What About Obedience?

The Congregation for Catholic Education released an instruction "On Priesthood and Those With Homosexual Tendencies" yesterday.

This instruction has already generated plenty of discussion, and will generate much more, so I was planning to ignore the subject, but I must comment on this Washington Post article:

Several prelates, including Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick of Washington, indicated that they will continue to ordain seminarians regardless of sexual orientation, as long as the candidates are committed to live in celibacy and to uphold church teachings.

I'm confused:

• Cardinal McCarrick says he will ordain homosexuals as long as they uphold the Church's teachings.
• But, the Church says that homosexuals should not be ordained.
• Therefore, a homosexual who is being ordained is, by this very action, not upholding the Church's teachings.

Now that the Instruction has been promulgated, all Catholics (whether they agree with it or not) should have a serious problem with a homosexual who is ordained, as well as the bishop who will ordain a homosexual. Can a priest or bishop who is picking and choosing which rules require obedience really be charged with the formation of a parish or diocese? There is no way to know the exact teachings these new leaders will dissent from (besides the ordination of homosexuals, I suppose), but there can be no doubt that they will pass on this perversion of obedience. "We must follow Mother Church," they will say, "except on this rule, or that rule, because there She is wrong." Maybe I'm a simple-minded papist, but this attitude seems to fit more under the Dictatorship of Relativism than the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.



[note: The Instruction delineates between men with "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" and men "dealing with homosexual tendencies that were only the expression of a transitory problem." I did not address any distinctions because I simply wanted to respond to Cardinal McCarrick's statement, in which he is clearly stating that he will not follow the Instruction.]

Evolution vs. Intelligent Discussion

The Vatican's Chief Astronomer recently refuted intelligent design as a scientific theory. He said that the teaching the two ideas together is like comparing apples to oranges. This is not the first statement from a Catholic official that may make the ID/creationism supporter's jaw drop. One would have to begin with Pope Pius XII's 1950 encyclical Humani Generis:

. . . the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.

More recently, John Paul II gave some credence to an evolutionary theory.

However, the Church's position in this debate is not the subject of this entry. Instead, we need to look directly at the current discourse.

We have been duped in the ongoing evolution/intelligent design debate. We have been presented with two options and neither is quite satisfying. Either Darwinistic evolution is the final answer on creation--both the physical origins of the species as well as any metaphysical causes of these origins--or intelligent design is a scientific theory that should be taught next to evolution in the science classroom. The problem with our two options is that neither will get us to the fullness of the truth. The debate itself is flawed because it has been pigeonholed to one specific issue--whether intelligent design is legitimate science--and this question misses the real issue. Instead of asking whether intelligent design is viable science, we should be asking whether Darwinism is really a proof against the existence of God.

In Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis weighs in on this debate by looking at two alternatives to the origins of the universe, a materialist view and a religious view. His insights, as always, are quite on point. Lewis may agree with that intelligent design does not have a place in the science curriculum, but he would just as quickly question our dependence on Darwinism to prove any truths about the existence of God:

You cannot find out which view is the right one by science in the ordinary sense. Science works by experiments. It watches how things behave. . . . But why anything comes to be there at all, and whether there is anything behind the things science observes--something of a different kind--this is not a scientific question. If there is "Something Behind," then either it will have to remain altogether unknown to men or else make itself known in some other way. The statement that there is any such thing, and the statement that there is no such thing, are neither of them statements that science can make.

There is a push in the world today to discount anything not based on scientific evidence as irrelevant. If the world as a whole has accepted the premise that science is the only basis to prove any knowledge about the world, the anti-God faction should be ecstatic. Yet, they are unable to leave certain questions a mystery. They have to use science to defeat opposing viewpoints on issues science should not reach. Put simply, to say that science cannot prove God's existence is to say that it cannot disprove God's existence.

This science-worshipping worldview has put men in a precarious position. If one wishes to discuss any idea, he must base this idea on some objective data--we must fit all truth into the scientific method. Under this framework, some will surely try to hard to force a square peg of truth into the round hole of science. This may be what the intelligent design theorists are doing. However, if that is the case, it is just as true that the Darwinists should not be allowed to bend their atheist peg and sneak it into the round hole.

