10 Years Later

This time ten years ago (almost to the day) I was packing my things to move from Oklahoma to Texas so I could begin my educational career at Southwestern Assemblies of God University. I would have never guessed then that ten years later I would be packing my things again to move from Oklahoma to Canada so I could begin my professional career.

I have been reflecting on the type of person I have become in the last ten years and am glad that I have become the person I now am. I think leaving my family and most of my friends was a good thing for me. I still remember lying in my bed at Southwestern that first October wondering how everyone back at Crossfire (my church’s youth group) was doing at the annual Neewollah (Halloween spelled backwards) festival. I remember missing Mother’s & Father’s Day for the first time and not being able to get over the fact that dad’s barbeque chicken and mom’s potato salad was being enjoyed by everyone in the family but me. It was difficult to leave them, but it was good.

I am grateful for the family, friends, and pastors that I had up through high school. Without your guidance, I would have never been able to leave Oklahoma in the first place. I am thankful that as I went through many changes these last ten years that you have been patient with me. To some, I have become a completely different person. To others, you have witnessed these changes gradually and so they are less striking.

While I can never put into words how grateful I am for those that helped me the first eighteen years of my life, I want to take a few minutes to reflect on those that helped me that last ten. I have changed a lot in the last ten years and most of those changes have come through the influence of new friends and new family that has come into my life.

I thought it might be an interesting exercise to list out some of the changes that have taken place since I first moved from Mustang. What I know is interesting is that the group of people that have influenced me the most over the last ten years would disagree about almost every one of the changes listed below! Some of these are trivial, some quite important, and some are somewhere in between. In no particular order…

• I now think that developing the life of a mind is required to grow spiritually.
• I am in the process of becoming one with a beautiful woman.
• I am now more of an OU fan than an OSU fan (though I still pull for the Pokes when they’re not playing OU).
• I am much more hesitant about saying non-Christians will spend eternity in Hell.
• I no longer worry too much about cursing on occasion (but do think that cursing often demonstrates a lack of vocabulary and creativity).
• I now wish American churches were less patriotic on Sunday mornings.
• I no longer listen to rap.
• When the radio is on it is probably tuned to a talk radio station, but when I do listen to music, it is most likely classical or jazz.
• I recognize that Catholics are Christians.
• I know what eschatology, soteriology, modal realism, epistemology, and “Gettier problem” mean.
• I went from loving everything Republican, to hating everything Republican, to agreeing with many things Republican, but for different reasons.
• I think altar calls are more often designed to make the pastor feel good than for the those walking down to the altar.
• I no longer think consuming alcohol is a sin and thoroughly enjoy fine scotch (or at least as fine a scotch one can buy on a graduate student budget).
• I used to find no problem with Christians serving in war, then thought it was completely unacceptable, and am now thoroughly undecided because both sides can make a very good case.
• I began to avoid Wal-Mart because it put the “mom & pop” stores out of business.
• I now realize that Wal-Mart probably does more good for society than it does bad, but still avoid the place because it is too often overcrowded and staffed by incompetent employees (low prices comes at a cost).
• I no longer think attending church three times a week is a requisite for being truly devoted to Christ.
• I think seeker sensitive churches are silly.
• I think we should be concerned about the environment because it is pretty to look at and not because it is intrinsically valuable.
• I no longer think homosexuals are the scourge of society, but still think the New Testament calls all homosexual acts sin.
• I think a decent case can be made for the legalization of marijuana (and no, I don’t smoke it).
• I no longer think certain events have to happen on earth before Christ can return.
• I think many, if not most, of the good things in life are not fun.

One of the changes that took place over the last ten years that I am most happy about is that for each position I take above, I can give a good argument supporting that position. We all go through life with beliefs about the world around us. Some of those beliefs are true and some are false. We need to be able to give good arguments for our beliefs, and those that we can’t adequately support, we should seriously consider abandoning.

When I left for university, I was not able to adequately examine my beliefs. I could not give an argument (and when I could, it was not very good) for just about any of the things I believed. God has allowed me to become acquainted with certain people that poked and prodded at me until I realized I didn’t know as much as I thought I knew. They helped me examine the case for and against different positions and taught me to be humble throughout. They taught me that rigorously examining our beliefs is an essential element to growing spiritually. I am who I am now because I have always had people willing to give of themselves to help me grow.

