Thursday, November 19, 2009

What Is the Alternative to Ideology?

What is the alternative to ideology? You know what I am getting at, right? I mean, you've heard this accusation thrown around that the other side is, "motivated by ideology," as if that were some kind of sin, right? But why is that any kind of surprise? What would you be motivated by if not an ideology?

I can only think of a few possibilities that might be offered as serious alternatives.

Pragmatism: This is not a motivation for anything. This is a way of getting stuff done. If someone says they are just being pragmatic it is because they have not admitted what is motivating them yet.

Relativism: This is an ideology

Objective Truth: This is also an ideology. In fact, searching for and adhering to the objective truth is the “ideology” that motivates me. I particularly like the objective truth and I like the fact that there is an objective truth and that it is both true and objective. Of course, objective truth is kind of hard to swallow for many people since it only allows for one interpretation of reality. Relativism is much, much safer. I particularly like the fact that nothing both is and is not at the same time and in the same respect. But many people can’t handle that. They want things to be open to multiple interpretations. They want you to have your truth while they keep theirs… as long as they can push you around. Of course, if your truth is not what they like, they will do their best to stomp you out. But we will save that discussion for another day.

Tuesday, October 27, 2009


This is a test


Monday, October 12, 2009

Require Congressmen and Senators to take the same health care plan that they would force on us!

From an email my sister sent me:

On Tuesday, the Senate health committee voted 12-11 in favor of a two-page amendment, courtesy of Republican Tom Coburn which would require all Members of Congress and their staff members to enroll in any new government-run health plan.

Congressman John Fleming has proposed an amendment that would require Congressmen and Senators to take the same health care plan that they would force on us. (Under proposed legislation they are exempt.)

Congressman Fleming is encouraging people to go to his Website and sign his petition.  The process is very simple.  I have done just that at: .
Senator Coburn and Congressman Fleming are both physicians.

Regardless of your political beliefs, it sure seems reasonable that Congress should have exactly the same medical coverage that they impose on the rest of us.

Please urge as many people as you can to do the same!

 Seems like a great idea to me.

Thursday, October 8, 2009

Being Good vs Having Fun

This is a false dilemma. If you hang out with people who reject all limitations of morality and law it quickly becomes apparent how little fun they actually have. On the other hand there are groups of people who are very strict about morality and are extremely bitter and cranky. However, I hang out with my friends. We live by a very lofty standard of morality and have so much fun it seems like there should be a law against it! You would think these restrictions of morality would hamper us and make it to where we can't have as much fun but in the end they don't. It seems crazy but it actually lets you have more fun and be more alive and free if you choose to live with high standards. It is amazing how free you actually become.

Thursday, October 1, 2009

How about going after the judges and lawyers?

 Abortion support falls sharply, new research finds:

So, most people in the USA are for protecting the lives of unborn babies. In fact, polling is indicating that support among US criticizes for killing unborn babies is actually falling right now. This is good news. However, this will not change the law. This will not change the legal system that led to such heinous laws. Here is something that could lead to change:

'Factor' confronts negligent judge|judge

How about changing the legal system so that it no longer protects the killers of unborn babies? How about going after the judges and lawyers who messed our legal system in the first place?

Tuesday, September 8, 2009

When I Die

The funeral of Ted Kennedy and some other things that have happened in my life recently have made me stop and think. So I write this to my family, friends, and all those who care about me. Please, please, when I die, do not canonize me! Pray for me. I will, at that time, more than ever, need your prayers. If, by some stretch of the imagination, you imagine me to be a new saint in heaven on that day I pray to God you will stop and reflect on what I am telling you now. It is not true! You don't know that! I am not calling myself a monster. I am not suggesting that I have done horrible things, that there are skeletons hiding in my closet. But I am not a saint. I will need prayers. And on the day I die the worst possible betrayal that anybody could come up with is to assume that I am in heaven. Instead, pray with all your heart that I might be. Offer up that one last prayer, sacrifice, or mass that I might get that one last grace that I needed to slip through the door. Who knows? Maybe it will be that one last Hail Mary or Miserere that you pray for me that helps me retroactively to avoid mortal sin and die in a state of grace.

Kennedy's Funeral

So, the Cardinal of Boston has been getting some flak for attending the funeral of Ted Kennedy. I read his defense and justification for participating in this public spectacle. This whole situation makes me stop and think. What is going through someone's head when they get themselves into such a situation? Was he thinking, "What could I possibly do in this situation to promote the truth, the Catholic position, and advocate as effectively as possible for that position?"