The Darwinists tell us that since evolution can be backed up by data and intelligent design can not, evolution is legitimate and intelligent design is worthless. The Darwinists tell us that based on their data, they can demonstrate that there has been an evolutionary process from a single organism to the breadth of creatures that exist today, including the creatures known as humans. They continue, telling us that this process is based on genetic mutations and survival of the fittest new versions of creatures, and because this process is based on physical phenomenon which appear to be completely random, that there is no God.

The problem (and this is what the secular humanists, atheists, and other -ists of the same ilk do not want you to think about) is the disconnect between the Darwinists' data and proof against God. Any scientific data which demonstrates an evolutionary process can not prove there is no intelligent force behind it. Just because it looks random to us, does not disprove the possibility that evolution is an ordered process that we don't understand, or at the very least, there is some Prime Mover who started the whole evolutionary mechanism. Yet, so many scientists accept Darwinism not only as a fact of how the physical world has progressed, but also as a proof that there is no intelligent being in charge of the universe. This has taken science beyond the realm of observable fact into a metaphysical plane. Darwinistic scientists have broken their own rules.

If “Darwinism-as-proof-that-there-is-no-God” is accepted as science, then intelligent design arguments must be considered real science as well, and at least allowed the opportunity for peer review and critical debate. There must be an even playing field--either both sides in or both sides out. Looking to the opinions of several Popes and Vatican officials, the choice seems to be both sides out.

Subsidiarity

This is an interesting statement by the mayor of Ann Arbor, Michigan:

"The federal government has turned their back on many of these people. So has the state government. We are the government of last resort for these people."

This is very telling of one of the foundational problems facing this country today: we lack a proper understanding of the role of intermediate communities. It was heard in the cries from New Orleans, but the Ann Arbor Mayor sums it up nicely.

The solution is subsidiarity. The principle of subsidiarity is addressed in several encyclicals, including Centesimus Annus (paragraph 48):

[T]he principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.

For those scared of anything based on Catholic philosophy, just think of subsidiarity as federalism that can not be tainted by judicial activism (that's very oversimplified, but it will do for now).

Allowing lower ordered communities to handle problems will foster better solutions, because problems are addressed by those closest in proximity to them. This does not mean that the federal government does not have an important and essential role in government, it just means we don't turn to the feds first if the problem can be handled locally.

This would be a radical departure from the system we have in place today. It demands a higher amount of responsibility from each individual and each intermediate community. This post is going to a bit elusive--advocating for subsidiarity without addressing the logistics of implementing it (I'll save that for another day--it's not unreasonable). For now, it is enough to at least consider this approach to governement as a viable option to a federal superpower in D.C. that controls all.

It's Called a Spine

John Murtha and the Democrats have provided a steady stream of rhetoric against the war, but it was all laid to rest with the House vote Friday. The House rejected a nonbinding resolution calling for an immediate troop withdrawal by a vote of 403-3. Note also, that Murtha was not one of the three.

To me, this seems to demonstrate the worthlessness of the rhetoric because none of the politicans have any plan to back it up. The Washington Post (representing the MSM), on the other hand, sees things differently:

GOP leaders hastily scheduled a vote on a measure to require the Bush administration to bring the troops home now, an idea proposed Thursday by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.). The Republican-proposed measure was rejected 403 to 3, a result that surprised no one.
The idea was to force Democrats to go on the record on a proposal that the administration says would be equivalent to surrender. Recognizing a political trap, most Democrats -- including Murtha -- said from the start they would vote no.

First, did this result really "surprise no one"? The continual criticism from the Left, both the elected and self-appointed, dominates the daily news. I think that the average American should be surprised that only 3 anti-war Democrat Representatives voted for immediate pull-out. Of course, the WaPo justifies this vote for the Dems--they were just avoiding a political trap. So, after ratcheting up the anti-war talk, they can avoid preserving their extreme opinions in posterity by not following through on the official vote. The citizens of America must be informed of how their representatives are running the government. If they are saying one thing in public and voting another way (or attempting to avoid votes at all), are they really working for the people?

