WIll you Vote for the Unwinnable, the Pagan or the Serial Adulterer?

Note: I am making a couple assumptions in this post about my readers:

1. You're a protestant Christian
2. You're a Republican 

So who are you going to vote for in the Republican primary? Using the most recent primary, we start with the least number voted for to the highest. Let's talk about Ron Paul.

Ron Paul
I categorize Ron Paul as unwinnable. Sorry to all of you Tea Partiers and Ron Paul rebels. Paul is not winnable. The Democrats will slam him as a racist, mock him for his fiscal policy and ignore his foreign policy. Very few people interpret the constitution as Paul does.

Rick Santorum
I like Rick, except for the fact that my spell check wants me to spell his name as "sanitarium." He seems like a nice guy, he's got "fire in the belly," but who is he again? So what he won Iowa. He doesn't have the ability to slither through politics like a snake, and he'll get eaten alive by the press. Hence, he's also unwinnable.

Mitt Romney
The big question, do you vote for a pagan?

Some people will say that Mormonism is a sect of Christianity though by definition it is not a part of Christianity. In one sense it is like saying Islam is a sect of Christianity. (Which, by the way, some people did see Islam as being a part of Christianity in it's early days. Read this book to see.) The key qualification for a religious group to be a part of Christianity is that Jesus Christ is the core. I know this is a vague and broad definition but even on this broad definition Mormonism is excluded. Mormons do not hold Jesus Christ to be a central figure. Please, someone correct me if I'm wrong on this.

That said, can you vote for a pagan? Your philosophy of voting determines your answer. Do you vote for someone based on his policies and track record or do you include other stuff in your decision. This includes one's cultural background and religion. Where you land on this spectrum will help determine whether you can vote for Romney or not.

Even if you do consider one's religious background in your decision, there is another question that must be answer. Ought you not vote for someone who comes from a differing religious background? Your answer depends on how strictly do you hold to the principle of voting for someone who is like you. If you hold to it strictly, you are going to vote only for someone of your own denomination. If you are loose then you can vote for someone who is of a differing background, like Romney. Voters are somewhere along this sub-spectrum. On one end you have people who vote strictly for those who are like them. On the other end you have people who vote loosely for people who could or could not be like them.

Newt Gingrich
Last and least in terms of his public moral record, Newt Gingrich. Okay, so isn't this the guy who took a vacation to the Greek Islands WHILE running and his campaign staff quit on him? How is he still running? More importantly, Gingrich divorced two women and is on his third marriage. Also, he committed adultery while leading the impeachment against Bill Clinton for Clinton's adulterous affair.

Gingrich's actions are immoral on multiple levels. First, divorcing and marrying, twice. Second, committing adultery. Third, being a hypocrite by going after another adulterer while not himself resigning. So, do you vote for Gingrich? Your answer will depend on how important you think one's personal life is. I personally don't think one can be ethically sound and vote for Gingrich if you believed Clinton ought to have stepped down after his adulterous affair, and/or you hold marriage to be sacred.

My Concluding Thoughts 
I must say, it is a tough call. I personally can't vote for Gingrich. It is possible that I could vote for Romney, and I could vote for Santorum. Though, I need to be convinced he can handle the press. Sorry Paul, maybe another year.

I believe a Christian does have room to vote for a non-Christian in an American election. I don't think there is a Biblical requirement to vote for a Christian. I say that with hesitancy. I would love to hear people's thoughts on this one. It would be interesting to hear an argument for why Christians ought to vote only for Christians.

This is a tough spot for Christians to be in. With that said, think carefully for you will have to give an account for your vote on judgment day. May God have mercy on us all!

Why Christians Should be Concerned about the Burka Ban

On Monday the burka ban was put into place in France. It is the first European country to do so and is a very controversial subject. This NY Times article shows the dislike of the Burka.

I haven't paid very much attention to the Burka ban until I read this article because it helped me realize why Christians should be concerned about this ban. The title of the article says the ban is a victory for "tolerance." I found that to be very odd since the ban is being intolerant to a way of dress. My question, what's next? Will minarets be banned? (Switzerland.) Why not ban the whole religion? What are the boundary lines for religious practices?

Christians may applaud the burka ban since we perceive Islam to be in opposition to Christianity. I find it to be disconcerting for two reasons. First, we have democracies that claim to give people the freedom to be who they want to be yet this ban is obviously saying you can be anything you want to be, just not wearing a burka. Second, there is a disgust not of just Islam that I sense behind this ban, but a distaste for religion in general. Read the end of the NY Times article:

Secularism is taken seriously in French society... Schools are strictly non-faith, and all public bodies must be free of religious influence. As recently as 2007, a public outcry resulted from the disclosure that a senior government minister had sought informal advice from a Catholic priest on matters of policy."

