The Walsh Awakens: Matt Walsh Stares into the Trump and the Trump Stares Back


trump sewer.jpg

Matt Walsh stares into the abyss, only to find Donald Trump staring back

Friedrich Nietzsche is one of my favorite philosophers. Not because I agree with him – I find his views to be quite dangerous – but because he’s so absurd, so willing to take his thoughts to their conclusions, and there’s that perverse part of me that enjoys watching a crazy man shout in the streets. Nietzsche is to philosophy what Gary Busey is to television; both have staying power even though no one really knows why, both pump out Tweets (or “sayings” for Nietzsche, but they were Tweets before Twitter) that look deep, but are just asinine, yet I’ll be damned if it’s not the most entertaining thing you’ll see.

Which brings me to a very famous and oft misunderstood quote by Nietzsche:

“He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster.

And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee.”

The point being, the longer you fight against a thing, the more likely you are to become that thing (or like it) or realize you already are like that thing. We sometimes hate something not because we’re actually opposed to it, but because it exposes us for what we are.

And the mentioning of Gary Busey brings me to another point…Donald Trump. Trump, much like Ron Burgundy, is kind of a big deal, especially if you ask him. He’s the bull and the United States is his china shop. What ought to worry most people is that Donald Trump, as of January 2016, has a legitimate chance to become the next president of the United States. One conservative who is worried, shockingly enough, is shock jock Blaze columnist Matt Walsh.

Walsh is baffled (BAFFLED!) that evangelical Christians could possibly support Donald Trump as president. Walsh appropriately points out that Trump is the antithesis of Christian values. I happen to agree with Walsh here as Trump’s positions do contradict everything within Christianity. Of course, that’s not what Walsh meant. Walsh, instead, points to Trump’s personal life and the fact that he’s apparently not “God-fearing” as the reason he’s anti-Trump. In other words, Walsh’s problems are with the guy’s behavior and not his beliefs, and that’s a problem.

It’s inconsistent for Walsh to actually take a stand against Trump because the two are almost eye-to-eye on the policy level. Donald Trump wants to deport all illegal immigrants and ban them from entering the country, just as Matt Walsh wants to deport all illegal immigrants. Donald Trump wants to stop the refugees from entering the country, just like Matt Walsh wants to stop them.  Donald Trump wants to stop political correctness by speaking “truth,” which, as you guessed, Matt Walsh wants to stop political correctness by speaking “truth.” Donald Trump likes a low minimum wage, as does Matt Walsh. Both agree that we don’t have a police abuse problem in America, and that African Americans aren’t suffering from it, but rather that the African American community is the problem (of course, without putting it in those terms).

And the list really does go on. I tried to find one major area of major disagreement and I came up with nothing. If you take the person of Donald Trump out of the equation and just look at the issues, then Donald Trump is the ideal candidate for Matt Walsh. So why isn’t Walsh wanting to #TrumpTheVote? Because he doesn’t like Trump as a person and he can’t understand why people, evangelical Christians, his readers, like Trump so much.

What Matt Walsh doesn’t realize, or perhaps he realizes and fears, is that Donald J. Trump is the personification of Matt Walsh’s – and by extension the far right’s – beliefs, and they don’t like what they see. After all, he accurately calls Trump “Godless,” and even an atheist would have to agree that Trump is pretty godless. Or, to quote Matt Walsh,

I know this will not resonate with atheists, but for us God-fearing folk it is extraordinarily obvious and irrefutable that we ought to only vote for other God-fearing folk. John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” I think it goes without saying that if the governed ought to be moral and religious, certainly the governors ought to be the same, and arguably more so.

That brings me to Donald Trump. I’ve tried to talk sense into Trump fans a thousand different ways and to no avail. It is a mob mentality driving Trump-mania, and mobs are famously difficult to reason with.

There is no use in trying to appeal to them as one group, anyway. Many elements comprise the Trump base, and most of them have values and principles that are completely antithetical to what any real conservative believes. But in the middle of this bizzare [sic] Trumpling potpourri are, apparently, Christians. Perhaps a vast number of them.

Ignoring the idea that not a single president has ever been “God-fearing” (how does one fear God, but not enough to free one’s slaves?), all of this argues against the person of Donald Trump, but not the policies of Donald Trump. But other than the fact that Donald Trump is a disgusting excuse for a human being, what policy differences does he supposedly have with Trump? What values and principles does Trump have that are antithetical to conservatives, but still somehow leads to (allegedly) conservative policy beliefs? How can two antithetical – that is, contradictory – beliefs result in the same policy decisions across the board? It’s one thing to have some overlap (Bernie Sanders, who begins from a non-Christian belief, still holds some policy decisions that overlap old Christian political beliefs), but to have a 1:1 match goes beyond a bit of overlap.

While Communism is the logical conclusion of Capitalism, at their core the two are antithetical, meaning that at a policy level one will have to give way to the other. Christianity and atheism are antithetical beliefs, meaning that if one derives one’s political beliefs from one’s metaphysical beliefs, there will be some differences in the political beliefs. Higher order beliefs will always impact lower order beliefs, meaning anything contradictory at a higher order will lead to contradictory policy beliefs (if consistency exists).

