Some Real Action

In the October issue of First Things, Pierre Manent has an article titled Human Unity Real and Imagined.  He argues the European Project is a manifestation of Auguste Comte’s ‘Religion of humanity’ which does not constitute a real community of action.  It is not clear why he thinks this, but based upon similar criticisms others have made, it is either because of the EU’s ‘democratic deficit’ or its abstract understanding of human nature.  He says the Catholic Church is “the only real universal community.”

At the same time, he also thinks the origins of this European project are Catholic, not secular: “It was thus not by chance that the first and decisive impulses for the European project came from Catholic statesmen.  Robert Shuman, Konrad Adenauer, and Alcide De Gasperi”  Moreover, Manent is not against international institutions altogether.  He believes they can be useful instruments for the sake of cooperation between nations.

The stronger version of the Internationalist argument is still being made in Catholic circles today. Our current Philosopher-Pope, as Peter likes to call him, famously said in Caritas in Veritate that there is an “urgent need of a true world political authority” and the UN should be reformed in such a way that it had “real teeth.”   Pope Benedict does not seem as critical as Manent about European or even International unity.
It would be interesting to read Manent’s take on this encyclical, especially since it was these very passages which generated a lot of discussion.   Anyone know if he has written about it?

What we have in common

Front Porcher Patrick Deneen criticizes the critics of the HHS mandate for using the “dominant privatistic language of liberalism.” He agrees this is the prudent strategy, but believes it masks the deeper divide between Catholic and Modern political thought in general. Such a tactic will allow the critics to win the battle, but lose the war because it concedes the Modern outlook. For example, to talk about religious liberty is to presuppose Modern concepts such as the public v. private sectors and individualism.

Deneen’s discussion resembles Leo Strauss’s distinction between the Ancients and Moderns on how society should be organized: “Regime means that whole, which we today are in the habit of viewing primarily in a fragmentized form…” The Ancients portrayed society as organic, while Moderns artificially divided it into parts like public v. private, church v. state, and individual v. society. Deneen takes this quarrel between the Ancients and the Moderns and replaces the Classical view with the Catholic view: “Liberalism [Modernism] was fundamentally animated by a deep philosophical and theological objection to Catholicism – and, until recent times, vice-versa.”

Yet the Catholic view might have more in common with the Modern view than Deneen suggests. For example, the fragmentation Strauss attributes to the Moderns can be traced back to a pre-modern thinker, Augustine. He taught Christians are citizens of two kingdoms, the City of God and the City of Man. Such a teaching conflicts with the holism of the Classical Regime and underlies the current tension between religious liberty and the HHS Mandate. Augustine writes, “This heavenly city, then, while it sojourns on earth, calls citizens out of all nations, and gathers together a society of pilgrims of all languages, not scrupling about diversities in the manners, laws, and institutions whereby earthly peace is secured and maintained, but recognizing that, however various these are, they all tend to one and the same end of earthly peace. It therefore is so far from rescinding and abolishing these diversities, that it even preserves and adopts them, so long only as no hindrance to the worship of the one supreme and true God is thus introduced. [emphasis mine]” If a citizen’s duties to his state come into conflict with his duties to God, then he cannot obey both masters but will have to choose one.

Another idea which brings Catholics and Moderns together is the person or individual. The Ancients saw the individual as a part of a whole, or as Peter likes to say, city fodder. Catholics and Moderns, on the other hand, agree that every human being is unique and irreplaceable. The disagreement between the two is over sovereignty. The Modern believes in ‘sovereign selves’ while the Catholic locates sovereignty in God. The Modern notion of individual autonomy is an attenuated or thinner version of the Christian conception of the dignity of the human person. It is an attempt to safeguard individual rights without making any grand claims about his place in the Cosmos. Thus both sides believe in religious liberty, but disagree about its purpose. Regardless, it shows the critics’ adoption of religious liberty language is not simply a prudential move, but a principled one as well.

Honor and Humility in the life of Jeremy Lin

Jeremy Lin, the Harvard educated, Asian-American, basketball phenom who makes public proclamations about his Christian faith, is all the rage right now. There are a variety of questions his success raises, yet surely the most unique (or esoteric) analysis must go to David Brooks who takes a Straussian spin on the New York Knicks point guard. In yesterday’s Op-Ed, Brooks uses Lin’s sudden fame as an opportunity to discuss the possible tension between Greek Magnanimity and Biblical humility:

“The modern sports hero is competitive and ambitious. (Let’s say he’s a man, though these traits apply to female athletes as well). He is theatrical. He puts himself on display. He is assertive, proud and intimidating. He makes himself the center of attention when the game is on the line. His identity is built around his prowess. His achievement is measured by how much he can elicit the admiration of other people — the roar of the crowd and the respect of ESPN….The religious ethos is about redemption, self-abnegation and surrender to God...The odds are that Lin will never figure it out because the two moral universes are not reconcilable.”

Brooks doesn’t buy Lin’s argument that he is motivated to excel for the sake of God’s glory, but the Christian synthesis of magnanimity and humility has a long pedigree which goes back as far as Aquinas. Either way, it should be a good topic for conversation when you’re having friends over for the Knicks game.