It is late now, and I am sure I will forget someone, but I would like to mention some of the individuals I met after moving away from Mustang that have played a large role in my life. So, to Jeff Magruder, Paul Alexander, Andrew White, Adam Fithen, the Wells family, the Dennis family, the Slover family, my Talbot professors, Dale and Jonalyn Fincher, Adam Stowell, the Tanyag & Tano families, Josh Seachris, Rusty Jones, and of course, my wife Tina Marie, I say thank you for picking up where those before you left off. If, in this new chapter of life, Tina Marie and I can find people half as loving and thoughtful as you, we will be blessed.

A Tale of Two Obama Endorsements

I recently read on an Economist blog that the Matthew 25 Network (www.matthew25.org) has decided to endorse Barack Obama. This group’s name is a nod to Matthew 25: 35-40. The portion of this passage on their website is “For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink… ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these my brethren, you did for me.”

I was immediately interested in learning more about this organization because I thought it odd that a seemingly Christian group would be so proud to announce that they have decided to endorse someone with such a pro-abortion record. Their website states that their values are “promoting life with dignity, caring for the least of these, strengthening and supporting families, stewardship of God’s creation, working for peace and justice at home and abroad and promoting the common good.”

I guess it’s just not clear to me how Obama fits that profile, at least with his record on abortion. How exactly does supporting the legality of abortion promote life with dignity for the unborn? Wouldn’t an unborn child be “the least of these”? After searching around a bit more, the Matthew 25 Network was just launched as a Federal Political Action Committee (PAC). Contrary to appearance, this is not some Christian non-profit working on the behalf of some Christian cause. This is a political organization launched with the sole purpose of endorsing Obama.

Now there are plenty of other groups that have endorsed Obama (e.g. Hamas, Moveon.org). One of the groups I would like to draw attention to is NARAL Pro-Choice America (www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/statements/obama.html). This organization, unlike Matthew 25 Network, has existed for some time and has an agenda besides just endorsing Obama. This group was founded in 1968 as the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws. After those laws were indeed repealed, they changed their name to National Abortion Rights Action League, then to National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League. And now they are NARAL Pro-Choice America.

What I find interesting is the reason why NARAL chose to endorse Obama. NARAL scores politicians on their pro-choice voting record and in 2005, 2006, and 2007 Obama scored a 100%. That means that in three years Obama has never voted against one of the leading abortion-rights group’s agenda. On their website they even have quotes from Obama that, to them, justify their decision to endorse him. (In one of his quotes he even brags that he’s scored a 100% with both NARAL and Planned Parenthood.)

So what is the point of comparing these two groups. The point is this. One group was formed as a PAC with the sole purpose of having a Christian-sounding group endorse Obama. They have no other agenda. The other group clearly has an agenda and has had it for a long time. This agenda is counter to Christianity at a variety of levels, but this group believes that Obama is the best person to further that agenda.

Does a group’s decision to endorse Obama mean he agrees with that group? Of course not, but it should make someone stop and think about why such a group would want Obama to be president. The fact that he’s never voted against their agenda should at least make Christians and non-Christian anti-abortionists stop and think about the ramifications of him becoming president. This is especially true since the appointment of another Supreme Court Justice is highly likely in the next term and several of the more recent high profile cases have been decided 5-4.

Bush Lied, People Died

Bashing President Bush is all the rage these days. This is especially true if you 1) live in a college town, 2) insist on only buying Fair Trade, or 3) ride a bicycle to work. (I’m sure there are good explanations for the larger number of Bush-bashers in these groups, but I’ll leave it up to you to seek them.)

What is the justification for the wonderful slogan we see in the picture above? Well, according to the report of the Select Committee on Intelligence there isn’t much justification for this claim. What is surprising is that the committee chairman, Senator John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va) is one of the individuals leading the “Bush Lied, People Died” crusade.

Fred Hiatt of the Washington Post recently wrote a column describing how this catchy phrase is a farce. What I find humorous is that he uses the report that Rockefellar oversaw to make his case. You can link to his article if you’d like to read in more detail, but I’m going to just present some of its highlights. Below you’ll find one of the things that people think Bush lied about, and then see what the committee actually found concerning that allegation.

1) Bush lied about Iraq’s nuclear weapons program.

• Committee findings: Bush’s statements were “generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates.”

2) Bush lied about Iraq’s biological weapons, their production capabilities, and their mobile labarotories.

• Committee findings: Bush’s statements were “substantiated by intelligence information.”

3) Bush lied about Iraq’s possession of chemical weapons.

• Committee findings: Bush’s statements were “substantiated by intelligence information.”

4) Bush lied about Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction.