While Matt Walsh serves as a good whipping boy, the fact is there are many evangelical Christians who hold the same policy beliefs as Trump, but are somehow baffled by Trump’s success and abhor him as a person. In essence, they’ve stared into the abyss and found Donald Trump staring back. They’re left with some very unsettling conclusions:

  1. If a godless man such as Donald Trump comes to the same policy beliefs that they, the God-fearing evangelical conservatives have, then perhaps Trump isn’t godless, or perhaps being God-fearing doesn’t really matter in picking the “right” policy. Apparently one can be God-fearing, godless, or anything in between and still come to the correct conclusions in terms of policies
  2. If a godless man such as Donald Trumps holds the same policy beliefs as God-fearing evangelical conservatives, then maybe those policy beliefs don’t actually stem from a Christ-centered belief structure

Either option isn’t fun.

Christians have seemingly ignored the warnings of Francis Schaeffer, who rather than being the cause of the Religious Right (a famous, but absurdly inaccurate belief) actually warned against the rise of the Religious Right. In both A Christian Manifesto and The Great Evangelical Disaster, Schaeffer warns Christians to never become allies with the political process or political parties, to always act as co-belligerents on areas of agreement. Schaeffer was, of course, referencing the issue of abortion, arguing that Christians shouldn’t ally with Republicans in fighting abortion, but should instead stand as co-belligerents on this one issue.

Instead, today we have a form of Christianity that is almost entirely a co-opted wing of the Republican Party. Rather than evangelicals influencing Republicans, the conservatives, or the far right, we have the far right influencing evangelicals (and even some Catholics and Orthodox). Of course, not all conservative evangelicals are enamored with Trump and unlike Matt Walsh, they can stand against Trump with consistency. Dr. Russell Moore has not really argued against the person of Trump, so much as he’s argued against the ideas and policies of Trump, something Matt Walsh and other far right conservatives cannot do without a hint of irony.

Ultimately, to play off the idea of Russell Moore, conservative evangelicals have adopted a golden calf (not that liberal evangelicals are any better). But that golden calf isn’t Donald Trump, it’s the heartless and godless beliefs that are behind Trump. The anti-immigrant, anti-woman, anti-refugee, pro-nationalistic, pro-authoritarianism beliefs are not Christian and have never been Christian. While Christians have co-opted the world’s beliefs, they’ve done so by damaging the Gospel, not enhancing it. The golden calf in modern America, for conservatives, is conservatism itself. It’s the modern conservatism that comes with an implicit “America First” belief. It’s a political belief that looks to the nation before looking to the world or, more importantly, looking to Christ.

Christianity is a global religion with global ramifications. As a Christian I am called to help all, regardless of the consequences. In the far right there are caveats or complete blocks to who I can help. Donald Trump isn’t a compatible candidate because his personal life is a cesspool of human waste; he’s not a compatible candidate because his beliefs and policies attack the very heart of the Gospel. If your beliefs align with his, even if you hate him, perhaps rather than condemning the darkness of Trump’s heart it’s best to gaze into the abyss of your own. But be warned, the abyss might gaze back.

Advertisements

The Ever-Present Tyranny or, Why Liberty is so Hard to Obtain


IMG_1006A few months ago, President Obama said the following:

“Unfortunately, you’ve grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that’s at the root of all our problems. Some of these same voices also do their best to gum up the works; they’ll warn that tyranny is always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices.”

The President simply touched on a sentiment that has always existed in the United States, primarily that, “Oh, that could never happen here.” We see tyranny in far off lands, we see the dictators oppressing the people, the stormtroopers busting down their doors, the people assaulted by the police for protesting the unjust actions of a government, and we gasp and say, “Thank God we live in America, that could never happen here.”

These same voices, however, seemingly ignore that America has in one way or another been tyrannical since its founding. While it has experimented with liberty and attempted to extend that liberty to all, once cannot ignore the tyranny of slavery, of genocide against the Native Americans, of segregation, and so on. Americans turned (and continue to turn) their heads to the police brutality against our minority brothers and sisters. Tyranny is a cancer, a disease that simply spreads across a populace, something that if left uncured and unchecked in one segment of a population will eventually spread to the country entire.

The idea of tyranny spreading from one segment of the population to the other segments is seen best in Martin Niemöller’s famous poem “First they came…” As many already know, he states that “they” came for the Communists and he said nothing, then the socialists and still he said nothing, and so on. Eventually when they came for him, there was no one left. That is because tyranny has voracious appetite, it must always feed off people. It has an unquenchable thirst for oppression. That is because tyranny is sin on a mass scale.

We live in a fallen world, one where we humans have rebelled against God. In rebelling against God we have forgone liberty – true liberty is when one is allowed to pursue one’s nature – and made ourselves slaves to sin. It is not a coincidence or a play on words that in John 8:34 Jesus states that sin is a tyranny, but the Son has come to set us free. The results of sin is always slavery. Thus, in a fallen world tyranny is our natural desire.