Friday's vote also revealed the level of civility of our nation's leaders. Rep. Jean Schmidt conveyed a meassage from a Marine Corps Reserve officer, which included a message to Murtha: "cowards cut and run, Marines never do." The Washington Post reported the reaction:

Dozens of Democrats erupted at once, pointing angrily at Schmidt and shouting repeatedly, "Take her words down" -- the House term for retracting a statement. For a moment Schmidt tried to keep speaking, but the uproar continued and several GOP colleagues surrounded her as she sat down, looking slightly dazed. Presiding officer Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) gaveled in vain for order as Democrats continued shouting for Schmidt to take back her words. Rep. Martin T. Meehan (D-Mass.) yelled "You guys are pathetic!" from the far end of the Democratic section to the GOP side.
Just as matters seemed to calm a bit, Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr. (D-Tenn.) suddenly charged across the aisle to the GOP seats, jabbing his finger furiously at a small group of GOP members and shouting, "Say Murtha's name!" Rep. David R. Obey (D-Wis.), who had led the chants for striking Schmidt's comments, gently guided Ford by the arm back to the minority party's side.

Now that is how you win a debate!

I don't know who first said "if you are going to talk the talk, you have to walk the walk," so instead I'll have to quote Rough Rider Teddy Roosevelt (but not "Speak softly and carry a big stick.") TR had it right when he stated: "A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends on the character of the user." Apparently, character is an optional quality in our representatives. I guess that leaves it up to us--the average voters--to brandish our rifles with honor, aiming for truth, and only elect those individuals that will do the same.

The Professor or a Madman?

Warren Community College is going to build up quite a name for itself with this kind of faculty. I'm not shocked, the professor here is just following the lead of the majority of universities and colleges. I would call him a fool for preserving his bigotry in email, but the College President is supporting him. [As an aside, I wonder what kind of speech code WCC has for the students. Too bad it is not listed with FIRE.] The professor does a fine job revealing the general attitude of academia:

I will continue to expose your right-wing, anti-people politics until groups like your won't dare show their face on a college campus.

To borrow from Orwell's Animal Farm: All viewpoints are equal. Some are just more equal than others.

There is also this gem on the brink of treason:

Real freedom will come when soldiers in Iraq turn their guns on their superiors and fight for just causes and for people's needs

Academia has celebrated Ward Churchill with a faculty position he doesn't deserve as well as a steady stream of paychecks to travel to colleges and regurgitate his drivel. Maybe Professor John Daly is smarter than I give him credit for. This is a guaranteed career boost. On the other hand, what does it profit a man to gain the whole world but to lose his soul?

------
UPDATE (11/23/05) - John Daly has resigned.

Wednesday Night Catechism Club

Here are some impressive thoughts from a great man:

From Zenit - Code: ZE05111621

Date: 2005-11-16

The Mass Isn't Entertainment, Says Cardinal Arinze
In Interview, He Gives His Perspective on the Liturgy

VATICAN CITY, NOV. 16, 2005 (Zenit.org).- The Mass is a moment of reflection and encounter with God, rather than a form of entertainment, says Cardinal Francis Arinze.

In an interview with Inside the Vatican magazine, the prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments made a comprehensive assessment of the recent Synod of Bishops on the Eucharist and of developments in liturgical practice 40 years after the Second Vatican Council.

Regarding "music in the liturgy, we should start by saying that Gregorian music is the Church's precious heritage," he said. "It should stay. It should not be banished. If therefore in a particular diocese or country, no one hears Gregorian music anymore, then somebody has made a mistake somewhere."

However, "the Church is not saying that everything should be Gregorian music," the cardinal clarified. "There is room for music which respects that language, that culture, that people. There is room for that too, and the present books say that is a matter for the bishops' conference, because it generally goes beyond the boundaries of one diocese.

"The ideal thing is that the bishops would have a liturgical music commission which looks at the wording and the music of the hymns. And when the commission is satisfied, judgment is brought to the bishops for approval, in the name of the rest of the conference."

What should not be the case, insists the Nigerian cardinal, is "individuals just composing anything and singing it in church. This is not right at all -- no matter how talented the individual is. That brings us to the question of the instruments to be used.