The Cardinal's blog speaks for itself. Even just looking at the pictures you can tell that this funeral had a lot of politics behind it. Look and the wealth. Look at the star-studded event.

I don't think it would hurt if the Cardinal were to reflect more carefully on the implications of his actions before hand. The Kennedy funeral is not the first time this the Archdiocese of Boston has demonstrated a lack of zeal on behalf of the unborn and Catholic teaching. The last time the Archdiocese of Boston came to my attention it was working on merging its health care facilities with a group that supports abortion and contraception.

Maybe next time there is an opportunity to advocate on behalf of the poorest and most defenseless in our society the Archdiocese of Boston will take that opportunity seriously. I pray to the Lord that it will.

Here is another very good article on this funeral.

Friday, August 28, 2009

Are you only comfortable with violence if it is behind someone else's closed doors?

Protests to focus on doctor who performed 60,000 abortions

I know some people are not comfortable with violence. I myself do not believe that an evil means should ever be used to bring about a good end. However, it makes me wonder how many people are comfortable with this kind of violence because it happens behind the closed doors of an abortion clinic. Are you only comfortable with violence if it is behind someone else's closed doors? Safely out of the streets?

Too Religious

Court says homeschooled girl is too religious and therefore needs to go to public school:

My question is what is going to happen to this judge? Are there no consequences for him? Shouldn't there be?

Thursday, August 27, 2009

Women are objects

Of course, this is not what I believe but it is an assumption that most people in the United States seem to live under. Although it is easy to single out women, they also believe this about men too. Men are objects. Women are objects. They can be used. Thrown away. Like a horse. Or a paper towel. After all, we are just a bunch of molecules (or that is an excuse we use).

To be continued.

Friday, June 12, 2009

Hypothetical interview with C.S. Lewis - on tolerance

Just found this great article:

Hypothetical interview with C.S. Lewis - on tolerance

"I believe that we are called to love, not merely tolerate, our neighbors. This includes our neighbors that we especially disagree with. Tolerance, in the proper sense, the Christian sense, means that we love our enemies even. Enemies of the truth, God’s enemies, as well as our own. But this love for them never implies that we pretend that we agree with them. To the contrary, if we believe in absolute truth (as Christianity calls us to), the most loving thing we can do for our enemies is to attempt, with love, to dissuade them from believing their errors. A sentimental tolerance that says, “I’ll let my friends believe whatever makes them happy—its’ none of my business anyway,” is not the kind of love that Christ envisioned when he told his disciples to rebuke those who sinned against them. Every rebuke presupposes an appeal to absolute truth. If I rebuke my neighbor for hurting me, I’m saying that what they did was really wrong, not simply that I didn’t like it. True tolerance means loving people, but it also means loving the truth. It means loving people enough to tell them the truth, even when they don’t wish to hear it."

Thursday, May 21, 2009

Winners and Losers

In our world of modern relativism the winners are politicians and the losers are philosophers. I recently came across this quote, “To ask an indelicate, pre-modern question: is this true?” The original sophists who Plato fought against (and prevailed, in the long run) were politicians. It was useful for them to play fast and loose with the terms they used because they could manipulate a situation to fit their wishes. As a politician, if you can manipulate people it makes for better PR, better campaigns, etc. However, as a philosopher, if you can no longer ask, “Is this true?” there is no longer any point to philosophizing. As a philosopher, the ability to manipulate people or situations for the sake of PR, campaigns, power… holds no appeal. This is precisely the difference between a philosopher (lover of wisdom) and sophist (Plato’s sarcastic name, wise, for the politicians of his day). So the dictatorship of relativism that has taken our world firmly in its iron grip plays perfectly into the hands of politicians and leaves philosophers out in the cold.

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Should Stupid Opinions be Tolerated?

I, for my part, do not think stupid opinions should be tolerated. I think the people who have stupid opinions should be tolerated but their stupid opinions should be discarded and disregarded. The person has value. The person should always be respected and tolerated because of the dignity that is inherent in every human being. That can never be compromised. Opinions only have value in so far as they represent the truth. If an opinion is false or silly it should not be respected in so far as it is false or silly. If it contains some grain of truth it should only be recognized for the grain of truth that it has.

Take for example the case of Miss USA runner up Carrie Prejean. One side of this debate has a legitimate truth to defend and the other side does not. One side is defending a falsehood and promoting a falsehood whereas the other side is defending and promoting the truth. So Carrie is right in her "opinion" about marriage, but she is wrong that every "opinion" should be respected and tolerated.