Tyranny exists for two reasons: First, the narcissism of those in power cares nothing for the masses (and only feigns concern; they entrench themselves and justify their tyranny by saying the masses need it). Secondly, the narcissism of the masses cares more about personal peace and affluence than anything else. That is, the tyrants throw the bread in order to stay in power and the masses accept the bread so they don’t have to make it themselves; all the while liberty is taken away, which eventually destabilizes a society. Every tyranny that has existed has collapsed in a violent fashion, not to mention the lives taken during its tenure. Yet, the masses allow it for their own selfish reasons and the rulers cause it for their own selfish reasons.

If tyranny is the natural state of humanity in a fallen world, then the contrary is that liberty is something that requires work. Contrary to what the President said, tyranny is always lurking around the corner. It comes ever closer whenever a society becomes more immoral, more lazy, more unloving. It knocks at the door when we not only have no problem with oppressing those who disagree with us, but find a sort of joy in it. Tyranny is always present and if we stop for one second in our pursuit of liberty, we only allow tyranny to catch up.

In a fallen world, history has shown us that the natural tendency of humanity is to allow themselves to be ruled by a tyrant. Only a strong and moral people have ever fought to find liberty. In other words, liberty is not the natural state of man in this unnatural world, rather tyranny is. We must always work for liberty, for tyranny is found in rest.

About Texas or, Why the Vote Wasn’t About Women’s Rights


Photo from the Christian Science Monitor

Photo from the Christian Science Monitor

The Texas legislature may or may not have passed a bill that restricted abortions (they actually didn’t pass it), but regardless of how you feel on the situation, we must remember that abortion is not about women’s rights. At least, abortion is no more about women’s rights than slavery was about property ownership. Prior to the emancipation of slaves in the United States, owners made multiple arguments that they had a right to property. Thus, they were able to frame the debate away from the humanity of the slaves and onto their own rights as property owners. And no one would or could argue that property owners have a right to do with their property as they wish; but that right doesn’t extend to another person because a person cannot be property.

Likewise, with abortion, no one would argue that women can’t do what they want to their bodies. This is why we don’t have lawmakers attempting to pass laws against women wearing make up, getting tattoos, wearing pants, and so on. While there may be some who hold onto vestiges of patriarchy, the core issue for the pro-life movement isn’t trying to place restrictions on women, it’s trying to protect human life. Thus, Wendy Davis is not a hero, she wasn’t “brave” in what she did (“brave” is highly overused; how is it brave to stand with the majority or to stand when there are literally no consequences to your stance?). Rather than seeking to protect human life, she instead focused on protecting property rights and laying claim to another human as property.

At the same time, we shouldn’t celebrate the legislature that brought forth the bill because the bill itself failed to truly be pro-life. While I am all for restricting abortions, I do think we have an obligation as a society to offer up alternatives to mothers who seek an abortion. The child being born has no choice in the welfare of his mother or what she can or cannot provide. As the child is an innocent member of our society from the moment of conception, we owe it to the child to protect her. This means that any bill that seeks to restrict abortions should also increase funding for pre-natal care and post-natal care. I would go so far as to say that we should provide daycare to mothers who choose not to adopt, but need a job or need to go back to school. Being pro-life means more than being against abortion, it means actually valuing the dignity of life. It makes no sense to respect human dignity on one hand and call for an end to abortion, but then adopt some type of Ayn Rand belief that we’re all on our own and only the strongest will survive. Restricting abortions and then restricting aid isn’t pro-life because it looks to inhibit life.

To quote something I wrote a while back:

I would argue that people on both sides of the abortion debate tend to unnecessarily complicate the issue, adding in aspects that, while emotionally relevant, are morally irrelevant. For instance, that some women may face psychological trauma from having an abortion is tragic, but it’s not an argument against the immorality of abortion. Likewise, that the outlawing of abortions of a non-emergency nature may lead some women to seek back alley abortions does not change whether or not abortion is morally right or wrong. Both objections tug at the emotions of the person rather than the intellect; but being human means we reason through our intellect and seek to suppress our emotions, especially in difficult matters.

With the above in mind, the abortion issue isn’t actually all that complicated; rather, it boils down to a few simple issue.

First, is the fetus a human being (i.e. can we give the scientific classification of homo sapien to the fetus)? If not, then what objection is there to abortion? If so, then we must move on to another set of questions. I would argue that scientifically we have no reason not to classify the fetus as a homo sapien: The fetus (really, the zygote) has a unique genetic code, is independent of the mother (the fetus relies on the mother, but is not a part of the mother in the same way a toe or an arm is a part of the mother), is already an individual, has an autonomous body, and so on. From a scientific perspective there’s little ground to say that a fetus is not a member of the human race (not to mention how problematic it is to say that a fetus becomes a human, as though humans could produce something that is non-human, yet autonomous and living).

Thus, if a fetus is a human, we move onto the second part of the issue, which is whether or not humans have innate value or if value is earned. If value is earned then we must establish a certain criteria for what it means to have value (that is, what it is to have rights, specifically the right to live). Of course, such a criteria must be non-arbitrary, lest we say that those with freckles are not humans of value or something similar. Thus, the criteria would have to be universally applicable. I would contend that such a criteria can only be universally applicable when it states that value is innate to human nature and not something earned. To argue otherwise always borders on special pleading and generally creates an arbitrary standard for what it means to be a person of value.