The force behind this law is not an attempt to promote women's rights but a protection of Secularism. I am not going to go into the very complex reasons for the burka and whether it is the suppression of women's rights. This is a complex discussion because Islamic women are being forced to wear burkas and in western society this is unjust, but some women choose to wear the burka for religious reasons.

I think that part of the reason for the burka ban, though some of it may be for the promotion of women's rights, is to suppress religious practice. We ought to be concerned as Christians about such governmental action because there could be laws like that against Christians. This doesn't mean that I support forcing women to wear burkas or be against the burka ban. Rather, Christians ought to be concerned about the underlying reason for the ban and question whether such action could be taken against Christians.

So Much to Talk About

This has been a very full week so I thought that I would take a shotgun approach to this blog post. Below is a wide survey of the topics I have been a part of lately.

1. Illegal immigration - Arizona Law 1070

At Ethics Bowl we had to prepare a case regarding the infamous illegal immigration law in Arizona. After my research I found this law to be unethical because it invites discrimination. Hence it is an unjust law. Discrimination is inherently unjust, the reason being, it is basing judgment of another off of something they can't change. (Note, I am talking about racial discrimination. I am uncomfortable saying that all forms of discrimination are wrong since we discriminate against federal offenders.) I don't think that the amendment changes the law given the social context of Arizona and the U.S. We have a terrible history when it comes to racial relations with Hispanics. For example, the Reparation Act during the Great Depression.

2. Gender Issues - Men

Why is it that men are passive? They hold a slight majority in the world population in comparison to women. Also, men in the United States hold more powerful positions then women. Why is it that men hold more power then women yet the majority of men are passive? Furthermore, why is it that men are often "attacked" for being passive? There seems to be more proactive dialogue regarding the empowerment of women yet the discussion of men is more often ignored or mis-understood. My thought is that whenever we talk about the empowerment of women, we must talk about the empowerment of men. Who causes all the world's problems? Who fights all the time, who doesn't support their wives, is addicted to pornography, rapes others, encourages women to get abortions and is in prison a lot? Men. The origin of many of the problems with women today are in men. We need to empower men in order to help women.

3. Alvin Plantinga - fear of ideas

Professor Plantinga spoke at Taylor this past week. He is a humble, kind and sharp philosopher. I could talk a lot about some of the things he spoke on. (For instance, he spoke on how naturalism can't explain how our cognitive faculties produce truth-oriented beliefs, why religious pluralism fails to be internally coherent and how miracles are compatible with science.) Something that fascinates me about Plantinga is that he is not scared of any idea. This was an observation by one of my professors. Many Christians do not share this trait. I hope that as I grow I can develop the ability to rationally consider an idea respectfully no matter how odd or strange it is. Why should we be afraid of ideas that are false or could be false? If all truth is God's truth, what do we have to fear?

4. Government Control and Information

At the conference for the Association for Practical and Professional Ethics, I heard a discussion on a new book called, "Mass Surveillance and State Control: The Total Information Awareness Project." It was a very insightful and fun discussion regarding the overwhelming ability of the government to watch our lives through the internet. The author, Elliot Cohen, argues that we must push back before its too late. He was critiqued by three others. I am looking forward to cracking open this book in my spare time. I got it through interlibrary loan. I may dedicate a blog post to this subject once I finish the book.

5. Intellectual Open-mindedness - Dr. Jim Spiegel

My professor, Dr. Jim Spiegel, gave a paper at the same conference regarding intellectual open-mindedness. He attempted to show the connection between humility and open-mindedness, that open-mindedness and humility are closely connected. One thought I had is that because of the issue of "moral luck" we have more of a obligation to have humility and hence open mindedness since our situation in life is not wholly the result of our actions and choices, but other people and our environment.

6. We Lost - Ethics Bowl - Nationals

It was frustrating but we did not get beyond the first round. We beat Dartmouth which was a good feeling since we tied with them two years ago. This time we soundly defeated them. The two cases argued were whether "cybrids" (human embryos that are 99% human and 1% animal.) bring about more benefits then harms and whether it is ethical to debark. Debarking is cutting a dogs vocal cords so their ability to bark is greatly inhibited. On the former, we argued for the negative, that cybrids are unethical and man did sparks fly. All the judges disagreed with us, as well as Dartmouth, but in the end, they were fair judges. (I don't say they were fair because they gave us the win, but because everyone else in the room thought we had won.) On the issue of debarking, I believe we argued for the practice being unethical unless the alternative is killing the dog.