Expanding the Secular Square

There has been a lot of thoughtful commentary on the HHS Mandate the last couple of weeks. Ross Douthat and Yuval Levin argue that Obama levels the ‘little platoons’ of civil society in favor of expanding the power of the state. Here is Levin:

“In this arena, as in a great many others, the administration is clearly determined to see civil society as merely an extension of the state, and to clear out civil society—clearing out the mediating layers between the individual and the state—when it seems to stand in the way of achieving the president’s agenda. The idea is to leave as few non-individual players as possible in the private sphere, and to turn those few that are left into agents of the government.”

Our Tea Party and Libertarian friends will see this as further evidence of Big Gov’t getting bigger, and they’re right, but it important to note the President thinks of himself as the true champion of individualism. The mandate is in the service of freeing the individual from her biological bonds. The proper distinction here is not individual v. state, but the state v. intermediary institutions.

David Brooks says the plurality of the little platoons is being replaced by the uniformity of technocratic administration, a topic dear to our Ivan the K.

On a different note, Carson Holloway says the HHS mandate reveals the logic of liberalism as a creeping and creepy secularism: “…for an older generation of liberals religion had to be kept private in the sense that it could not try to control the government for its own distinctively religious purposes. A more ambitious set of liberals then came to claim that religion had to be private in the sense that religious believers should not bring their moral convictions to the political and legislative process. Now, much more ambitious liberals hold that religion must be private in the extreme sense that it must not be allowed to engage, in its own way, with the society at large. Religious institutions may enter into and interact with society, but only if they leave their religiosity behind in doing so.”

Jefferson’s famous “Wall of Separation between Church and State” has been used to prevent the influence of religious belief on public policy. Now that wall is being further expanded to separate belief from action. Feeding the hungry, healing the sick, and instructing the ignorant were once considered Works of Mercy and thus matters for the private sphere. In the latest stage of liberalism, such actions must conform to secular standards of morality as dictated by the state. The next step in the privatization of religion is to make it a matter of the mind and nothing more. And in this particular case that means keeping Catholics in the closet.

Duncan Jones on the Military or Industrial Complex

Duncan Jones’ two films, Moon and Source Code, deal with the Military and Industry, but not necessarily the Military-Industrial Complex. Thematically, the films are similar: Both address collective v. individual dichotomy and examine the dark side of biotechnology.

The first theme could resonate with a couple of different groups. Lockeans and Christians would be concerned for the employee/soldier against the corporation/military. Both cite the Declaration of Independence, albeit different parts, to defend the individual against the collective. Lockeans reference each individual having “certain inalienable rights.” Christians like to remind Lockeans of the source of those rights: “Creator” or “nature’s God.” Lockeans are into AUTONOMY or the sovereign individual while Christians are into DIGNITY because every human person (including clones) is an Imago Dei.

The Lockean account is clearly the more popular view today; nevertheless, it might not be able to counter a growing alternative view, which ironically finds its roots in Locke: PRODUCTIVITY. The Lockean emphasis on maximizing productivity (or property as Locke would say) pushes the the corporation in Moon to suppress the rights of particular individuals.

Moreover, Peter Lawler has argued that Lockeans would have trouble defending human nature from the biotech enthusiasts. If Locke thinks Nature is worthless and value is simply the result of human labor (Productivity), then why is human nature exempt from this critique? Why shouldn't we play God and redesign human nature in order to improve our profit margins or save a city from ruin?

Today, Lockeans do not bother to defend Autonomy because it is their starting premise. And that is fine for the moment since everyone is willing to accept it. But Jones’ films suggest Autonomy will be called into question when it begins to come into conflict with the bottom line or the greater good.

Don't count on it

*Plot spoilers below

The Coen Brothers latest film has generated a lot of discussion about its meaning. Some see it as religious, others as ‘flirting with nihilism’, and yet another as religious nihilism-whatever that means.

The heroine of the story, Mattie Ross opens the film with the following line: “You must pay for everything in this world one way and another. There is nothing free with the exception of God’s grace.” The Postmodernist Stanley Fish explains how this can be read in two different ways: “But free can bear two readings — distributed freely, just come and pick it up; or distributed in a way that exhibits no discernible pattern. In one reading grace is given to anyone and everyone; in the other it is given only to those whom God chooses for reasons that remain mysterious.”

He continues to explain that the latter reading is the correct one: “A third sentence, left out of the film but implied by its dramaturgy, tells us that the latter reading is the right one: “You cannot earn that [grace] or deserve it.” ….You can’t add up a person’s deeds — so many good one and so many bad ones — and on the basis of the column totals put him on the grace-receiving side (you can’t earn it); and you can’t reason from what happens to someone to how he stands in God’s eyes (you can’t deserve it).”

This sits nicely with a postmodern view of the world in which the cosmos displays no observable pattern. But it also is an expression of Calvinist theology: God picks the winners and losers in this life independent of our merits. Max Weber believed this theology was the underlying cause of the Protestant Work Ethic. Since there was no discernible pattern of who was and was not saved, Protestants unconsciously worked hard to prove to themselves that God had blessed/saved them. The fruits of their labor were the evidence that they were the elect.