With the second point in mind, we are left with a third issue to face; if the fetus is a human being who has rights, do those rights (specifically the right to life) hold sway over the mother’s right to her body, which the fetus is using? That seems to be the main issue concerning the philosophical debate surrounding abortion. The question really is, “Does our location determine our rights, specifically if that location hinders or inhibits another human being?” If our location does matter, then we must see if that can be applied to the abortion debate. If our location has no correlation to our rights, then where is the argument for abortion?

When we sit down and think about it, the abortion debate really boils down to those three issues. While there might be some complexities within those issues, the abortion issue itself is not “complex.” It’s really a matter of answering three questions. Furthermore, answering those three questions goes beyond one-liners and slogans that are better suited for protest rallies, but requires deep thinking; after all, this is a very important issue. If abortion is morally wrong, meaning it is the taking of an innocent human life, then our government is allowing a moral atrocity by allowing abortion. If, on the other hand, there is nothing morally wrong with abortion, then those who speak out against it are unwittingly attempting to rob women of their rights.

What is going on in Texas isn’t about women’s rights. It’s about what rights do human beings have. If the fetus is not a human or if we do not have innate human rights, then by all means, a woman has every right to an abortion. But if a fetus is a human being and humans do have innate rights (primarily the right to life), then a woman (or a man) does not have the right to willfully terminate an innocent human being.

Why Liberty Matters or, the Pursuit of an Ideal is Better than the Pursuit of Nothing


DSC01965One of the more famous quotes from early in the American Revolution was Patrick Henry saying “Give me liberty or give me death!” The less quoted part of his conclusion in his speech, attempting to sway the Virginia house to commit to war against the Empire, was this:

Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

“Give me liberty or give me death” seemed to be the rallying cry for the Virginia militia and eventually Continental Regulars. They were willing to die before having their liberty officially taken away from them. For them, the pursuit of the ideal of liberty was so important that it was worth giving one’s life in that pursuit.

Of course, as is true of anything, in pursuing any ideal there are imperfections. The most glaring imperfections in the aftermath of the Revolutionary War was the prohibition of voting to women, slavery, and the eventual genocide of the Native American people. In pursuing an ideal, that ideal is not always acted out perfectly, but in pursuing the ideal the hope exists that we will move closer and closer to liberty. Our nation has never achieved its mantra of “Liberty and Justice for all,” but it has worked toward that direction. In many instances, that direction came with the threat of life. The slaves who did all they could to escape north before the Civil War, to risk their lives for liberty. The men – both black and white – who fought against slavery in the Civil War thought that liberty was more important than living. And after this all, our nation still inhibited the liberty of our black brothers and sisters by segregating them away from the rest of the population, but even in this there were movers who put their own safety on the line (and gave up their lives) to reach equality in all things, including liberty.

Liberty is important because it goes to who we are as people. A dog is happy on a leash, he is happy in a fenced-in backyard, he is happy when an owner feeds him. A dog only becomes unhappy when abused. A dog, however, is a beast, and men are not dogs, but in many ways are far worse. A man who is kept on a leash, forced to live within a fence, supplied food and water, is a slave. Even if he is treated well, then he is only a well-treated slave. He is treated as lesser than the one who owns him and has no real freedom. Human beings, being rational, need the freedom to think and then act on these thoughts, this requires true liberty. When liberty is taken away, even for seemingly benevolent reasons, it opens the door for oppression to occur. Putting a whip in the master’s hand will allow him to protect you from any wolves that come after you, but it will also allow him to whip you for not obeying him. Liberty is important because it provides a check against human rights abuses by those in authority.

Even today, we struggle with liberty, but the difference between today and previous generations is that today we no longer pursue the ideal of liberty. We pursue the ideals of safety and tolerance, and those two couldn’t be further from liberty. In pursuing safety we happily give up our rights. Consider the latest NSA fiasco and how the NSA has now admitted that they actually do listen in on phone calls without warrants. This is done in the name of “national security” and “fighting terrorism” and so the public remains at ease. Our pursuit of tolerance has ruined liberty because we’ve somehow made “free from being offended” and “tolerance” synonymous. Thus, if a business owner refuses to participate in an activity he doesn’t agree with, that owner is sued and we try to make the government force him to act against his conscience. Why? Because it’s offensive to us that he would have a conscience different from our own.

On the issue of safety, one cannot pursue liberty, but then give precedence to safety. There is no compromise between the two, even if our President thinks one can be found. Either you pursue liberty and allow for safety within the pursuit of liberty (meaning that we can still listen in on phones and the like, but only with a warrant, only with just cause) or we allow for liberty within the pursuit of safety. The former is how strong nations develop, the latter is how tyrants form.

On the issue of tolerance, one cannot pursue liberty, but then give precedence to tolerance. I cannot say I support freedom of speech (which includes conscience) and then sue with any speech I disagree with. While it is true that we must protect citizens from the tyranny of other citizens, we must do so within reason. Forcing people to act against their religious beliefs does not protect liberty. The whole irony in the pursuit of tolerance is that it actually leads us to be quite intolerant of those we disagree with. “Tolerance” becomes a code word for, “Those who agree with me.” Traditionally, tolerance was saying, “I disagree with your position, but I’ll fight for your right to believe what you believe.” Now it means, “I disagree with your position and I’ll fight for the government to force you to act against that position.”