• Committee findings: Bush’s statements were “generally substantiated by intelligence information.”

5) Bush lied about Iraq’s possession of ballistic missiles.

• Committee findings: Bush’s statements were “generally substantiated by available intelligence.”

6) Bush lied about Iraq’s possession of unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs.

• Committee findings: Bush’s statements were “generally substantiated by intelligence information.”

7) Bush lied about Iraq’s involvement with terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda.

• Committee findings: Bush’s statements were “substantiated by intelligence information.”

There is a big difference between being wrong about something and lying about something. We now know that Bush was wrong about much (if not all) of the above, but so was the intelligence community. Bush relied on the gathered intelligence and made his decision based upon that. That is a far cry from lying about it. So, you may ask, what did the committee chairman think about this intelligence at the time it was gathered? I’m glad you asked.

Hiatt quotes committee chairman Rockefeller as saying in October 2002 “There has been some debate over how ‘imminent’ a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated… To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can.”

This is from the person now leading the “Bush Lied, People Died” campaign (although he does it less boldly). This is from the committee chairman whose own report just stated that Bush’s claims about Iraq and their intentions were accurate, given the intelligence gathered at the time. Rockefeller had access to the same intelligence that Bush had and came to the same conclusion as Bush. So why isn’t there “Rockefeller Lied, People Died” stickers too? I’d like to think because it’s not as catchy, but I’m pretty sure that’s not it.

I’m sure this report won’t cause the eminent philosopher Peter Singer to retract any of his arguments against Bush in his The President of Good and Evil: the Ethics of George W. Bush. Here is a sample quote from Singer, “There can hardly be a more grave charge against the president of the United States and his administration than that he misled the world, in order to start a war that killed thousands of people, including at least 3,000 civilians, and maimed and wounded, or made homeless, tens of thousands more” (my emphasis). You are correct, Mr. Singer, there is no graver charge against a president. But since we now know he did not intentionally mislead anyone, perhaps that is a charge you should drop.

I know that this report won’t stop any of our bike riding, free trade buying, college student friends from proclaiming from the mountaintops how evil of a person President Bush is. But it will be fun to watch those same people squirm when they realize how weak their case against Bush actually is.

Summary Thoughts on Clinton & Obama

Hillary Clinton recently sent an email out to her campaign staff and supporters announcing that she will formally concede to Barack Obama. Today you will hear all the political talk shows discuss whether or not Obama will, or should, nominate Clinton as VP. I’d like to make two brief comments about Clinton’s email and Obama’s upcoming decision about his running mate.

First, one of the things that haunted Clinton this entire race was that many people did not feel like they knew what her own position was on various issues. Instead, it seems as if Clinton was willing to change her position according to whatever the current polls revealed about the people she was going to visit next. Now this is probably over exaggerated by the media, but I’m starting to think that the media is right. For example, in the email she sent out this morning Clinton writes,

“I know as I continue my lifelong work for a stronger America and a better world, I will turn to you for the support, the strength, and the commitment that you have shown me in the past 16 months. And I will always keep faith with the issues and causes that are important to you.”

Notice that she doesn’t say she will keep faith with the issues important to her, but the issues important to you. I think people want to vote for someone that truly believes in the things they believe in and not someone that will just support those things just because it will win an election.

On to Obama. Obama’s message this entire campaign is “Change You Can Believe In.” For this reason alone he cannot have Clinton as his VP. It’d be great for many reasons, but you cannot convince anyone you are about change when you have a Clinton as VP. The Clintons are as entrenched in traditional politics as anyone. If you are running on the platform of change then stay clear of the Clintons. Accept their support and say how great they have been and then move on to some governor that most people don’t know.

Obama’s “Change” platform still might be a difficult sell, even if he avoids Clinton as his running mate. I think John McCain is going to point out over and over the fact that Obama has almost never voted against his own party. How can Obama be about change if he just does what all the other Democrats do? Sure it will be a change from a Republican president to a Democratic one, but that would have happened with Clinton. Obama’s message is that politics is broken and he is the guy to fix it. He is going to have to do a great job explaining why he is about change but has always just done what his Democratic colleagues do.

It is interesting that Obama’s opponent seems to be more about change than he is. McCain has continuously “crossed the aisle” to work with Democrats and has been pummeled by right-wing talk show hosts for it. Many of these issues are what made me not want McCain as the nominee, but nevertheless, he seems much more willing to depart from traditional Republican stances than Obama is from traditional Democratic ones.