This same dynamic is at work in the film. Mattie wants to see her father avenged. The killer has escaped and no one is lifting a finger about it. The opening shot gives us the first half of a Scripture verse: Proverbs 28:1: "The wicked flee when none pursueth . . ."

Mattie has to take the matter into her own hands. The 2^nd half of the Scripture verse, which the Coens leave out, reads ". . . but the righteous are as bold as a lion."

She could leave the matter to God, but there is no guarantee that divine rewards and punishments correspond to a rational pattern. Mattie calls this a “hard doctrine” in the novel which the film is based upon.

Mattie undergoes the most severe trials, and ultimately loses an arm, in her quest to achieve justice. A Theology which was developed in order to prioritize the Divine will over the Human will ends up encouraging human willfulness. Ironic, indeed.

Modernizing Muslims

As Egypt moves away from Mubarak’s dictatorship to a democracy (hopefully), I am reminded of this conversation between Peter Robinson and Dinesh D’Souza about what America’s. role should be in the Middle East:

Title: The Value of a Liberal Education (16:00 in the video above)

Peter Robinson: Dinesh D'Souza's new book, which is entitled, What's so Great About America--proposition one--Dinesh, I'm going to quote, you explain briefly what you mean, and then we'll ask for a comment. Proposition one of two: "America's goal is to turn Muslim fundamentalists into classical liberals." What do you mean by that?

Dinesh D'Souza: The idea of liberalism is the idea of consent. You can't force your religion on somebody else by beating it into them. Islam has ruled historically by the sword. That's how the Islamic empire was established. Osama Bin Laden has said confidently that that is a legitimate way of doing business in the Islamic world. I'm saying that our long-term goal is not just to root out the Al Qaeda terrorists; we have to somehow convert the Islamic fundamentalists. We don't want to stop them being Muslims of course, but we want them to be Muslims in the liberal way. And by that I mean look at the way Christianity has changed. In the time of the Crusades, Christians were very happy to shove their religion down somebody else's throat, to impose it by force. They thought they were doing the other people a favor. But Christianity has changed so that today both in the Catholic and the Protestant world there's a widespread understanding that you have to convince people, you have to appeal to freedom and to consent. That's the missing idea.

Peter Robinson: And we do this how? We do this how?

Dinesh D'Souza: Well we have to do it through education. We have to do it in part by destroying hostile regimes that have become Jihad factories, indoctrinating young people in these vicious ideas of totalitarianism. In part we have to work with friendly governments that are also doing the same thing.

This is Bush’s Freedom Agenda in a nutshell. Thomas Madden, in his book Empires of Trust, explains how the Romans had to deal with a similar problem when it came to the ‘Sicarrri’, a group of Jewish terrorists during the Roman Empire: “They had to change the religion itself. Judaism was changed. It became a faith, not a kingdom; a system of beliefs, not a government.” (286).

Madden continues to say that this is what must happen to Islam too: “Islam must change. Islam must become-as it has already become for millions of Muslims worldwide-a personal faith, not a system of government.” (287-288)

And like D’Souza, he points out that this is exactly what the Enlightenment project did to Christianity: “Even the Catholic Church, which gave birth to the modern world, took several centuries to adapt to it. But in the end crusades, inquisitions, and the papal monarchy were left behind because, although they made sense in the medieval world, they had no place in the modern.” (287)

While Freedom Agenda is appealing, it is an open question whether defanging a religion is actually an attempt to kill it altogether. Aren’t modernized Christians really just ‘practical atheists’? In other words, studies show the decline of religious practice in modern countries such as Europe and America. If this is what it means to be a ‘modern’, it is hard to see why any serious Muslim would be interested. An endorsement of the Freedom Agenda would require the following caveat then:

The outcome depends on the willingness of the West and of international agencies to reconsider the values and assumptions that drive globalization, and the sort of culture it favors as a consequence. The acid test will be the capacity of globalization to take religion seriously. The faith at the center of people’s lives in non-Western cultures has to be respected and engaged so that the extension of freedom and prosperity that globalization seeks can be realized through genuine participation.

The real question is whether the West can overcome its secularist bias to achieve this. Leaving room at the center of the culture “for the experience of faith and the interior life” does not mean pandering to theocracy. Truth and freedom is not an either/or proposition. Democracy needs to rediscover this, and globalization needs to learn it. For the fatal conceit is not that freedom can succeed against religion, but that it can do so without it.

Okay with Amnesty

In regards to the illegal immigration issue, a powerful argument against Amnesty is its a failure to enforce Justice or the Rule of Law. For those people who claim to be on the side of “law and order” such an objection poses serious difficulties. “Letting this one slide” appears to make a mockery of the law.