Tolerance has become a way for us to say, “It’s okay if you believe this way, but you better not act according to that belief.” That’s not liberty, that’s tyranny. If a Muslim wants to bow to Mecca five times a day and there are those who want to stop him, those who want the government to intervene, then a true lover of liberty would stand guard over the Muslim as he bows so as to protect him, even if he disagrees with Islam. If a Christian man doesn’t want to use his business to support a homosexual union, then a true lover of liberty would respect his decision and either boycott his business or start a competing business that catered to everyone, regardless of sexual orientation. Either way, he wouldn’t ask for government intervention to change how someone thinks and acts; again, that’s tyranny (just look at 1984). We used to believe that, “I disagree with you, but I’ll fight for your right to say it.” Now we want to silence our opponents, and this happens between both conservatives and liberals (think of how many people attempted to stop a mosque from being built near Ground Zero, even though the First Amendment protects all religions).

In giving up the ideal of liberty for the ideals of safety and tolerance we have put a time limit on this experiment called America. The America that once was, the one that was highly imperfect, but still pursuing liberty, will simply cease to exist. It only has a few more generations and, in truth, we may already be on the precipice of generations that are more willing to embrace tyranny. How long before the definition of “terrorist” is loosened and other people are included? The pursuit of safety and tolerance leaves open the door to persecution of those we disagree with, or who are labeled “intolerant.”

“But that would never happen here! We have laws that protect citizens from being persecuted by their government!” Yes, a government agency would never become corrupted to the point that it would target those who disagree with the policies of an administration so as to make their lives difficult. That would never happen in the United States, correct? I need not point to the Soviet Union or Hitler’s Germany for examples of what happens when safety and tolerance (eradicating those who disagree with you) are put into place above liberty, I can point to our own history. I can point to the FBI targeting civil rights groups in the 1950s and 60s, or Congress targeting suspecting Communists in the 1950s, or the Executive branch forcing Japanese-Americans into internment camps during WWII, or Nixon wiretapping his political opponents, or the IRS targeting conservative non-profits. There are many other examples within our own history of our government abusing any power it receives  of the examples I listed, only one was actually illegal under the law (the IRS issue is still being investigated).

When you give your master a whip to protect you from those you fear, you inevitably allow the master to whip you. When you allow the oppression of those you disagree with, it doesn’t take long before you disagree with the establishment on something else and you find yourself oppressed. This is not fear speaking, this is a voice from history. We were always told that those who didn’t study history were doomed to repeat it; but the study of history is not enough, we must understand it. We must realize that when liberty is no longer the ideal for a people group, the citizens become slaves, they face oppression, and it eventually results in the collapse of that society. That is the direction for America as it stands, but it is not too late to change our pursuit.

Sowing what we reap or, This isn’t the Government we need right now, but it is the Government we deserve


DSC02086Forty years ago to the week, May 17, 1973, the nation was engulfed in a scandal when it was revealed that President Richard Nixon’s administration had broken into the Watergate Hotel in order to gain an advantage of his Democratic contenders. This week has seen scandal after scandal from our present administration that rival – and in some cases surpasses – the crimes of Nixon. For those looking for a post that bashes President Obama, however, please stop reading now. This post will point out his flaws and how his administration has been complicit in some troubling matters, but ultimately the blame is on us, whether conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat; the society of America (or lack thereof) is to blame for what has occurred.

There are too many scandals to really mention. The two biggest that have broken lately would be the IRS targeting conservative groups and individuals who spoke out against the government and the Department of Justice tapping the phones of the Associated Press in order to find out who their sources were. The IRS not only targeted conservative groups, but they leaked confidential information about those groups to the media. What is sad is that there is still more to this scandal that we haven’t seen. The man in charge of investigating the actions of the IRS in its targeting, however, may not be the most trustworthy investigator. Eric Holder is embroiled in his own scandal of wire tapping the AP’s phone lines. When asked for documents explaining why the phones were tapped, the AP was provided with 100% redacted documents. Thus, the man in charge of investigating government overreach and corruption is accused of overreaching the limits of the Constitution by tapping the phones of a news agency. It’s like sending a lion to investigate the death of a zebra by another lion. All the while, other major scandals that have cost humans their lives have gone relatively unnoticed.

Perhaps you heard of Angelina Jolie’s double mastectomy. What you probably didn’t hear about was Kermit Gosnell, a trial that has flown relatively under the radar considering the subject material. One reporter did ask President Obama for his thoughts on Gosnell – considering that Obama supports the “right” of abortionists to kill babies born alive after an abortion – but he declined to answer because it was an “ongoing trial” (I think that’s the first time Obama let that impede a response, especially considering his comments about the Crowley/Gates scandal as well as Trayvon Martin’s death). But now? Perhaps someone should ask him again how he feels.