"The local church should be conscious that church worship is not really the same as what we sing in a bar, or what we sing in a convention for youth. Therefore it should influence the type of instrument used, the type of music used."

Suitability

"I will not now pronounce and say never guitar; that would be rather severe," Cardinal Arinze added. "But much of guitar music may not be suitable at all for the Mass. Yet, it is possible to think of some guitar music that would be suitable, not as the ordinary one we get every time, [but with] the visit of a special group, etc."

"The judgment would be left to the bishops of the area. It is wiser that way," he pointed out. "Also, because there are other instruments in many countries which are not used in Italy or in Ireland, for instance.

"People don't come to Mass in order to be entertained. They come to Mass to adore God, to thank him, to ask pardon for sins, and to ask for other things that they need."

"When they want entertainment, they know where to go -- parish hall, theater, presuming that their entertainment is acceptable from a moral theological point of view," added the cardinal, 73, who this year celebrated the 40th anniversary of his episcopal ordination.

The synod

In the course of the interview, Cardinal Arinze, who in the recent Synod of Bishops on the Eucharist was one of the delegate presidents, subsequently made a summary of this ecclesial event which gathered 252 bishops.

Speaking of the positive points of the synod, the cardinal said there were many: "Strengthening our faith in the holy Eucharist. No new doctrine, but freshness of expression of our Eucharistic faith. Encouragement in the celebration in the sense of good attention; a celebration which shows faith."

"The synod thanked priests for their ministry and also deacons and others who assist at the celebration of Mass, and underlined the importance of Eucharistic adoration outside Mass which has its fruits in the Mass itself because the Mass is the supreme act of adoration," he continued.

"But the sacrament does not finish after Mass," the cardinal observed. "Christ is in the tabernacle to be brought to the sick, to receive our visits of adoration, praise, love, supplication. The synod fathers did not only talk about adoration -- they did adoration, every day. Christ exposed in the monstrance in the chapel near the Synod Hall, one hour in the morning, one hour in the afternoon."

"The synod also stressed the importance of good preparation for the holy Eucharist; to receive Communion," he noted. "Therefore, confession of sins, for those who are in mortal sin and in any case encouraging the sacrament of penance as a way of growing in fidelity to Christ. And also that not everybody is fit to receive holy Communion, so those who are not fit should not receive."

Protestant view

Referring to a negative tendency in the Western world, the cardinal revealed that an increasing number of Catholics have "a more Protestant concept of the Eucharist, seeing it mainly as a symbol."

The "synod fathers recognize that many Catholics don't have correct faith in the real presence of Christ in the holy Eucharist," he said. "This was mentioned in one of the propositions as well.

"It was recognized so much that many of the synod fathers suggested that there be themes suggested for homilies on Sundays. Seeing that for many Catholics the Sunday homily is about the only religious instruction they get in a week, the synod fathers suggested that the four major areas of Catholic faith should be covered by the homily in a three-year cycle."

The four areas correspond to the parts of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

"First part, what we believe," Cardinal Arinze said. "Second part, how we worship, i.e., sacraments. Third part, what we live, life in Christ, so the moral law, the Ten Commandments, the Christian life lived; and the fourth part, prayer."

Therefore, "although the homily should be on the Scripture readings and the other liturgical texts, some way has to be found to cover the whole area of Catholic faith in a period of three years because many Catholics are really ignorant of fundamental matters. That is a fact nobody can deny."

Showmanship

"Vatican II brought many good things but everything has not been positive, and the synod recognized that there have been shadows," Cardinal Arinze acknowledged.

"There has been a bit of neglect of the holy Eucharist outside Mass," he said. "A lot of ignorance. A lot of temptations to showmanship for the priest who celebrates facing the people.

"If he is not very disciplined he will soon become a performer. He may not realize it, but he will be projecting himself rather than projecting Christ. Indeed it is very demanding, the altar facing the people. Then even those who read the First and Second Reading can engage in little tactics that make them draw attention to themselves and distract the people.