Fortunately, Carson Holloway recently wrote an article defending Amnesty by comparing it to the power of pardon. Strict Justice requires that we follow the Rule of Law, but there could be emergency cases in which one should not do so. The Constitution’s power of pardon is a recognition of this reality and Holloway argues the same logic applies to Amnesty. Whether the state should grant pardon or Amnesty in a particular case is a prudential call, but that does not mean it is a matter of justice. Someone may be imprudent, but that does not make him unjust.

Strict Justice, left to itself, can be cruel; it has to be sweetened by Mercy. Both Amnesty and Pardon has to be granted only in particular times and places so Justice can retain its force. If administered indiscriminately or absolutely, Mercy loses its flavor and degenerates into a false compassion. For that reason, it is a matter of prudence or a judgment call. Or to put the matter in terms of CST (Catholic Social Teaching), since it is not a matter of principle, the issue has to be resolved by weighing proportionate reasons.

And in the particular case we’re dealing with at the moment, the difficulty of deporting MILLIONS of Illegal Immigrants, the significant political costs involved, and the understandable reasons why immigrants break the law to come here, it seems the prudential thing to do would be to grant amnesty.

You say you want a Revolution

In this video, D’Souza explains Bush’s Freedom Agenda: Prior to the War on Terror, there were two political models in the Middle East: Islamic Tyranny (Iran) and Secular Tyranny (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan). Being Muslim, it is not surprising then that Arabs find the first model more appealing. Bush’s attempt, which D’Souza admits he failed at, was to place a third option on the table, Muslim Democracy. The hope was this would inspire a democratic revolution throughout the Middle East.

Fast forward to the present. The Green (Iran), Jasmine (Tunisia), and Lotus (Egypt) Revolutions have occurred or are underway. Whether Bush gets credit for these can be debated another day. What is interesting at the moment is what kind of Revolution these latter two will be (Iran’s has been put on hold for the moment). D’Souza points out that Bush was not the only one who wanted to start a domino effect in the Middle East. The goal of Fundamentalist Muslims has been to export the Iranian Revolution to other countries. This has been difficult in the past because of the uniqueness of Iran (Shiite not Sunni, Persian not Arab). What remains to be seen is whether these Revolutions will be Islamic in a democratic or despotic way. The United States and the Muslim Brotherhood will be watching to see which direction the chips fall.

Wage Slave by Day, Gentleman by Night

In the debate between Liberal and Practical Arts (Business, Science, Engineering), the Tocquevillian position would be to see truth and error on both sides.

In an Aristocracy, Liberal Arts was originally an education for a “Free” man. Free meant being free from work. Of course, that is because others did the work for him.

In a Democracy, the hereditary aristocracy is abolished so that commoners would be free. But all that really means is we all have to work now. Even the supposed natural aristocracy of the Americans (Gates, Buffet, etc.) have to work long, hard hours too. Americans of all stripes must labor to feed, shelter and clothe their bodies. Majoring in a trade then is necessary.

But we’re more than just bodies. And so thinking about how to acquire food, shelter, and clothing for our family, while necessary, is insufficient. We also have to think hard about politics, culture, and religion too. As that jobless Socrates once said, “The point is not to live, but live well.” Which means we have to study the Liberal Arts. Basics, the first two years of college, have been watered down in a variety of ways: AP Tests, Dual Credit, and substitute courses (Business Ethics can replace the Introduction to Philosophy class). Revitalizing those courses coupled with lifetime learning ought to do the trick. Indeed, the popularity of businesses like The Teaching Company reveal that man cannot live by bread alone.

Be very afraid...

That is the underlying subtext of Mark Lilla’s piece titled “Reading Strauss in Beijing” in the New Republic. Lilla says many of his Chinese Graduate Students are interested in reading Leo Strauss and Carl Schmitt. They want to study these philosophers so they can implement these ideas in China. Unfortunately, Strauss and Schmitt were critical of modern ideas we all take for granted today e.g. democracy, separation of church and state, free markets etc. He implies these thinkers were fascist or at least had fascist sympathies. Modern Liberals should put them in the ‘scary’ category along with Neocon (Bush’s) foreign policy and the Medieval Catholic Church.

A minor point in the article is that Strauss was interested in Jewish and Islamic political philosophy, but not Christian. Lilla does not explain why but I think it is because Christianity makes a distinction between church and state (Render unto Caesar...) which is useless to Strauss who wants to make religion a means to a political end. Judaism and Islam are more amenable to civil religion than Christianity. If Strauss was a fascist, then Christians would not be his natural allies.

What B16 said (or didn’t say)

Media outlets have been abuzz that Pope Benedict has revised the Catholic Church’s teaching on contraception by allowing it certain, extreme cases.

A closer look at the interview reveals he has done no such thing:

Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?

She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.

The first part of his answer makes clear that he still sees the act as objectively disordered. His point is that while two acts might both be intrinsically evil, they are not equally so. If an agent decided to commit the lesser evil, then this would be a step in the right direction; nevertheless, it is still immoral.