Not to pick solely on President Obama, consider the absolutely unreported scandal that thousands of Christians have died in the Middle East ever since we decided to invade Iraq in 2003. In fact, the most likely scenario is that Christians will become extinct in the Middle East – where Christianity began and has survived for 2,000 years – quicker than polar bears in the Arctic. US foreign policy, starting with George W. Bush, is responsible for the deaths and displacement of thousands of Christians. Bush gave the Iraqi government money, the same government that turned around and persecuted Christians. We simply looked the other way. Obama is giving guns to the Syrian rebels, who in turn have killed and kidnapped Christians. We cannot say, “Well that’s how Islam works,” because Christians have lived under Islamic rule there since the 7th century. Yet, today is the greatest persecution Christians in the Middle East have ever faced, and that’s even if we include the Roman Empire. Even at home, our corruption seems to ruin our freedom.

A Saudi student can’t even walk across campus with rice in a pressure cooker without being investigated by the FBI. When found innocent rather than issue an apology, the FBI tells him to be more careful. No, “Sorry that we’re racist,” rather they justify their bias and blame him. What is more sad is that most people would probably rationalize such an action, they would rationalize the eradication of freedom in the name of security. Of course, the irony is lost on most people; the price to live in a free society is that we must give up our freedom. That is to say, we’re no longer concerned about freedom, but more about security.

Our government is corrupt. While all governments are corrupt to a certain degree – that’s simply the nature of power, since all humans are corrupt to a certain degree – some governments excel at corruption. The US government has always had corruption, but typically it was the type invented in order to make money for a few individuals. The politicians knew that if they threatened individual freedoms that their ruse would collapse and all would be lost. Thus, the corruption was kept to money exchanging hands. Modern corruption, however, is more about seizing power than anything else.

The “corruption” is really a philosophical point of view, one that it is better to control society than let society grow on its own. It is better to control society because through control we can obtain better security; it’s better to give up freedom for the greater good. How did our government get to this place?

We can point to the Democrats or we can point to the Republicans, but we’d be mostly wrong. While each party has contributed in its own way, the fact is that they’ve been allowed to get away with it. A government is only an extension of the society it comes from, thus, the more corrupt the society is, the more corrupt the government will be. For too long, Americans have wallowed in egoism, hedonism, and relativism. We’ve lived by the mantra, “Do what feels right so long as it doesn’t harm anyone else.” But now we feel we can complain when our leaders live by the same mantra we’ve been chanting? We’re all moral relativists when it suits us, but become the most ardent ethical absolutist when we feel threatened. In short, the current government we have is the government we deserve.

We don’t deserve a good government, one that cares for us, one that knows its role and operates within that role appropriately. In order to deserve that kind of government, we would have to be people that had a strong moral foundation. As it is, America lacks a strong moral foundation, or any moral foundation. We are a society without morals; if our society were an individual, that individual would be a sociopath. The government we have is the result of our society chucking morality to the side and living for whatever whim came its way. We’ve made our bed and now we must lay in it.

Christians Should Just Shut-Up!


For the past couple of months I’ve repeatedly posted articles which pertain to cultural transformation.  In these articles I’ve argued that Evangelical Christians should stop investing the majority of their time and money in ‘top-down’ approaches to cultural renewal (i.e. political activism and legislation) and focus their energy on transforming the culture from the ‘bottom-up.”  In the midst of this I also argued that we should break out of our subpar subculture and live as if every aspect of life is sacred–with the understanding that the Christian Worldview has something to say about everything we do.  Unfortunately, some people have taken this to mean that I’m asking Christian voices to be completely removed from the public square; or, to put it more plainly, that Christians should just “shut-up!”

Due to this misconception of what I’m saying, I’d like to go on record as stating that I do not, in fact, believe Christians should shut-up and completely remove themselves from the public square.  Allow me to explain.

First, let me make a crucial distinction.  The topic of discussion has been that of true cultural transformation.  The question has been: how can one truly, effectually, and authentically transform or renew a “Post-Christian” culture?  The answer could not possibly be simply through top-down methods (i.e. political activism) because they do not cultivate virtue, engender faith, or transform hearts; all of which need to happen in order to effectively transform a culture.  This, however, is not equivalent to saying Christians should, therefore, not participate in politics and should remove themselves from the public square.  It is simply to point out that authentic cultural transformation does not occur through legislation–something that Evangelicals seem to believe (even if they do not realize it).

The problem I’m addressing is that with all of our focus being on political activism we have largely lost sight of our own personal responsibility to live virtuous and just lives and to make disciples.  To use one example I made recently, it is not enough to simply shout and scream and stomp our feet about the nature of marriage: we must demonstrate what true marriage is by living it.  The nature of marriage is not determined through a vote, and we are not successfully preserving it within our culture simply by ratifying laws which will be changed by the next generation.

Now, if we were examining the question of whether or not Christians should have a voice in the public square, and participate in politics, my answer would be a resounding and emphatic yes.  This should be clear from my recent post regarding the sacred/secular split.  I consistently argued that we must break out of our subculture and exist and move and have our being within the general culture.  Repeatedly, I argued that the Christian Worldview has something to say about every vocation–this includes being a politician, a political scientist, a lawyer, a judge, a legislator, or even a journalist.  It also has something to say about every academic discipline: and this most certainly includes political philosophy, and matters of human rights and social justice.