"So there are problems. However, some of the problems were not caused by Vatican II, but they were caused by children of the Church after Vatican II. Some of them talking of Vatican II push their own agenda. We have to watch that. People pushing their own agenda, justifying it as the 'spirit of Vatican II.'"

The Vatican prefect continued: "So, if only people would be more faithful to what has been laid down, not by people who just like to make laws for other people, but what follows from what we believe. 'Lex orandi, Lex credendi.' It is our faith that directs our prayer life, and if we genuflect in front of the tabernacle it is because we believe that Jesus is there, and is God."

Abuses not new

Contrary to what many think, he said, "even when there was the Tridentine Mass there were abuses. Many Catholics did not know, because they did not know Latin! So when the priest garbled the words, they were not aware of this.

"Therefore, the most important area is faith and fidelity to that faith, and a faithful reading of the original texts, and their faithful translations, so that people celebrate knowing that the liturgy is the public prayer of the Church."

Cardinal Arinze concluded that the liturgy "is not the property of one individual, therefore an individual does not tinker with it, but makes the effort to celebrate it as Holy Mother Church wants. When that happens, the people are happy, they feel nourished. Their faith grows, their faith is strengthened. They go home happy and willing to come back next Sunday."

----------------

Here are some pedestrian thoughts from a lesser man (yours truly):

I really am inadequate to add anything to Cardinal Arinze's statements, so I will limit myself to one comment. The Cardinal is right that "the homily should be on the Scripture readings and the other liturgical texts, [but] some way has to be found to cover the whole area of Catholic faith in a period of three years because many Catholics are really ignorant of fundamental matters." My suggestion--a little Catholic catechesis outside of Mass. Come on, Catholics! Let's keep our homilies on the readings (so the we can properly understand them--unmitigated personal interpretation doesn't count), and work through the Catechism on our own time. But we are actually going to have to do it (that's why we are in this predicament now). Therefore, I propose a Wednesday Night Catechism Club where all the Catholics of the world will take a few hours with family and friends and study the faith. Of course, if your community is going to have praise and worship on Wednesday in lieu of Sunday's guitar mass, I'm willing to reschedule.

Science Proposes a Toast

Following up the post on God/pain, comes an answer to the dilemma in the Washington Post. The article is written by a woman who chose to abort her baby based on a diagnosis of Down Syndrome.

While I have no doubt there can be joys and victories in raising a mentally handicapped child, for me and for Mike, it's a painful journey that we believe is better not taken. To know now that our son would be retarded, perhaps profoundly, gives us the choice of not continuing the pregnancy. We don't want a life like that for our child, and the added worry that we wouldn't be around long enough to care for him throughout his life.

Apparently Science provides the answer when God fails us on the question of pain. Wells, Darwin, and all you worshipers of the Goddess Science--sound your trumpets. Why does a good God let bad things happen? The question no longer matters, because Science has overcome this problem. Science can help you avoid all pain. The author’s child would be retarded, so she ensures that the child (as well as the parents) will not have to suffer such pain. If a child may suffer, abort.

Now we can avoid this discussion about God altogether. For, you see, with science there is no problem with pain.

To the author's credit, the article continues. After the abortion, she does mourn her decision:

I woke up missing him, mourning the child we wouldn't have.

I wonder what Science would prescribe to this woman now. Seeking to avoid perceived suffering, she now must truly suffer. Yet she still doesn’t get it:

I'm sure pro-lifers don't give you the right to grieve for the baby you chose not to bring into the world (another euphemism, although avoiding the word "abortion'' doesn't take any sting out of the decision to have one). Only now do I understand how entirely personal the decision to terminate a pregnancy is and how wrong it feels to bring someone else's morality into the discussion.

Wrong. Pro-lifers give you the right (perhaps even the obligation?) to grieve after an abortion. But, after having an abortion and mourning the child she killed, the author concludes that it is wrong to bring in someone else’s (or an objective) morality into the discussion. I'm not sure that I follow. I suppose even Science can't repair this painful logic.

How could a good God allow bad things to happen?

From Sam Harris's athiest manifesto over at the Huffington Post:

Somewhere in the world a man has abducted a little girl. Soon he will rape, torture, and kill her. . . .