Do I think any of this will matter? No I don’t. In fact, I think Obama is going to win because he will successfully link McCain to Bush, the media loves him, he’s a great speaker, and people feel good about themselves when they vote for him. The thought of a young, black politician with almost no experience (compared to others) becoming President is about as close to achieving the “American dream” as one could get.

The Morality of Sweatshop Labor

Many are aware about large companies making use of sweatshop labor in the production of their clothes, electronics, etc.

Many also find this practice to be morally reprehensible. To those that do, I recommend you take a few minutes to read this short piece by Benjamin Powell.

If you think that his analysis is right, that doesn’t mean that we should stop working for even better conditions. But it does mean that a complete cessation of sweatshops would cause things to be worse for those employed there than they currently are now. We have to make sure that our efforts to better their lives, don’t end up making things worse (which not having a job, or having a worse job, would do).

I’d love to hear your thoughts about this topic, and Powell’s article.

(And a big heads up to Anthony Bradley of the Acton Institute for first making me aware of this article. You can read Bradley’s thoughts about the article here.)

My Dissertation Prospectus

This morning I had the pleasure to send off the final copy of my dissertation prospectus to my advisory committee. It took me much longer to write than I thought it would, but considering there were some major changes in the dissertation’s aim, that isn’t too unexpected. 

For now, the title of dissertation is “A Rational Problem of Evil: The Coherence of Christian Doctrine and the Free Will Defense.” If you’d like to read a bit more about the project, I’ve posted a copy of the prospectus on the “Research” page of this blog.

Romney and Obama on Religion

When Mitt Romney’s presidential bid first began to pick up steam, there was a lot of worry about his ties to the Mormon church. Would Romney’s religious beliefs influence his policies as president? Would the things he learned from the Mormon church influence how he thinks about the world? How could such a smart man attend a church that has certain beliefs that, to many, seem outrageous? Does the Mormon Church’s somewhat questionable past regarding African-Americans indicate that Romney might be hiding his true thoughts about blacks?

These questions, along with many others, were continually raised by political pundits over and over. These were questions that Romney was forced to answer at just about every turn. He took them so seriously that he gave an entire speech on the relationship between his faith and his politics (click here to link to a video of that speech).

If it was acceptable to bring up all these issues concerning Mitt Romney, why is it not acceptable to do the same concerning Barack Obama? Below is a video clip of Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s pastor for over 20 years, preaching a sermon that, at the least, demands that Obama answer the same questions, with the same forthrightness, as Romney.

As you watch this short 3 minute video keep in mind the following: this is the man that has been Obama’s pastor for over 20 years. This is the man that Obama prayed with before announcing his nomination just over a year ago. This is the man that baptized Obama’s two daughters. This is the man that Obama considers his spiritual advisor.

If Obama had attended this church 20 years ago and left after a short time, I think this would be a non-issue. But, Obama attended this church, pastored by this man, 20 years ago and has continued to attend it. And keep in mind, Obama is only 46 years old. Wright has had an influence on Obama for just about half of his life. I don’t think it is fair to expect any person to endorse everything his pastor says over 20 years. But can we reasonably believe that every Sunday afternoon, Obama would sit down with his family and disagree with what their pastor has said? For 20 years?

If I’m right, then every American should demand that Obama answer every question we have about this issue. Am I right about this? Is it fair to compare this to Romney? Will the Obama-loving media turn our questions about this into our being racist?  Can we still believe Obama’s rhetoric about moving beyond race? Does this at least give us reasons to question his judgment?

How would America in general, and the media in particular, respond if John McCain even had a friend that expressed these ideas directed toward black people? What if it was someone he voluntary associated himself with for over 20 years?

(In case you think this is an isolated incident, peruse some of the related videos on YouTube’s site. You’ll see that Wright thought 9/11 was a punishment for not America’s sins, but for “white-America’s sins” and that instead of singing ‘God bless America’, he thinks we should sing ‘God damn America’.)

Obama and Annoying Spouses

Anyone that has been with a “significant other” for some time will have experienced a moment when the drive to some destination is complicated because of a wrong turn or two. Growing up, we often joked that any time it was unclear if we should turn right or left, whatever my mother said we should, we should probably do the opposite. My mother had a knack for directing us the wrong way at crucial moments. Thankfully, we often would just laugh at ourselves for listening to her again when we knew we should do just the opposite.