Furthermore, I explicitly stated in one of my articles that political involvement is necessary when it comes to matters of human dignity and social justice.  The two biggest issues that come to mind being: abortion and human trafficking.  Both abortion and human trafficking are horrendous evils and laws must be made to help protect the destruction of more innocent lives.  This, by default, assumes that one would need to engage in politics.

Should Christians just shut-up?  Certainly not.  However, Christians should be more shrewd, more tactful, more intelligent, more just, more merciful, and, above all, more loving whenever they lift up their voices within the public square.

The Problem of Healthcare: A Christian View and General Solution


Today the Supreme Court essentially upheld most of the Affordable Healthcare for America Act (AHAA). While I do disagree with the individual mandate as being Constitutional (as a tax, yes, but as a mandate, no), to me the biggest problem is in the wisdom of the legislation. While the practicalities of such legislation are complex, the underlying issues behind healthcare are pretty simple. From the Christian perspective we should desire that healthcare be available and, more importantly, affordable to all.

For Christians, all humans are made in the image of God, thus all humans have intrinsic worth. This means that while all life is a gift, human life is seen as unique and special. Therefore, when we see that someone cannot get medical treatment for the simple reason that they lack money, we should see such a thing as an injustice. It’s simply not right for a human to be denied healthcare because he cannot pay for it. While we wouldn’t call the denial of an elective procedure that has no real health benefit (such a plastic surgery) an injustice, any denial of service that can lead to more serious health issues is a massive injustice; not to mention that it does violate the Hippocratic oath (how is one to treat patients if one refuses to see them due to lack of payment?).

The above is why some people have said that the healthcare system in America is broken and the AHAA (or derogatorily, “Obamacare”) is the solution. Of course, both aspects of that argument are absolutely wrong. First, the healthcare system is no more broken than a Mercedes is broken; the problem isn’t the quality of the product, it’s the cost of the quality. Thus, Obama’s solution, while possessing some good things in it (such as making it illegal to refuse insurance for pre-existing conditions), doesn’t do much to address the actual problem in our healthcare system. The AHAA may lower the cost of insurance, but it won’t lower the cost of quality care. In other words, bringing more people onto insurances without lowering the cost of the healthcare service is either going to (a) bankrupt the insurance companies, (b) eventually drive the cost of healthcare up, to the point where hardly anyone can afford it yet will be penalized due to the individual mandate, or (c) result in the government having to provide universal healthcare. Option C is what many people naively think is best, but it doesn’t work because the government either goes bankrupt (government’s do not have unlimited funds) or it has to cap the price of medical procedures, which of course drastically lowers the quality of healthcare.

Such a system might work in smaller nations or in nations geared more towards socialism, but it will not work in America. While it works in Norway, Norway isn’t the United States; there are certain cultural ideals, economic beliefs, and so on that allow such socialized medicine to work in one nation but not in the other.

At the same time, we have to do something to make medical procedures cheaper. Making insurance cheaper makes little sense – so long as the medical procedures cost money and the cost rises, so too will the insurance. Car insurance is cheap because there’s a natural cap to it; the average person will only spend $10,000 to fix a car. Any more than that and the insurance will simply cut a check and the person gets a new car. In other words, the idea behind the AHAA that car insurance is cheap because a lot of people buy it (and are forced to if they own a car) is somewhat false; while more people in the system helps, the real reason that car insurance is affordable is because there’s a natural cap within the industry. Within health, however, such a cap doesn’t exist because the average person cannot simply replace their body or life. Thus, it tends to be quite a bit more expensive, to the point that even if more people buy in it won’t have a significant impact. Not to mention that the most affordable of car insurance hardly covers anything; shall we desire the same thing for our health?

From a Christian perspective we want to create an option that maintains the quality of healthcare (and improves it) while making it cheaper. The point in making it cheaper isn’t just so that more people can afford health insurance, but so that charities can do more to help those who can’t even get cheap health insurance. Making healthcare cheaper benefits everyone. Yet, all of this must be done while respecting the dignity of being human, that is, we cannot tax the people into oblivion to accomplish our goals. We cannot nationalize private industries in order to make them cheaper as this robs people of their well-earned property. In short, we can be neither socialists or pure capitalists. We cannot trust socialism as this would rob people of their property and rob the market of its resources to continue to research. At the same time, we cannot simply leave healthcare to the market and let the market decide because supply and demand doesn’t work when it comes to essential services. The government has always had to regulate essential services, even in the early days of our Republic.

In addition to the above, the Christian view of man is one that views man as both angel and demon, both good and evil. This means we cannot suppress the profit motive within the business and expect everyone to perform medicine out of the goodness of their hearts, but we also cannot expect people to be motivated by more than profit. Within the socialist approach, the motivation for the doctors should be the greater good of society, not their own income. But no one goes into a business to break even; everyone wants to make a profit. In healthcare making a profit is vital because a lot of that profit goes back into research and development for better medications and treatments. At the same time, we don’t want our doctors to be solely motivated by profit. When motivated solely by profit people will cut corners and cheat their way to more money. No one wants a doctor that is in it solely for the money because the doctor, at the end of the day, could care less if the patient is healthy or not.