Something that took the bite off the loss was that Montana State, who we lost to, went on to go to the finals where they were controversially (they lost by three points0 beaten by the University of Central Florida.

In spite of losing and no longer being an ethics bowler, I am thankful for these past three years. I have learned so much through ethics bowl. By far, it has been one of the most important activities I have participated in at Taylor.

Why History is Important in Public Education

People wonder what is the value of studying dates and names of dead people. Social studies is put on the back burner of most schools. From what I've heard, the Indiana State Congress will be putting much more emphasis on math and science on their new plans of reforming Indiana education. I find such policy to be a major mistake. And I don't say that just because I am becoming a history teacher.

My defense, of couse, will start with a bit of history. During the mid-20th century there were some scientists who helped Adolf Hitler carry out the mass slaughter of around seven million Jews. One being Dr. Eduard Wirths. He lead the carry out of experiments on humans, many being Jews, that included forced sterilization of women, infecting patients with cancer and other terrible forms of treatment.

You don't want a repeat of the holocaust so don't ever forget that it happened. Also, don't forget that it was educated scientists, politicians and military officials who carried it out. Simply teaching someone math and science will not make people of understanding how they can use their knowledge to benefit others.

You need history to create a moral sphere in people because it is in history that we can look at ourselves and those around us. From that picture, we can then build a home, a community and a nation. Without history, you'll be letting loss people with incredible knowledge but no direction.

Wikileaks and Anonymity

I just finished watching a four part series on youtube.com about wikileaks. I find the topic fascinating on multiple levels. Most definitely one cannot look at the issue in terms of black and white. Wikileaks is not pure evil or pure goodness. My post will be in two parts: an insight into the nature of wikileaks and a short ethical analysis of the ethics.

The Nature of Wikileaks
Wikileaks' foundation has two columns. First, free access to information. This is obvious if anyone who reads about them in the news. Second, it is based on guaranteed anonymity. It is interesting that they want freedom of information but not all information. They want the names of those who leak information to remain unknown. This is to protect those who leak information since what they're doing is breaking the law, and releasing their names would discourage future leaks.

So, Wikileaks is not in favor of releasing ALL information freely to the public. They have to agree that some information must remain secret.

Lastly, information is power because it is knowledge. They believe that knowledge is power. This is a philosophically very important point since this means that information is not neutral. It has value.

The Ethics
As I said before, this is not a black and white issue. I don't think that the activities of wikileaks are ethically coherent. As stated in the documentary, they believe that it is okay to risk the lives of people by exposing information to the world for the sake of keeping public officials accountable. Yet, they believe that the lives of those who leak information should be protected, not exposed to the world, for the sake that they continue to do so.

Why is it that those who break the law and act in secrecy are kept safe while others suffer? For the greater good? What greater good? There are two possible answers:
1. That information be freely given to the world.
2. That public officials are held accountable for their actions.
I find these two answers to be poor.

First, on what authority does wikileaks give that they can keep the identity of those who leak information confidential while exposing the work of public officials? If they are in favor of freedom of information, shouldn't these individuals identities revealed?

Second, in the documentary wikileaks has expressed moral outrage at the actions in Afghanistan and Iraq in the way civilians were treated. Yet, where is the moral outrage of wikileaks jeopardizing people's lives by leaking classified documents? Sure, public officials are embarrassed and its causing diplomatic strain, but who's going to keep wikileaks accountable for their actions? If someone dies because of wikileaks that puts blood on wikileaks hands for their actions.

Conclusion
I do not believe that wikileaks has the moral high ground. They are just as responsible as public officials for their actions. Yet, what they are doing is revealing who people really are? They are giving us the truth. I find that to be good even though its hard to accept the truth many times.

Jesus Doesn't Solve Everything

When I got back on campus this fall, I was catching up with some of my former floor-mates. One of them had spent some time in a country that was full of ethnic/religious conflict. I asked him if he thought there was solution to the problem. His response was. "I don't know, they just need Jesus, you know." I was taken back by the naivety of his comment, but surprised myself in thinking that his statement is not true. Having Jesus does not solve ethnic or religious conflict.

At the time this thought hadn't grown. It wasn't until yesterday in a discussion regarding Islamic tensions in the UK that my thought formed. One of the students in the class discussion argued that if people became Christians, many of the tensions in the UK would be lessened. I then began to realize that I believe this is contrary to the teaching of Jesus.