. . .

. . . this girl’s parents believe -- at this very moment -- that an all-powerful and all-loving God is watching over them and their family. Are they right to believe this? Is it good that they believe this?

No.

The entirety of atheism is contained in this response. Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply a refusal to deny the obvious.

So there it is, argument over, atheism wins. Bad things happen, therefore there can not possibly be a God.

Of course, some may disagree. Harris's dissenters would include, inter alios, "the Genius" himself. Honest disagreement is fine; it is a means to reach the truth. Robust, truth-seeking debate which is open and honest should be encouraged. This article, is typical of the artificial rules placed on public discourse: arguments that consider God do not belong.

(1) on Harris's procedure:

Whoever frames an argument has a distinct advantage over his opponent. Antony Flew understood this. He tried to convince the world that there is a presumption of atheism, and it is the believers' job to present a scientific proof of God. [Of course, Flew has since broke (somewhat) with his athiest camp.]

Either the enlightened atheist Harris doesn’t understand the foundation of this debate or he is trying a little slight-of-hand to gain an advantage. When discussing pain, worldview means everything. Christians believe in eternal life; atheists believe that death is the end of the story. As quickly discussed below, understanding the Christian worldview demonstrates that the Christian position is at minimum a valid theory (and oh, yes, once you accept that, you will find that it is so much more).

Both sides of the debate may try to discredit the foundation of the others’ position, but no worldview should be, ipso facto, eliminated from discussion. Thus, the believer may need to address the atheistic point of view, and the atheist can not automatically discount any argument that references God.

Harris does attempt to discredit the opposing worldview, adopting from Flew a presumption of atheism:

The atheist is merely a person who believes that the 260 million Americans (eighty-seven percent of the population) who claim to “never doubt the existence of God” should be obliged to present evidence for his existence . . .

To Harris, this statement is the end of the matter, exemplifying one of the artificial rules of public discourse. According to this rule, a Christian can not prove God’s existence, and therefore the worldview is invalid. Unfortunately for Harris, this is not the end of the debate, but only the beginning. As for evidence of the existence of God, I would start with Thomas Aquinas. From there a long and difficult discussion may begin, which is exactly why Harris seeks to avoid it.

(2) On the substance of the argument when the Christian worldview allowed:

No one thinks all pain is bad. For example, an athlete exercises and trains, fighting through the aches and pain to get into prime physical shape. A person on a diet must suffer by skipping the potato chips when his stomach is growling. These are small pains but people voluntarily undertake them in order to reach a goal. For a person who believes in the eternal soul and everlasting life, a moment of pain, a year of pain, or a lifetime of pain is much like the temporary pain of training or dieting if it is responsible for getting a person to their goal of heaven. This explanation surely would not satisfy Harris, but it is the truth. I am not saying how, or even if, the suffering mentioned by Harris will lead to salvation, I’m only framing the argument from the Christian worldview. That is as far as this blog will go—all the difficult questions are left for much more intelligent people than me.

Alitowatch

No matter what anyone on the Right or Left says, it is all about abortion.

Global Warming vs. Terrorism

Al Gore thinks that global warming is a more serious threat than terrorism. I realized that there are many crazy people who probably agree, but this man was almost our president. Scary.

Rousseau and the Ninth Circuit

On Nov 2, 2005, the Ninth Circuit decided a case that concerned the rights of parents to direct the education of their children. Specifically, the parents were worried about the sexual content of certain surveys that were being given to ELEMENTARY students (ages 7 to 10). The court decided that "there is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children."

This post will not get into the constitutional basis and rightness or wrongness of the decision, that discussion will be left for much smarter people. The only thing I will mention on the subject is that the opinion cites a book by Justice Breyer to support "the importance of our evolving understanding of the nature of our Constitution."