With the above foundations for healthcare, which stem from the Christian perspective (though they are not exclusively Christian), I think there are a few very broad practicalities that could help lower the cost of healthcare while maintaining the integrity of our healthcare system (and even improving upon it). I leave the specifics to the politicians, but I think some generalized solutions could possibly get people going:

Eradicate the Patent System for Drugs and Medical Equipment  – before the conservatives jump down my throat on this one, I’m not saying we should eradicate profit. Rather, I’m pro-free market because this fits best with the dignity of man. A patent, on the other hand, is not a free market solution. A patent allows the developer to hold a monopoly over their invention for quite some time, allowing the company to charge whatever price they want to gain back the money that went into developing the item. 

The problem should be obvious – if Company A can charge whatever they deem necessary to recover their research, then the price of their product will increase. Now, some argue that the market is a natural check on patents and in some cases it is. If Apple has a patent for a new iPhone, it means no one can copy any innovative component of that iPhone for the duration of the patent. Of course, Apple can’t in turn charge $30,000 for the iPhone because they’d never gain their money back; no one could afford the iPhone at that point and thus no one would buy it. In cases like this where competition exists a patent has a natural check on it.

In the medical field, however, where there is no natural check (remember, insurance companies will pay for it because they have to pay for it; the medicine is essential), a monopoly causes the price of medication to rise up. In such a system you really have only two options: a free market solution or a regulated solution. The regulated solution is one that most people would reject, which is where the government puts a limit on how much medication can sell for. Thus, if a company puts $100 million into developing a drug and it will take them 15 years to gain that money back, but they sell it at a price so they’ll gain it back in 10, the government would come in and force them to go with the lowest price. This solution would work, but it wouldn’t be as efficient as a free market solution; it would provide less incentive to develop a drug if the maker figured they’d never make a return on it, likewise it wouldn’t make things cheaper because the cap would still be relative to the amount of money put into developing it (if anything, creative companies would fudge the numbers to make it look like they put more into the development than they actually did, thus increasing their cap).

The better solution is to eradicate the patent system entirely with drugs and medical equipment and instead force them to create a license. In a license, a royalty fee has to be paid to the creator of the drug/equipment by any manufacturers. Under a licensing system, some companies could simply move into research and development and simply forgo manufacturing their drugs or equipment; they could instead license out their discoveries to multiple manufacturers. In turn, the license would last longer than a patent allowing the company to make back their money and then make a profit. The best benefit, however, is that if you end up with 10 companies manufacturing the same drug, all with the same licensing fee, the original developer will make their money back, yet the drug will be cheaper due to competition. Obviously drugs would still be expensive, but they wouldn’t be as expensive as they are now. It would lower the cost and make it far more affordable, which is what we’re aiming for.

Multiple Safety-Nets for the Uninsured – Right now if a patient goes to a hospital and cannot afford treatment, there’s no established system to help him find a way to pay for his treatment. This is one area where the federal government and state governments could really help out. The state governments should create a database of charities that help people who need healthcare coverage. These charities would simply register with the state or the federal government, depending on if they intend to help people in their state or nationwide (thus, a local collection of churches may only help people in their city, but the Catholic charity may help people from any state). 

Each hospital, in turn, would then help the uninsured go to these charities first. The person would help with paperwork, help them fill the paperwork out, and exercise all private options first before turning to a government option. The government option would be either the government simply pays for the debt, or the person can enroll in a government loan (if eligible) that can be paid at a minimal payment relative to the person’s income.

The reason for the above is that right now if someone doesn’t pay, that cost is passed onto the next patient. In other words, we already have universal healthcare coverage, it’s just not structured and it’s poorly designed. If we were to put together a cohesive system where charities could be contacted or some accountability is built in for the person paying the bill, we could limit how much (if any) unpaid bills get passed on to other patients. This would lower the cost of healthcare and insurance, since insurance companies wouldn’t have to pay for other patients. This is where the AHAA works as a short-term solution; if most people have insurance, less unpaid bills are passed around, which lowers the cost of healthcare. But this one component doesn’t fix the cost of the entire system (as I explained above).
Create More Competition – there needs to be more competition between hospitals, between insurance companies, between medical manufacturers, and so on. Competition creates cheap prices. The more natural competition that exists in a field, the cheaper products are in that field. How this competition is to be created is up for debate; as a distributist I would support the idea of constructing medical guilds, each one in competition with the other, where they are in charge of handing out licenses and then creating degrees of licensing. While there would be government oversight of the guilds (to prevent them from turning into monopolies), the guilds would essentially be left determining the quality of their doctors. In doing so, competition would exist. But I don’t want to get bogged down in details on this point because I first have to defend having guilds and then defend placing guilds within the medical community.

In short, the above three solutions are not perfect. But they hold to the basic principles that everyone deserves healthcare, but we don’t have to destroy individual freedoms to secure it. Certainly the above would require much debate, some things changed, but overall it’s a solution that I think goes to the heart of the issue while trying to appeal to both liberals and conservatives. Most importantly, however, is I believe it’s part of an overall system that respects the dignity and freedom of man.