only a few of us who will ever experience a “moment” like Rebecca Black anyways–I am quite certain that I will never  know what it is like to dance in a music video or attend a celebrity ball.  Does this mean my life is empty?  Does this mean I have no value as a person?  Does this mean my existence is totally meaningless?

The answer, of course, is a resounding “No!”  Our value and worth, as human beings, is rooted in the fact that we are made in the image and likeness of God; and nothing in life will ever change this amazing fact about our nature.  No level of material success, or lack thereof, will ever add to or diminish the fact that we are all intrinsically valuable and unfathomably loved by our Creator.  No amount of fame or fortune could possibly outshine the deep, infinite, and self-sacrificing love demonstrated by our Creator who became incarnate for us and suffered and died for us.  No amount of power or fame or sex appeal will ever work as a substitute for the relationship with God that we all yearn for.

When all is said and done, the only “moment” that we truly need or which will bring us eternal satisfaction is the moment we recognize that we need Jesus.

Obviously, when it comes to having children, there is a major financial burden involved. For instance, I can survive on a reduced income compared to Josh simply because I don’t have kids while he does. Once I’m married, the years without children will be less stressful because it’ll just be my wife and myself. So no one can or should argue that having children doesn’t increase the responsibilities for an individual. Sadly, however, we are a society that tends to shirk responsibility unless there is something in it for us, hence we’re trending towards not wanting children.

To me, such a trivial thing underscores how selfish we are as Americans. It’s one thing to want to avoid having children because you can barely feed yourself, much less someone else. It’s a whole other to refuse to have children because you want to drive the nicest cars, live a completely independent life, or have nice things. If the reason one is avoiding having children is because the focus is on one’s self, then that person is a child in the body of an adult.

Having children requires sacrifices, responsibility, the putting of someone else first, and patience. In other words, it requires love. So perhaps many of these couples who simply don’t want to have a child due to their materialistic dreams are couples that simply lack love.

They are troubled by religious organizations and not-for-profit organizations affiliated being exempted from the process? If the Constitution protects religious liberty, then why would they bring up the “discriminatory intent” of allowing such provisions in the law? Obviously those provisions were added into the law so the issue wouldn’t be left to some court, where the court could rule that churches are obligated to marry homosexual couples. And there’s the rub – by putting the provisions into the law, no one can sue a church for refusing to marry a same-gender couple, nor can they sue a not-for-profit organization that refuses the same couple to use their buildings or for other reasons (for instance, adoption agencies and the Boy Scouts).

The idea is that if one were allowed to sue such religious organizations then there is a possibility that a court could uphold such beliefs and actions on those beliefs as discrimination. It’s not enough to have had gay marriage past, rather some feel they must force others to act and think in a certain way. Even if the religious organizations are wrong and hurtful in their stances, certainly a freedom-loving nation is willing to allow people the freedom to be wrong, at least to a certain degree.

I’m not saying anything about the gay marriage law or gay marriage in general. I’m simply saying that I support religious liberty. If a non-muslim man chose to marry a muslim woman, a mosque wouldn’t recognize the marriage or perform the ceremony until he converted. That mosque has the right to act in such a way. So long as a religious organization doesn’t explicitly call for violence against a particular group, they are within their religious rights to act as they please (and only the most ignorant or radical liberal would say that simply being against homosexual marriage is an explicit call for violence). But in our Orwellian world the law must also act against thoughts, not just actions, because we must force everyone to conform to one way of thinking. It’s the Secular Borg – resistance is futile, you will be assimilated.

Worldnet Daily is reporting that Delta, in flying to Saudi Arabia, is no longer allowing Jews onto those flights into Saudi Arabia. Being that it’s WND I take the story with a grain of salt, but if it is true then Delta has put profits ahead of what is right. Apparently Delta is really trying to live up to its pseudo-acronym “Don’t Even Let Them Aboard.”

The excuses in the letters shown on WND are basically, “We’re just doing our job. If you don’t like what Saudi Arabia is doing, tell the State Department.” In other words, they’re trying to make a buck and if you don’t like a nation’s laws, then encourage our government to help change those laws. Of course, this skirts the entirety of the issue.

While it is true that Delta must follow the laws of Saudi Arabia – which prohibits Jews from entering their country – there’s nothing saying that Delta has to fly to Saudi Arabia in the first place or work with a carrier that flies into Saudi Arabia. Delta is a private organization that can refuse to work with any nation, so why choose to work with a nation that requires Delta to discriminate? Because there’s money to be had in flying to Saudi Arabia, and Delta would rather increase their profits than do the right thing.

At the same time, as private citizens we’re not forced to fly Delta. Another Airline is quite suitable and preferable at this point. For me, if I fly again, it certainly won’t be through Delta, even if they’re the cheaper option. It might put me back in the pocket book, but at least I’ll sleep better at night knowing I did the right thing.

***UPDATE***

USA Today is reporting the same thing, only from Delta’s side. The explanation is essentially what as in the letters provided to WND. They’re simply saying, “Well Saudi Arabia doesn’t allow Jews into their nation, so we have to comply with that.” So my original point still stands, that Delta is putting profit ahead of what is right.

During the Clinton scandal the big meme was, “What happens in the bedroom doesn’t impact what happens in the Oval Office.” But wouldn’t a man of infidelity of a personal oath be unfaithful to a public oath? What makes us think that a man can forgo his children and wife with multiple women, but turn around and be a faithful servant? The simple truth is that what happens in the bedroom, or better said, what happens behind closed doors matters in public office. The honor of a man isn’t found in front of a camera lens or at a press conference, rather the honor of a man is found when no one is looking. Consider John Edwards, a man who cheated on his wife when she had terminal cancer, impregnated his mistress, and then used one of his staff members to take the blame for the pregnancy. And you think he won’t try to cheat his constituents if it ultimately benefits him in the end? And he’s not alone.