Janet Smith’s bank heist analogy illustrates this point well:

If someone was going to rob a bank and was determined to use a gun, it would better for that person to use a gun that had no bullets in it. It would reduce the likelihood of fatal injuries. But it is not the task of the Church to instruct potential bank robbers how to rob banks more safely and certainly not the task of the Church to support programs of providing potential bank robbers with guns that could not use bullets. Nonetheless, the intent of a bank robber to rob a bank in a way that is safer for the employees and customers of the bank may indicate an element of moral responsibility that could be a step towards eventual understanding of the immorality of bank robbing.

Leo Strauss criticized Thomas Aquinas (and by logical extension, the Catholic Church) for supporting fixed moral principles. He believed such norms were too rigid and impractical for the messy, complicated world of human affairs. Pope Benedict's nuanced comments on contraception show an awareness of the need for principles which are BOTH fixed and flexible.

Glenn Beck’s Rally, the 9/11 Mosque, and the ties that bind.

We can see the Enlightenment assumptions underlying the American Right and Left in two events from last month: Glen Beck’s Restoring Honor Rally and debate over the 9/11 Mosque.

Here is Harvey Mansfield on the ‘Restore Honor’ Rally:

“Glenn Beck is a kind of libertarian, and he has made a fair amount of money. But he rejects the private life that libertarians seem to recommend. He goes public with his distrust of everything public and thus requires libertarians to march behind patriotism, religion, and honor—all things not in your immediate self-interest.”

Usually, Libertarians want to reject loyalties to country or God and replace it with enlightened self-interest. Their belief is these traditional loyalties are merely irrational prejudices and so they can’t provide the basis for public policy. Yet appealing to your self-interest isn’t going to inspire the public in a rally. And its not going to unite the citizenry together either. In the end, calculation and contract are not enough to form a community.

Lets see how similar thinking underlies the Left’s view of the 9/11 Mosque. Liberals criticize Conservatives for manifesting “what the ancient political philosophers called “the love of one’s own.”

Liberals believe this preference creates a distinction between insiders and outsiders. For example, the current controversy is making Muslims feel like outsiders. And since no one should be made to feel like an outsider, Liberals reject the “love of one’s own” as unjust.

Carson Holloway explains how this view began in the Enlightenment:

“Liberals act in these ways in part because contemporary liberalism is abstract and rationalistic in its philosophic roots. Liberals are still in important respects children of the Enlightenment and still hold dear its universalistic assumptions and aspirations. The Enlightenment hoped to usher in an empire of the “rights of man,” to establish society on the basis of what is owed to human beings as human beings, and accordingly rejected older, more partial loyalties—to clan, country, or faith—as merely arbitrary.”

The commonality between the Libertarians and Liberals then is they strip human beings of all ties which make life meaningful (faith, family, and friends). Both reject patriotism; Libertarians replace it with collective selfishness while Liberals emphasize cosmopolitanism e.g. they’re citizens of world (which is to say they’re citizens of no place in particular).

Is the “love of one’s own” aka inherently unjust? Holloway thinks not:

“From another perspective, however, one might contend that such loyalty is perfectly rational—in the sense that, while every man would admit that his father has no particular claims on the human race, every man would equally claim that a father does have a very powerful claim on the help and affection of his own son.”

Instead of rallying around the flag, these Enlightenment extremes would either say every man for himself or we shouldn't play favorites when it comes to attending rallies.

BSG Series Finale

*Plot spoilers below

While the show ended two years ago, I only now just got around to finishing the series. Here are some 'musings'...

1) The Show always presented a debate between monotheists, polytheists, and atheists on the question of God's existence. In the finale, it turns out the monotheists were right all along. What was not up for debate between the Humans and Cylons were the permissive sexual attitudes practiced on both sides. If there is a God or gods, the assumption was, he or they do not concern themselves with such trifles. In light of this persistent theme through five seasons of the show, the finale took a rather puzzling turn.

Flashbacks are presented depicting Caprica before the Cylon attack. We see Tigh, Ellen, and Adama at a club and Roslin considering having an affair. They're not living very admirable lives and their lives are depicted as banal. The suggestion is the attack and consequent struggle for survival afterwords brought forth the best out of them.

In the final scene of the episode, human civilization has returned back to the level (population, technology) it had reached in Caprica. God finds the same problems with this civilization as he had with Caprica. And the list of sins is rather traditional e.g. materialism, debauchery, etc. Ultimately, the Divine is not the Libertine the Show originally made him out to be.


2) After discovering Earth, the Humans and Cylons decide to give up the technology they possess and start all over. They will live simply and even intermingle with the human savages on earth. The hope is this will break the cycle of violence. The Final Five explained in a previous episode that Caprica's destruction and the ensuing aftermath was part of some sort of cyclical pattern. The implication is technology is the source of evil and Humans and Cylons can live in peace if they live without such relishes. It all sounds like Rousseau who argued that the advance of civilization was the regression of man. The 'noble' savage in the state of nature is morally good and it is civilization which corrupts him.

The conclusion takes place thousands of years later and we see civilization has developed in spite of Human/Cylon decision to forgo technology. And as I said in the previous point, this civilization has developed the same problems of the last one. This is because the source of evil is not in the material circumstances, but the human (or cylon) heart. Even if they live as noble savages, there is nothing to stop subsequent generations from developing technology. And if they choose not to develop it, that does not remove the possibility of malice, rage etc. They might not have battlestars to kill each other with, but they will have stones.

