The Sick Sense of Betrayal on Immigration

Leave a comment

For those of us who believe in “American First,” the time beginning April 7, 2017 marked the time we realized that we had been hoodwinked. President Trump went back on his promise to stay out of foreign entanglements and attacked Syria, something he thought was a stupid idea in 2013. Now the situation has worsened, with John F. Kelly at Homeland Security saying that the wall between the United States and Mexico is “just a figure of speech.” Mr. Kelly is soft overall in immigration. As a Trump supporter who attended two rallies and gave $70.00 to his campaign as well as enthusiastically voting for him, I feel as I have been kicked in the gut. From some of the reaction I have seen online, others feel the same way.

Mr. Trump came across as the essence of sincerity on the campaign trail. He clearly communicated that the United States would build a literal wall between Mexico and the U. S. His supporters understood, of course, that if terrain made it the case that concrete or brick was not an option, alternative ways of controlling the border at those points would be found. Now it appears that the term “wall” was merely metaphorical. If that is so, the disastrous and uncontrolled illegal immigration will most likely continue with the Mexican pipeline gushing nearly unchecked.

Mr. Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner is said to be the one encouraging Mr. Trump to “moderate” his views. Of course, Jared’s wife and Trump’s daughter Ivanka are going to have a strong influence on the President as well. This may not only involve a more internationalist approach to foreign policy and an easing off from planned immigration restrictions, but also a more liberal stance on social issues. The American public did not elect Jared Kushner as President, nor did they elect Ivanka Trump. They elected Donald Trump. Perhaps the Trump we are seeing now is the real Trump and not the person we saw on the campaign trail. I hope that is not the case, but it may be that voters have been intentionally deceived into voting from a man who does not share their values. If that is the case, not only has Mr. Trump effectively guaranteed he will lose in 2020, the Republicans could suffer a devastating electoral defeat in the 2018 mid term elections. Voters do not appreciate betrayal.

Now Mr. Trump did keep his word on one big issue: the Supreme Court. That would have been enough by itself to guarantee my vote for Mr. Trump. However, I feel now as if I de facto voted for Marco Rubio. Mr. Trump, as he is now behaving, is the new Rubio. On foreign policy, he is becoming increasingly indistinguishable from Hillary Clinton. When it comes to which party is in power in the form of the president, the situation has become “six of one, heal-dozen of the other.” Or, as the late George Wallace used to say, “There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the two parties.”

Mr. Trump Joins the Swamp

Leave a comment

There is no feeling worse than realizing that one has been betrayed—that the person in whom you trusted has lied to you and that “you have been had.” This is how I feel now that Donald Trump has betrayed the people who voted for him in part because he promised to keep the United States out of foreign conflicts. Mr. Trump’s missile attack on a Syrian air force base marks the day that Mr. Trump officially joined the swamp. Without waiting for an investigation to determine whether Syria is the culprit of the attack, Mr. Trump, apparently moved by the photo of dead children and babies and by his daughter, Ivanka’s, understandable emotional reaction to the photos, let his emotions overpower his reason. This, in addition to his Neoconservative and Internationalist advisors in foreign policy, moved him to a disastrous decision. He did not stop to consider why Mr. Assad, near victory in the Syrian civil war, would throw that away with a stupid and militarily useless attack on civilians. The rebels themselves are known to have chemical weapons, and they have used them before to provoke the West by blaming the Syrian government, which discarded its chemical weapons years ago. There are other interested parties, such as Israel, who also have access to chemical weapons and who could have assisted in a false flag attack. Without a full investigation, we do not really know.

Corporate interests in the United States, the military-industrial complex, lust for war profits. Mr. Trump is a man of the corporation, and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, is the representative of the “moderate,” corporate wing of both political parties, and he now has the president’s ear. Mr. Trump is pushing aside his conservative advisors such as Mr. Bannon and Mr. Priebus. He is no longer his own man, trying to drain the swamp; he is merely another stooge of the military-industrial complex, no different from Mrs. Clinton. He has become part of the swamp, part of the problem rather than part of the solution. Worst of all, he has betrayed his strongest supporters and revealed himself to lack the virtue of integrity. In addition, his impulsiveness is frightening since he controls the nuclear button. Voters who supported Mr. Trump instead of Mrs. Clinton to avoid World War III may end up in a devastated world due to a man who refused to let his reason control his passions. To those who say the attack was a one-time thing, consider that the Secretary of State said that the United States is now committed to regime change in Syria, the very kind of thing Mr. Trump condemned in his campaign for president. All that will result is an Islamic state filled with the dead bodies of Christians and Alawites. Mr. Trump will have their blood on his hands.