While Democrats have suffered lately at the hands of sex scandals, Republicans have had their fair share as well. Some simply choose to laugh it off and say, “Well what do you expect?” but then in the same breath complain about how corrupt our government is. “They don’t listen to their constituents, they listen to their lobbyist!” They also have sex with women (or men) they are not married to, hurting their families in the process. Do you not see the connection? A man who is immoral in private will be immoral in public as well; a dishonorable man doesn’t become honorable in the spotlight (though he will act honorable).

Now, certainly we don’t expect our politicians to be perfect, after all, they’re human. At the same time, they are representing certain populations of the United States, so they should be held to a higher ethical standard, both in the legislation they support and how they live their lives in private. So the next time you go to vote, consider this: If a man thinks he can violate the most sacred vow he’s taken (one of matrimony) behind closed doors, what prevents him from thinking he can violate his public vow just as much behind closed doors as well? We should seek out politicians who are virtuous, not because of what they say, but because of how they live.

For many people, Memorial Day functions as a day off work. In fact, many people hardly know why we celebrate Memorial Day. Thankfully though, in recent years, people have slowly become more aware of what Memorial Day stands for. But I do wonder if we recognize the true importance of this day.

There is a line from the movie Amistad, where the character of John Quincy Adams says, “Freedom is not given to us, it is our right at birth, but there are times where it must be taken.” The sentiment of our rights being God-given is not only within the Constitution, but essential to our Constitution. That there exists those who would seek to take away our freedoms shows there are times where such freedoms must be taken or protected by force, and with this force comes a loss of life.

We cannot deny that war is evil, but what makes it completely evil is that it is unnecessarily necessary. What I mean is that were it not for those who seek to control men with an iron fist, were it not for those who desire to eradicate freedom and instead place a certain ideology in charge of the government, there would be no need for war, no need for a loss of life. But because such evil men exist and because freedom is something worth dying for, war remains necessary, but also evil.

It is through such sacrifices that our won freedom has been preserved. We celebrate Memorial Day because, to put it quite bluntly, there are those who gave their lives so that we wouldn’t have to, those who paid a debt to the bank of freedom so that we might enjoy the payout. We remember those who fought bravely in the American War for Independence and the subsequent War of 1812, where our freedom was first won and then secured.

In the Civil War soldiers from the Union fought to preserve our nation and fought to abolish slavery. Young men, boys by today’s standard, stood in a line and took round after round, giving their lives, so that our union might be preserved and an entire race of people might find freedom. Some of them were so young that they wouldn’t even qualify for a driver’s license in many states today. Were many of these soldiers alive today they would be busy playing video games, getting ready for the school dance, or taking a summer job. Instead, so many years ago, these young men gave their lives so that freedom might prevail over the tyranny of slavery.

In WWI American lives were spent attempting to secure peace in Europe and to finally end the wars of expansion. In WWII – the most justified war America has ever entered into – American lives were sacrificed in order to turn back Hitler. Had we not entered the war Hitler still would have lost to the Soviets, but how much of Europe would have fallen under the command of the Soviets? When the young men of America stormed the beaches of Normandy, freedom once again showed that it would always prevail over tyranny, but it came at a cost. Freedom was secured, but it was paid for by the blood of these men and by the tears of the numerous widows, children, mothers and fathers back home.

In the Pacific Americans fought and died in order to prevent the expansion of Imperial Japan, the same empire that tortured and harassed the people under their rule. Many Americans lost their lives in the Pacific so that many Americans today could enjoy the freedom to live without fear, to go where they please, and to enjoy having their own government rather than that of a foreign occupier.

In Korea and Vietnam American lives were given in order to secure freedom for far away lands. Many would argue that these were unjust wars, that we should have simply avoided conflict. Yet, many Americans still answered the call of the government to serve and subsequently gave their lives. We see this happening today both in Afghanistan and Iraq.

There have been numerous conflicts where Americans have given their lives. Not all of these conflicts have been just (look at the lives lost in the wars with the Native Americans). As a rule, however, we should be forever thankful for those who have willingly sacrificed their lives for our freedom. That I can sit here and type out a thankful note, or alternatively that I could criticize America, is not a freedom that should be taken for granted; rather we should recognize that someone else paid the price for our right to speak freely, to move about the nation freely, and so on.

Finally, in recognizing the freedoms secured by the loss of life, we should seek to preserve those freedoms rather than throw them away and make the sacrifice of the many in vain. Today we see Americans capitulating to fear and surrendering their freedoms. We see Americans giving up their freedom of speech in order to avoid offending someone. We see Americans giving up their freedom to bear arms in order to “prevent crime.” We see Americans giving up their right to due process in order to board a plane because we’re so afraid of death that we’ve forgotten how to live. Our fear of death and of terrorism has forced us to unwittingly surrender the very freedoms we’re supposedly fighting for.

Aside from remembering those lost in our wars, Memorial Day should also teach us that some freedom is worth dying for. That maybe it is impossible to prevent all terrorist attacks in a free society, but that a free society with a threat of terrorism is better than a totalitarian society that is absent of terrorism; for is a life lived in a police state a life worth living? Is such a lifestyle worth protecting? I would submit that it is not. Rather, having a life of freedom is worth dying over, it is worth protecting, and if we should ever forget that then we should be honest and cease to celebrate Memorial Day. If we are willing to trade our freedoms for a bit of false security or personal peace, then we shouldn’t value those who gave their lives for the very freedoms we are willing to surrender, lest we insult their sacrifice. After all, rather than surrendering their God-given freedoms when someone threatened to take them away, they stood their ground and fought to take back those freedoms. That we should do the same is the ultimate memorial to their sacrifice.