3) The suggestion that God will destoy Earth in the last scene is especially troublesome because it means Adama and Co. were unable to end the cycle of violence. In effect, they failed. This is strange since we have been rooting for these characters over five seasons and we find out in the last episode that their success is not final in any sense. Their attempt to achieve peace was ultimately in vain.

That being said, BSG attempted to answer as many questions as it raised, which is more than can be said for LOST.

Education isn't just for employees

David Brooks notices, "When the job market worsens, many students figure they can’t indulge in an English or a history major. They have to study something that will lead directly to a job."
This has led to a "nearly 50 percent drop in the portion of liberal arts majors over the past generation, and that trend is bound to accelerate."

He is troubled by this trend and makes a case for why employers should hire Humanities Majors: "Studying the humanities improves your ability to read and write. No matter what you do in life, you will have a huge advantage if you can read a paragraph and discern its meaning (a rarer talent than you might suppose). You will have enormous power if you are the person in the office who can write a clear and concise memo."

While I applaud Brooks' effort to defend the Humanities, I don't think his argument is effective here. Science and Engineering Jobs require technical skills which a Humanities Major will not prepare students for. And as Globalization continues, more and more jobs will become technocratic in nature.

Having said that, a student should still study the Humanities in college. He should study the Humanities not because it will make him a better employee (it might not), but because he will be MORE THAN an employee after he graduates. He will be a citizen, a parishioner, a father etc. In order to perform these roles well, he needs to be able to reason about the goods at stake. Otherwise, he will merely be spouting prejudices or untutored opinion on important issues: How large a role should Government play in Society? What is Sin? What is the Good Life and how can I impart it to my children?

The current situation is a college educated person speaks thoughtfully when it comes to his profession because he has been systematically trained in that, but he is unable to piece together a coherent thought when it comes to politics, culture, or religion. And the health of a Society depends upon more than just its GDP.

This does not mean every college student should major in the Humanities; far from it. The only ones who should actually major in the subject are the ones who will play a role in shaping public opinion: teachers, professors, journalists, statesmen, and artists. The rest can major in any trade so long as they take the required basics: 2 semesters of English, Government, History etc. The current problem is students can opt out of the basics through a myriad of ways. They can take AP Tests, Summer Community College Courses, or some technical variation of the required course e.g. Business or Medical Ethics in lieu of Introduction to Philosophy. And if they do happen to take the actual course, then it is taught by some graduate student in an auditorium filled with other students.

My argument is the harder sell because parents and students want to hear how a particular major will land a job. But the important thing to keep in mind is your 9-5 job will not be the only job you'll have.

LOST Finale

*Plot spoilers below

I’m happy to say I was wrong about the Finale-Good clearly triumphed over Evil. There was no dabbling in grey areas or nonjudgmentalism or anything wishy washy. However, the Jack v. Locke storyline took a backseat to the “Sideways” story arc in the final episode. This seemed out of kilter because the Sideways story arc was a Season Six addition and arguably inessential to the overall story. For this reason, critics like Ross Douthat and John Podohertz found the finale disappointing because it left so many questions unanswered.

The Sideways story arc turns out to be a big Reunion as all the characters gather together before they enter Heaven together. Characters who were killed off in previous seasons reappear for one last trip down memory lane. It was nostalgic and admittedly fun, but a total dodge by the writers.

One last point about the finale. LOST is eclectic when it comes from borrowing ideas from a variety of traditions e.g. ‘Christian’ Sheppard stands in front of a stained glass window filled with many different religious symbols, the temple (not church or mosque) has Egyptian hieroglyphics, etc. Yet it borrows from the Catholic Tradition more than any other. Douthat said this back in 2007:

The creators of Lost have repeatedly denied that their characters are literally in purgatory, which was a popular theory among early viewers of the series, and most of the evidence from later episodes suggests that they're telling the truth. Still, the show's island is at the least a purgatorial landscape—it's no coincidence that several of the characters are Catholic, lapsed and otherwise—where the things that the castaways carry from their previous lives provide the raw material for suffering, struggle, and growth.

Douthat’s description seems dead on in light of Finale. Several characters were Catholic: Charlie, Echo, Hume, Richard, and Hugo. Life is divided into three stages: pre-Island, Island, and post-Island with the Island as the place where they are supposed to resolve whatever problems they had from their previous life. Some people commit acts so heinous that they are doomed e.g. Michael tells Hugo he is stuck. Others are unable to move onto Heaven because they have not worked through all their past demons e.g. Ben tells Locke he isn’t ready to come into the church (its clearly Catholic b/c it has a Sacred Heart Statue outside and Carravagio’s Doubting Thomas painting inside).

As I said before, this does NOT mean the Island is literally Purgatory. The LOST’s writers borrow from a variety of traditions and reworks them into ways which fit their purposes. But they do seem to borrowing from one tradition quite heavily. I'm sure Dante would approve.