There are more disturbing trends as well. The nepotism that has characterized the Trump Administration is worsening with the growing influence of Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump. Ivanka recently had a secret meeting with Planned Parenthood, and her liberal views on abortion and other social issues are well-known. Will this mean a shift in Mr. Trump’s policies on social issues, betraying his strongest supporters once again? This couple have been a continual leftward influence on Mr. Trump, and right now it appears they will win the ideological battle at the White House. Once again, conservatives are betrayed by a Republican president. Once again, the swamp only grows deeper.

Today I will finish removing the Trump/Pence sticker from the back of my truck—a sad task, but now a necessary one.

A Liturgy on the Occasion of the Death of a Beloved Animal

Leave a comment

This is a liturgy I put together for a service of remembrances for a beloved animal companion. You are free to modify the language from the King James style English if you wish. Sorry for the strange spacing; strange things happen when I cut and paste from Word.

A Liturgy on the Occasion of the Death of a Beloved Animal

C: The Lord be with you.

R: And with thy spirit

Let us pray:

Almighty and everliving God, whom all creatures praise and glorify according to their station, we give the thanks for the life of  ****, who offered his/her life in love and companionship to his/her human friends. As we mourn his/her passing, may we be ever mindful of the promise that Thy entire creation will be redeemed and remade, and for the hope that we will see our companion once again. Through Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Our Lord, who livest and reignest with Thee and the Holy Ghost, ever one God, world without end. A-men.

Canticle: Ps. 148:1-12 (read responsively at the level of the whole verse):

O PRAISE the LORD from the heavens: * praise him in the heights.

Praise him, all ye angels of his: * praise him, all his host.

Praise him, sun and moon: * praise him, all ye stars and light.

Praise him, all ye heavens, * and ye waters that are above the heavens.

Let them praise the Name of the LORD: * for he spake the word, and they were made; he commanded, and they were created.

He hath made them fast for ever and ever: * he hath given them a law which shall not be broken.

Praise the LORD from the earth, * ye dragons and all deeps;

Fire and hail, snow and vapours, * wind and storm, fulfilling his word;

Mountains and all hills; * fruitful trees and all cedars;

Beasts and all cattle; * creeping things and flying fowls;

Kings of the earth, and all peoples; * princes, and all judges of the world;

Young men and maidens, old men and children, praise the Name of the LORD: * for his Name only is excellent, and his praise above heaven and earth.

Glory be to the Father and to the Son * and to the Holy Ghost:

As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be * world without end. A-men.

Reading: Genesis 1:24-25:

And God said, let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and everything that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

C: Here endeth the lesson.

R: Thanks be to God.

C: The Lord be with you.

R: And with thy spirit.

C: Let us pray:

Together:

Our Father, who art in heaven, Hallowed be thy Name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen.

Canticle: Ps. 36:5-9 (read responsively at the level of the whole verse):

Thy mercy, O LORD, reacheth unto the heavens, * and thy faithfulness unto the clouds.

Thy righteousness standeth like the strong mountains: * thy judgments are like the great deep.

Thou, LORD, shalt save both man and beast: how excellent is thy mercy, O God! * and the children of men shall put their trust under the shadow of thy wings.

They shall be satisfied with the plenteousness of thy house; * and thou shalt give them drink of thy pleasures, as out of the river.

For with thee is the well of life; * and in thy light shall we see light.

Glory be to the Father and to the Son * and to the Holy Ghost:

As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be * world without end. A-men.

Reading: Romans 8:18-23:

For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

C: Here endeth the lesson.

R: Thanks be to God.

C: The Lord be with you.

R: And with thy spirit.

C: Let us pray:

We commend this Thy creature **** to Thy loving care, that at the restoration of all creation at the end of time, **** may rise and live again to glorify Thee and to be our friend and companion once more. Through Jesus Christ, Thy Son Our Lord, who livest and reignest with Thee and the Holy Ghost, ever one God, world without end. A-men.

 

A Proposal for a Jeffersonian Supreme Court

Leave a comment

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on Mr. Trump’s executive order on immigration will be going to the U. S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has claimed, ever since Chief Justice John Marshall’s Marbury v. Madison ruling of 1803, that it is the final arbiter on the constitutionality of a given law. This was, in effect, an illegal seizure of power by the judicial branch of the government from the legislative branch. Thomas Jefferson feared that such a power-play would happen and thus was skeptical of the very existence of a supreme court. He suggested that the Court should play an advisory role on the constitutionality of laws rather than a coercive role. Yet critics may ask, “How can this practically work?” Below, I offer a suggestion.