Some of what Jesus Said
Jesus never states that if you follow him, everything will be okay here on earth. Nor does he say that he has come to solve political and religious turmoil. Instead, he goes to even say the opposite. Matthew 10:34, "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." Jesus was not intending that we bring a sword and cause conflict. He calls us to be peacemakers, but we should not be looking to Christ to solve all our problems.

We are to solve our problems. (To clarify, I don't mean that we need to save ourselves. This is the work of Christ and His Spirit in our lives.) Why else did the Christ leave us with the command, "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you."

Health and Wealth Gospel Critique
Another concern I have with saying that having Jesus will solve problems in society is that it is a version of the "health and wealth gospel." The argument goes, if you believe in Jesus Christ as your savior then things will go well. You will be healthy and wealthy. When something goes wrong it's because you've sinned and need to repent. This same argument is being applied when people say that "they just need Jesus to resolve this conflict." No, that is not true.

Jesus did not say that if you follow him everything will go well. Look at what he tells Peter in John 21. Jesus tells Peter that he is going to go where he doesn't want to go. Jesus is predicting the kind of death Peter will suffer.

Critique from History
Lastly, this argument is historically problematic. There have been many Christians, "Bible believing Christians" who have helped stir up conflict or started conflict. (Look at the Great Awakening and trace the history of all the different protestant denominations.) In some cases, the conflict has been between Christians. (Ireland, 30 years war, the Crusades just to name a few.) It's clear from history that having Jesus in your heart does not mean political problems or solved.

I have found myself attempting to sweep aside the "dark-side" of Christian history. I want my history to be a good history, full of exciting successes and great examples of how to be a good Christian. Sadly, this is not true. Christianity has a tough and rough history. the visible church has committed genocide (both Protest and Roman Catholic. I don't know about the Orthodox church.), been racist and has not expressed the love of Jesus. And this is a part of my history as a Christian.

Conclusion
This is not to say that being a Christian doesn't help resolve conflict. One can point out many examples of individuals and groups who have protested genocide and actively reached out to oppressed people. (Civil Rights movement was started by Christians and Martin Luther King jr. was a pastor.) It's vital to remember both the good and bad in our history.

Lastly, being a Christian provides a point of reference which people can agree upon, but it's not the whole answer to resolving political, ethnic or religious conflicts. For instance, the teachings of Jesus Christ have been helpful (I would argue vital.) in the process of reconciliation in Rwanda. Certainly being a Christian can help, but simply saying "all they need is Jesus" is not sufficient and contrary to what Jesus commanded us. Christ looks to us as servants of his kingdom to resolve conflicts. We can't just say, let Jesus do it because he empowered us to do His work.

Burning the Quran vs. Building a Mosque in Downtown Manhatten

Picture this: angry Muslims in the Middle East burning Americans flags. Angry Americans protesting in the streets of downtown NYC.

In reflecting on the past couple of weeks regarding the mosque controversy and Koran burning controversy, I find it interesting that both sides are angry enough to burn each others sacred stuff. Think of: guy burns the Koran in NYC. Muslims burning the American Flag.

There is a major difference between the American flag and the Koran. The former is only a couple hundred years in the making and has gone many changes. The latter is really old, is a religious text and some people are willing to kill others to protect it.

Yet, note the causal chain. A group of Muslims are trying to do something that happens offends many Americans (and they're acting in their Constitutional right.) An American is now offending ALL Muslims (and he's acting in his Constitutional right.) This has resulted in more Muslims offending Americans by burning our flag. When and where does it end?

I think that these three causally connected events have helped hurt the Western/Muslim relation. I also believe that it is going to get worse.

A 2nd Look at NYC Mosque

A couple of weeks ago I wrote a blog post on the building of a mosque in NYC, a couple of blocks near ground zero. I argued that the government has no constitutional standing to prohibiting such a building. I also argued that the argument for prohibiting the construction of the mosque because it presents a security risk fails. In this post I will argue that it is unethical for the Muslims to choose to build their mosque in NYC.

Principle of Non-maleficence
This principle states that we ought to act in ways that do not bring needless harm to individuals and society. There is an argument that building a mosque in downtown NYC brings unnecessary harm.

First, it is not necessary that they build a mosque in that location. Out of kindness towards others, they could instead build just the student center. Furthermore, they bought the building post-9/11. This revokes the claim that they need to build there since it would be very expensive to buy somewhere else.

Second, people don't just dis-like having a mosque being built in NYC, it really bothers them. Thousands have taken to the street in protest and many claim offense since it is near ground zero, sacred ground. The harm occurs in building a religious building near a sacred site that was tragically created by people of that same religion. It is the same as the Japanese attempting to build a museum for WWII soldiers next to the Pearl Harbor Memorial or building a German cultural center next to a Holocaust site. Hence, people are upset.