Last, Last Point: It is interesting to see Heaven is rather Godless in the LOST mythology. Heaven seems to be about the characters’ horizontal relationships with each other instead of a vertical relationship with a Personal God. And the Island, with its impersonal ball of energy at its core, is not very conversational either. From a PC point of view, friendship as highest good is probably the best you’re gonna get from a network show. Aristotle would approve-somewhat.

The Long Season of Lent 2010

I have mentioned before my antipathy towards "studies show" arguments, but I'll make an exception this time since these two statistics have not been given much traction in the public square. A Mercatornet article and a blog post by the NYT's Ross Douthat both cite stats from a comprehensive study completed after the 2002's Long Season of Lent:

"The largest body of information has been collected in the United States, where in 2004 the US Conference of Catholic Bishops commissioned an independent study by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice of the City University of New York. This is not a Catholic university and is unanimously recognized as the most authoritative academic institution of criminology in the United States."

Douthat relies upon this study to make the following claim: "The permissive sexual culture that prevailed everywhere, seminaries included, during the silly season of the ’70s deserves a share of the blame, as does that era’s overemphasis on therapy. " And he reiterates the point again here: " "It’s part of the basis for my column’s claim that something in the moral/cultural/theological climate of the 1960s and 1970s encouraged a spike in sexual abuse."

Despite a balanced column, it was this claim which generated the most responses on his blog-probably because it lays part of the blame at the door of the Sexual Revolution, which is accepted by many people today. To back up his claim, he presented the following chart from the John Jay study:


Massimo Introvigne, author of the Mercatornet article mentioned above, also uses the study to bring up another stat which has not been discussed: "So, does the John Jay College study tells us then, as one often reads, that 4 percent of American priests are paedophiles? Not at all. According to the research, 78.2 percent of the accusations involved minors who had advanced beyond puberty."
And again here: "While it may hardly be politically correct to say so, there is a fact that is much more important: over 80 percent of pedophiles are homosexuals, that is, males who abuse other males." Introvigne links homosexual practice, which is gaining widespread acceptance, with the crisis.

Since both numbers contradict our notions of political correctness, it shouldn't come as a surprise that they haven't been given much attention.

The Noble, the Dignified, and the just plain Autonomous

Tocqueville presents America as replacing Aristocratic Nobility with Democratic Dignity. James Poulos, Founding Editor of Postmodern Conservative, thinks its time for Nobility to make a comeback.

In this Bloggingheads episode, Poulos discusses how Conservatives make their case against many forms of biotechnology on the grounds of Human Dignity. He says the argument works well when it comes to designer babies, but loses steam when it comes to sexual morality. Nobility, he thinks, would be a better substitute. Poulos explains Miley Cyrus’ behavior last fall as being base and thus simply beneath her. This argument, he asserts, should be able to avoid the usual “Who are you to say…” yada-yada. It isn’t clear this is so as his interlocutor is unable to see a difference between Nobility and Dignity arguments. I’ll return to this point.

Poulos makes the argument for a switch again when it comes to the family. Conservatives, especially Christians, have been making arguments based on natural law (Dignity’s backdrop) when they should base it on “aristocratic nobility: pride in the unity of bloodline and virtu.” “Family identity and family accomplishment” should provide the standard for individual behavior.

Thus, Poulos, and Tocqueville for that matter, present Nobility and Dignity as butting heads. Yet is interesting to see Peter Lawler, who also blogs at Postmodern Conservative, portraying them as kin:

“It was with such Greek reflections in mind that the Roman word dignitas took on a basically aristocratic connotation. Dignity is a worthiness or virtue that must be earned, and the dignified man is someone exceptional who attains distinction by his inner strength of character. Dignitas is a self-contained serenity, a kind of solid immobility that cannot be affected by worldly fortunes. For the Stoics, and especially for Cicero, dignity is democratic in the sense that it does not depend on social status; it is within reach of everyone from the slave (Epictetus) to the emperor (Marcus Aurelius). Dignity refers to the rational life possible for us all, but it is really characteristic only of the rare human being who is genuinely devoted to living according to reason.”

It might be that Poulos is not against Dignity per say, but the simply the Christian or Democratic understanding of it. Tocqueville believed Christianity set up Democracy and were linked an in opposition to Pagan Aristocracy:

“All the great writers of antiquity belonged to the aristocracy of masters, or at least they saw that aristocracy established and uncontested before their eyes. Their mind, after it had expanded itself in several directions, was barred from further progress in this one; and the advent of Jesus Christ upon earth was required to teach that all the members of the human race are by nature equal and alike.”

Whether it is Classical Nobility or Christian Dignity, POMO Cons of all stripes do not want to see Cultural Libertarian’s ‘Autonomy’ crowned King. Stephen Pinker, who Lawler is responding to in the article cited above, says “informed consent serves as the bedrock of ethical research and practice.” Bedrock? More like shifting sand. But moving on…

This common cause between Classical and Christian concerns can be found in the President’s Council for Bioethics which was disbanded by Obama last fall. Lawler points out the different nuances of the two approaches. The Classical concern is with “living well in the acceptance of necessity” or what I would call the ‘life within limits’ approach. A life well lived is one which operates within boundaries, which is why the Classical thinker also aligns with the Christian in the broader Culture Wars. The Christian is more interested with the “denial of equal treatment to the disabled or otherwise “unfit,” murderous eugenics, abortion, and the scientific destruction of human embryos.” Any of these actions are considered intrinsically evil, regardless of its frequency or circumstance.