Suppose there is a question concerning the constitutionality of a law passed by the U. S. Congress or by a state legislature, and the case reaches the Supreme Court. Suppose the court rules the law constitutional. Then it would remain law without further review. But if the court rules, that in the opinion of the majority, it is unconstitutional, then the law would be sent back to the legislative body that passed it for reconsideration based on possible unconstitutionality. If, after such reconsideration, the legislative body decides to rescind the law then the law is repealed. But if, after further review, the legislative body affirms the constitutionality of the law, then it remains law. In that way, the Supreme Court’s ruling is taken seriously, but remains only advisory. A flowchart is below:

supreme-court-reviews-law-for-constitutionality

Shake the Dust off Your Feet

Leave a comment

Those of us who are conservative struggle to know what to do in the face of a militant, hostile, and oftentimes violent version of social “democratic” liberalism. Cutting ties with family, friends, and professional associations is difficult, and most of us want to avoid doing that if possible. However, family and friends who are leftist ideologues make harsh, personal comments that make it difficult if not impossible to sustain meaningful relationships with those people. Professional associations in academia are condemning traditionalist positions; even the Society of Christian Philosophers leadership condemned the great Oxford philosopher Richard Swinburne for his opposition to homosexual practice. These are times of cutting ties on both sides of our sharply divided political spectrum. Mostly it has been the Left who are cutting ties, unfriending people on Facebook, refusing to invite family members home at holidays, and in the case of celebrities, publicly condemning family members for their “offense” of voting for Mr. Trump (as Ashley Judd did). While conservatives tend not to break ties, there are times in which doing such is unavoidable. Below are some of the ties I have cut.

I rarely unfriend people on Facebook, but I have unfriended a few. Some were personally obnoxious and insulting to me; others were indirectly insulting by labeling all conservatives and Trump supporters as racists, sexists, etc. I can even let that go, but some liberals have posted the most obnoxious, mean, hateful posts that I felt I had no choice but to unfriend them. That has only happened three or four times (0ut of 700 FB friends), and I hated having to do it. I am not going to renew my membership in the Society of Christian Philosophers due to its treatment of Professor Swinburne. I decided not to renew my membership in the North Carolina Poetry Society due to a ridiculous sexual harassment policy that would forbid a single man from asking a woman who is a member of that organization out on a date–even if such asking takes place outside the context of a meeting. It is not merely the silliness that merely asking someone out is sexual harassment; it is the evil and arrogant intrusion into people’s private lives.

I am also not renewing my membership in the North Carolina Writers’ Network. Their meetings have become libfests on the unholy trinity of race, class, and gender. Life is too short for me to waste time on such ignorance and stupidity. I have joined online organizations–a conservative, pro-Trump group of academics and writers, and a group for conservatives of all varieties who are creative writers. Long ago I joined the National Association of Scholars rather than the American Association of University Professors. I am hoping for an organization for philosophers to be founded that is similar to the group for traditionalist scholars in English.

At school I do my job quietly (and hopefully well–I try my best) and work on my research project on ghosts, philosophy, and theology. I continue to do creative writing and have kept up my membership in the Horror Writers Association, which has thus far avoided falling wholly into the politically correct cesspool.  I gladly argue with open-minded liberals and try to avoid those who are not. I stay at home when not required by teaching or office hours or meetings, but if there’s an interesting lecture, film, play, or music concert on campus, I enjoy attending those. But in all of life there seems more bitter division and fewer lasting friendships between people who are ideologically different.

To me, this division is sad. But world views are at stake, and human beings are naturally defensive about the fundamental values by which they live their lives. Since our real battles in society today are world view battles, I see the trend of division continuing indefinitely into the future.

 

 

Why I am not Theologically Liberal

Leave a comment

Sometimes “you can’t win for losing.” Fundamentalist Christians would consider me a liberal for not being a strict inerrantist on scripture–yet I have far more in common with a Fundamentalist Protestant than a theologically liberal Protestant or Roman Catholic. Definitions are important–a theological liberal will not be an inerranist on scripture, but that is not what makes him a theological liberal. Theological liberalism is an attempt to update Christianity for the contemporary period. Such updating may include substantial changes in Christian theological teaching, such as the denial of the full divinity of Christ, His bodily resurrection, His virgin birth as well as a denial of any subjective afterlife for human beings. Liberals may also accept substantial revisions to the doctrine of God such as, for example, denying that God knows the future and believing that God grows along with the universe. Some deny that God can utterly destroy evil. On moral issues, theological liberals tend to accept the rightness of abortion, premarital sex, homosexual practice, and trangenderism. All the above beliefs would be, to any traditional Christian, heretical. While liberals’ acceptance of social democratic economic liberalism is not heretical, one can argue that it is wrongheaded. In some cases, economic Marxists deny that human beings are fallen creatures, and such a belief is heretical.