I just wanted to share a few thoughts on Jean Jacques Rousseau. With the help of the Ninth Circuit, Rousseau is still influencing society --

Rousseau identified parents’ proper role in raising their children—which is no role whatsoever. Rousseau believed that the obligation for raising children should be taken away from parents and given to the State. The State is based on a social contact: “Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole.” Individual interests as well as interests common among some associations may be wrong, but the general will is infallible. “It is therefore essential, if the general will is to be able to express itself, that there should be no partial society within the State . . . But if there are partial societies, it is best to have as many as possible ant to prevent them from being unequal.” If parents are allowed to direct the education of their children, it may be inconsistent with the will of the Sovereign. The court is simply enforcing the social contract: “whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so by the whole body. This means nothing less that he will be forced to be free.” With this Ninth Circuit decision, both the parents and children can be forced to be free.

(Note -- Rousseau did follow his theory of abandoning intermediate institutions between the individual and the State to its logical conclusion. For Rousseau, the family was not a primary structure of society. He had five children in his common law marriage. Each one was given up to the state after they were born.)


With that said, the most important thing to take from this case is the following: if you disagree with this decision, don't think it is the end of the issue. Call your congressmen. The courts (especially the Ninth Circuit) are NOT the final arbiter of our laws. The people, through our elected officials can change laws.

Or, if you believe in Ockham's Razor -- just send your children to Catholic School.

The Proper Response to an Achievement Gap?

The Ann Arbor, Michigan School Board has crafted a plan to close the achievement gap:

In Ann Arbor, the gap shows up in disparities in test scores, failure rates, graduation rates, suspension rates and participation in both remedial and advanced classes.

Trustees said they want to make sure "all students will graduate ready.''

To get there, they will focus on:

• Personalized relationships.
• Equitable practices.
• Aligned, standardized curriculum.
• Minimal suspensions and expulsions.
• Continuation of successful programs and initiatives.

I wonder what the school means by focusing on minimal suspensions and expulsions? I hope it means correcting the individual students' behaviors and not eliminating the punishments in order to ensure that every student has similar transcripts. Sure, it would make everyone more equal and I'm sure a mark like this on the student's record does not reflect well with college applications, but is equality worth the alteration of acceptable societal behaviors? If equality means levelling society down to its lowest common denominator, I say it is not worth the price.

Perhaps the board is not familiar enough with a great thinker from their own state: Russell Kirk. One of the six canons Kirk presented in "The Conservative Mind" is a "[c]onviction that civilized society requires class and orders." This requires "equality in the judgment of God, and equality before courts of law"--and nothing more. Attempting to creating equality among the other conditions of people's lives "means equality in servitude and boredom."

Pride, Prejudice, Insurance

Paul Krugman gives us this article on National Health Care:

The funny thing is that the solution - national health insurance, available to everyone - is obvious. But to see the obvious we'll have to overcome pride - the unwarranted belief that America has nothing to learn from other countries - and prejudice - the equally unwarranted belief, driven by ideology, that private insurance is more efficient than public insurance.

Krugman is half right. We can learn about socialized health care from other countries--like Canada and Britain. See here for more information.

Athletes, Race, and Politics

Clarence Page has an interesting article on discussing race.

Since Fisher DeBerry was reprimanded, I wonder why there has been no mention of Jesse Jackson's comments in his speech(es) paying tribute to Rosa Parks:

Now Alabama and Auburn can play black and white together. We can choose uniform color over skin color in that game, because the new law protects our shared dignity. Changing the laws and the culture did not take place automatically nor inevitably, it took demonstrations, sacrifice and martyrs. Because with affirmative action and Pell grants and no more political mileage for governors blocking school doors, we can now have a secretary of state, we can now sit on the front of buses, class rooms, live in a neighborhood of our choice. Auburn could be number 1 last year, Alabama could be undefeated this year and not face the predicament that Bear Bryant faced, playing USC and Nebraska without the best talent in the state and being humiliated by Sam Cunningham of USC and Johnny Rogers of Nebraska.

Now, Rev. Jackson's statement is fine, I just wonder why the same people who were outraged at DeBerry's comments have not weighed in on Rev. Jackson's speech.

Good Night, and Good Luck

Before you go and see the movie, here is some background information.

Welcome

Welcome to the Silent Planet uprising. I will try to post information that "[t]he black archon--our own bent Oyarsa" does not wish disseminated, as well as any items, relevant or irrelevant, that I choose to share.