Lawler says the two views are the “egalitarian and inegalitarian dimensions” of Human Dignity. I would add the Christian is concerned with individual acts while the Classical thinker is interested in life as a whole. The difference emerges because Divine Revelation brings into focus what appears blurry to unaided Reason. Revelation, like Death it seems, has a way of concentrating the mind.

Let’s get personal

David Ignatius is disturbed by all the metaphysical musings which have been generated by the recent tragedy in Haiti. He says the important thing is to think, not act. Tocqueville would say this is the typical American attitude towards philosophy.

In one sense, I am sympathetic to Ignatius’ position. It seems that any attempt to formulate an answer to the problem of evil (Why would an all-good, all-powerful God permit human suffering?) rings hollow because it gives an impersonal answer to a personal question.

On the other hand, taking a pass on the question seems like a dodge. It reminds me of a scene from Flannery O’Connor’s Wise Blood:

“If she had to be blind she would rather be dead. It occurred to her suddenly that when she was dead she would be blind too. She stared in front of her intensely, facing this for the first time. She recalled the phrase, “eternal death,” that preachers used, but she cleared it out of her mind immediately, with more change of expression than the cat. She was not religious or morbid, for which every day she thanked her stars.”

Two secular worldviews which one might turn to for an answer are Atheism and Pantheism. Atheism, by rejecting an absolute point of reference in God, resolves the problem of evil by denying its very possibility. Ultimately, reality is at its foundation nothing more than chaos and meaningless in which case we must move ‘beyond good and evil’ as Nietzsche once said. But this just leads us back to the problem I mentioned earlier: reducing the personal to the impersonal. What occurred in Haiti cannot be tragic or evil in a world devoid of meaning.

Pantheism, as exemplified in the current environmental movement, is premised upon the thesis of the benevolence of Nature. The earthquake, in contrast, reveals Mother Nature’s malevolence. James Cameron and the Na’vi are selective, at best, about what aspects of her merit our worship. Moreover, terms like ‘Mother’ and ‘her’ are misleading for they signify a personality which is not there. Unlike Atheism, Pantheism does not reduce persons to things; instead, it inverts the traditional order by asking people to submit to an Impersonal Nature.

Turning to Christian Theology, the traditional answer has been that God created and sustains a world of free beings in order to be in a relationship with them. Love presupposes freedom, but an unfortunate corollary is freedom can be abused. Since our first parents, we live in world with both good and evil (Whatever natural disasters occurred before mankind’s arrival wasn’t really evil. Christian theology makes a distinction between natural and moral evil, the latter being the type discussed at the moment.)

That answer, while personal since it accounts for love, presents God as too passive for many people. This concern is addressed by the Incarnation, in which God himself becomes a human actor. Surprisingly, his reason for doing so does not seem to be about eliminating human suffering since we are still stuck with it today. And it is at this point when the attempt to answer the question philosophically must end. Yet this does not mean the Christian is shrugging his shoulders. The invocation of ‘Mystery’ is not agnosticism, but an invitation to reflect upon, and even participate in, the Cross. Elusive, yes; Impersonal, no.

The Rules of Engagement

Michael Gerson and Ross Douthat have some interesting things to say over Brit Hume’s comment that Tiger Woods, a Buddhist, should consider turning towards the Christian Faith. I’m on board with what they’re saying, but I would just take the whole episode as an opportunity to make a more general comment about the relationship between Democracy and Religion.

At first glance, the flare-up which resulted seemed to be a good thing for religious believers because Hume’s critics wanted to protect a particular religion, in this case Buddhism, from being maligned. But on closer examination, this protection for religion is premised on the idea of nonjudgmentalism which is itself based upon relativism: since no religion can be objectively true, criticism of all religious claims is off limits. Instead, religion should simply be seen as a lifestyle choice. This is a Faustian bargain and religious believers shouldn’t sign on.

The long term consequence of this bargain will be the further marginalization or privatization of religion as any mention of it in the public square will be condemned (Fr. Neuhaus called this the Naked Public Square.) Admittedly, the bargain’s tradeoff is the Privatization will not eliminate religion entirely since that would violate the freedom of autonomous individuals. And it is this inability to deliver a knockout punch which makes the Faustian bargain deceptively attractive to the religious believer. Communism, in contrast, was a more obvious foe because it is in principle against Religion and so it used overt coercion in its assault. The danger posed by Liberal Democracy is more subtle which is why so many people are oblivious to it.

The only way out might be to play the game with our fellow citizens in order to change its rules: Liberal Democracy should be replaced with an updated, 2.0 version, what JPII called Personalist Democracy.