Theological liberalism has its roots in the eighteenth century Enlightenment. During the age of reason some philosophers, such as Immanuel Kant, held that religion should be bound “within the limits of reason alone.” The French were divided between deists such as Voltaire, who believed in a God that created the universe and let it run like a clock; there is little or no divine providence in such a doctrine. Later, in the nineteenth century, Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution seemed to make biology like Newtonian physics–free of any need for a deity. In addition, modern Biblical study methods revealed that Moses did not write the first five books of the Old Testament, and the Biblical books in general are neither historically or scientifically without error. If Christians had read the church fathers such as Augustine, they would have known that earlier Christians recognized the Bible was not a science book. Instead, they hunkered down and accepted a modern, literalist interpretation of the Bible, making it something it was never intended to be. Theological liberals were correct in opposing the Fundamentalists’ strict views on inerrancy.

Theological liberals meant well. Friedrich Schliermacher, the “father of liberal Protestantism,” wanted Christianity’s “cultured despisers” to be open to a revised Christian faith that placed an emphasis on a “feeling of absolute dependence” rather than on specific dogmatic claims. Social Gospel liberals emphasized helping the poor and often supported a social democratic economic system, but some of them rejected the transcendent claims of Christianity about Christ. More recently, theological liberals have tended to become deeply politicized and influenced (though they may be unaware of the source) by the Cultural Marxism of the Frankfurt School (Herbert Marcuse and his de facto disciples such as Saul Alinsky). They rejected the traditional moral teachings of Christianity on sexual ethics, holding that they are remnants of an earlier, outdated social and moral system. Their emphasis is on “social justice,” where “social justice” is defined in terms of the social democratic Left. Many of these do not accept the fundamental teachings of traditional Christianity about God and Christ I mentioned above.

I cannot accept theological liberalism. Without its traditional doctrines of God as Trinity, Christ as God incarnate, born of the Virgin Mary, raised from the dead, and the general resurrection of all people and restoration of the universe at the end of time, Christianity collapses into a watered down social gospel with little theological content. While Process Theologians try to insert more theological content, their concept of God is too limited to support the traditional doctrines of Christianity. St. Paul said if there is no resurrection, “we are of all men most miserable” (in I Corinthians 15). Theological liberals who deny the resurrection except in some vague “metaphorical sense” are indeed, “most miserable” even if they deny such.

The theologian most admired by liberal theologians is Paul Tillich, according to polls of theology professors. Yet Tillich, which interesting, was a mix of Schelling’s philosophy with a watered down version of Christianity. His concepts of religion as ultimate concern and his method of correlation, in which philosophy provides the questions and faith the answers, while not wholly original, are helpful. But overall he was a heretical thinker wedded to some kind of belief in a vague “transcendent.” It is sad that his experiences in World War I destroyed his traditional view of God.

Catholic liberal theology is pretty much a variation on liberal Protestantism with some Catholic language added.

Recently, there have been some new theological liberals who accept the resurrection of Christ and the general resurrection from the dead–Jurgen Moltmann and Ted Peters, for example. However, they do not necessarily accept the moral views of traditional Christianity–Peters does not, for example. They are moving in the right direction, however.

It is clear that Jesus Christ made divine claims, even in the Synoptic Gospels, and such claims are central to Christianity, as the Church Fathers also recognized. I cannot call myself a Christian without believing this doctrine. The church’s teachings on sexuality are essential to the integrity of marriage and the bearing of children in the “nurture and admonition of the Lord.” The rules are there because they support the human good. To deny these teachings is not only to deny the natural law; it is to deny Christ.

I am grateful for the vibrant Evangelical movements in some of the liberal mainline Protestant churches. I am grateful for Roman Catholic traditionalists (though the legalism of some of them is unfortunate). I am grateful for my own church, the Anglican Catholic Church, which affirms the traditional doctrines and moral teachings of the Christian faith without lapsing into Fundamentalism on scripture (a few priests here and there may be that way, but the bishops are not). Hopefully we can live the faith better–faith is not merely an intellectual exercise–Satan is theologically orthodox–but it is a way of life, loving God and loving neighbor. Both doctrine and practice, truth and love, are essential to the teachings of Christ and His Church.

 

 

A Memo to College and University Students

1 Comment

MEMO

To: College and University Students
From: Someone who Does not Know Everything, but Knows Some Things
Re: Happiness and Success

You are not guaranteed happiness.
You are not guaranteed emotional satisfaction.
You are not guaranteed success.
You are not guaranteed to have any career you want; you must have the talent, skill, and hard work needed to succeed in that field.
You are not guaranteed a passing grade or any other grade in a class other than what you earn.
You are not guaranteed freedom from criticism of your views in class or in any other context.
You are not guaranteed that all your choices are good.
You are not guaranteed wealth.
You are not guaranteed “safe zones” in the real world.
You are not guaranteed that elections turn out the way you feel they should.
You are not guaranteed that everyone else agree with your opinions.
You are not guaranteed to know everything–or anything in particular.
You are not guaranteed protection from sickness, injury, death, loss of loved ones, or any of the other bad things that happen to all of us as part of the human condition.

Older Entries