Argument from Virtue
By moving the mosque to a different location the builders would be acting virtuously. Specifically they would be respectful. Exemplifying these virtues would do much to help the relationship between Islam and the United States.
-This is not to say the U.S. exemplifies these virtues.

The builders would be respectful by not building the mosque. It would express an understanding of people's views, a consideration of how they feel and in an attempt to express their concern for what has happened in this country. (I think that this last point is very important. If the Islam does not reach out to the United States in love and forgiveness then there will never be reconciliation.)

Conclusion
I believe that it is unethical for the Muslims to build a mosque in downtown NYC. They would be exemplifying the virtue of respect by not building and the principle of non-maleficence is my argument.

What is the Issue of Building a Mosque in NYC

Plenty many say. Now, it is important to realize that if Muslims wanted to build a mosque in Indianapolis, San Francisco or Kansas City there wouldn't be a problem. They have the right to build a religious institution on private property. No one with any sense of the constitution would argue against that.

The Issue
So the issue with NYC is different. It's not the fact that they want to build a religious institution rather it is where they want to build it and what religion this building will represent. It will represent the religion that several well-educated men died for when they murdered thousands of people on 9/11. People don't want a mosque to be build near the site of the Twin Towers because they believe that it will be defamation to that site. So they want the government to prohibit it.

Now, if the government prohibits building this mosque, they will be breaking the constitution so they can't prohibit the building of a mosque based on its religion. Anyone who argues that the government should prohibit a mosque being built in NYC needs to rethink their argument. The government simply cannot do that. Mayor Michael Bloomberg sums it up nicely:

“The simple fact is, this building is private property, and the owners have a right to use the building as a house of worship, and the government has no right whatsoever to deny that right. And if it were tried, the courts would almost certainly strike it down as a violation of the U.S. Constitution."

Another Argument
A better argument I have heard for denying the right to build a mosque in NYC is that it creates a national security issue. Yet, I don't know what the basis for this is. The closest piece of evidence I can find in the 10 minutes of research I have committed to this project is that the leader of the project to build the mosque is Feisal Abdul Rauf. He is a moderate Muslim who is attempting to bridge peace between the West and Islam. Yet, he doesn't thing HAMAS is a terrorist group. He condemned 9/11. Yet, he said that the United States had this "crime" coming to her since we have done a poor job in our relation with the Islamic world.

This doesn't make Feisal Abdul Rauf a terrorist. Rather, he views HAMAS differently then the U.S. government and sees that the crime of 9/11 is a consequence of our behavior with Islam. This does not mean he is a terrorist or has connections with terrorists.

Besides lacking evidence, this argument also lacks coherency. How will building a mosque be a threat in NYC? That doesn't make very much sense to me. Why would a terrorist organization use a mosque as a base of operation when any building will do? Furthermore, using a mosque only puts them in a more prominent position, the opposite of what you want to do when you're attempting to avoid detection.

Lastly, the United States has had poor relationships with Islam. Will allowing the building of the mosque improve relationships? Possibly, but not allowing it to be built will certainly hurt it.

Summary
The United State government cannot prohibit the building of a mosque in downtown Manhatten because it would be breaching the constitution. Arguing that building a mosque would present a national security risk lacks evidence to support its claim and lacks coherency.

Irrational Protest

In Oakland, Cal. riots occurred because of a jury's decision to not convict an officer of murder for killing an unarmed African American. The officer claimed that he accidentally pulled his gun instead of his taser, shooting the man. The jury convicted him of involuntary manslaughter. (Basically saying that his "mistake" was so bad that it counts as a crime.)

In response, many rioted in Oakland, breaking the law themselves, as a protest to the jury's decision. I find this irrational on a couple of levels.

First, a jury, a group of citizens and the rioters equals, gave the sentence. There were groups who peacefully protested this decision yet I'm not sure why they would want to protest what a jury decided because that jury, I assume, was made up of people of them.

Second, those who rioted acted in the name of the victim. They broke the law as a way of protesting against one who they believe broke the law. If they are in favor of the law being handed out, why go break what you're trying to uphold?

Lastly, what good is going to come of this? I don't know many riots that have resulted in better governments, better societies or a happy people. I know approximately 50 people were arrested. They're probably not very happy.

Though it may appear from our view that the officer should be convicted of murder, we need to be careful to weigh our opinions carefully. A carefully weighed opinion means you spend careful time looking at the matter (perhaps six hours like the jury did), and when you come to a conclusion, don't act in a way that warrants arrest. (Like that officer.)