Others, however, are not as fortunate. Instead of moving on and figuring out , given the wrong turn, what the best course of action is now, they focus on that mistake and never let it go. Instead of saying, “We made a wrong turn, what’s the best thing to do to right the course”, they say, “I told you then that we shouldn’t go this way, now we’re all screwed up; we might as well just go home.”

This latter, annoying, spouse seems strikingly similar to Barak Obama and the war in Iraq. We all know, because he can’t go five minutes without reminding us, that he voted against going to war with Iraq while McCain and Clinton voted for it. What Obama seems to not get is that, we are at war in Iraq right now! Focusing on what we should have done is not going to help us to decide what to do now. Even if we grant that going to war was a mistake, that doesn’t mean the best thing to do is just go home. If it is, give us an argument for it that doesn’t depend on the earlier decision to go.

What Obama needs to do is convince us that the best course of action now is to leave Iraq. That is a completely separate issue from whether we should’ve gone in the first place. If he wants to bring that up in addressing Clinton’s ability to make decisions, that is fine. But, again, that’s different from addressing what we should do in Iraq, given that we are there now.

Obama is fortunate to not have any tough questions from the main stream media because what he says about this just makes no sense. Obama says we should get out of Iraq and focus on Al-Qaida in Afghanistan. He justifies this by saying that going to Iraq diverted our attention from Afghanistan and we need to get back to that original mission. That’s all fine and dandy, except there is one big problem. Al-Qaida is in Iraq right now.

I wish someone would ask Obama just this one question, “Why do you think fighting Al-Qaida in Afghanistan is a good thing, but fighting Al-Qaida in Iraq is a bad thing?” I would love to hear if he could respond to such a question without pointing out that we shouldn’t have gone to Iraq in the first place. What would make things really difficult, if someone in the media would push him on it, is that he’s said that staying in Iraq would be an option if there were Al-Qaida attempting to establish a base there. So, what exactly does he think Al-Qaida is doing in Iraq right now, shopping? (Earlier in the week McCain mocked him on this, and should continue to do so.)

So, am I misreading Obama’s remarks on Iraq and Afghanistan? Am I wrong to think his argument for leaving shouldn’t rely on whether we should’ve gone?

Cartoons & Socialized Health Care

I happened upon this cartoon the other day and I think it does a nice job of clearly showing the problem that we are in today. No, I don’t think not having universal health care is the problem. I do think that people are increasingly of the mind that it is the government’s job to take care of them. This never has, and never should be, the central role of our government. The proper role of the government is to set the framework in which we can live freely. It is to protect others from infringing our rights to do as we ought (not as we want) and that is it. (For an outstanding argument demonstrating this point, see F.A. Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom.)
With that said, I would like to address a few of the depictions in this cartoon.

First, the roads. The majority of our roads are not federally funded. Most of them come from property taxes, sales taxes, and income taxes. And this is how it should be. The local governments are able to best decide what roads need to be built, repaired, and ignored. It is not the federal government’s role to do that for us. No one is advocating a local government ran health care system so the comparison to roads is really bad. But, if that’s what someone was advocating, and succeeded in getting it implemented (think Massachusetts), then make that clear. It’s a lot easier to move a state over than to move a country over.

Second, the army. Many don’t know this, but Milton Friedman (an economist) was one of the most influential people in getting the U.S. away from a conscription-based army and to a volunteer army. His reasoning was simple. If the military has to get people to choose to go into the military, the military will have to compete for their service. They have to offer better training, pay, etc. than the other options out there. The result, we have a much better trained and equipped military now than we ever did then. So, what does that have to do with health care?

Well, no one is forced to serve in the army. After we transitioned to a volunteer military, it has gotten better and more sophisticated. The military can’t just say “You have to join us”, instead they have to say “Here’s why you should join us.” Notice that if we switch to an Obama or Clinton-esque national health care, we are doing just the opposite. No longer do you get, “Here’s why you should join us” but instead you get “You have to join us.” So, the army example is bad for two reasons. First, the army is volunteer and national health care would not be. And second, when military service was mandated, there was no reason for the military to work to make it better. People had to join. Why think the health care industry would be any different?

Third, the postal service. By almost all accounts, our federal government ran mail service is a complete disaster. How many times can you remember their raising the cost of postage stamps? Why are they doing this? Because the USPS is losing money hand over fist and they’re trying to stop the bleeding. People thought the idea of FedEx, UPS, and DHL was absurd because the government already offered a mail service. But, the privatized system works so much better, and is cheaper for those that use it, that they are all extremely successful businesses. If the federal government is unable to deliver a package from point A to point B and keep costs down, what makes us think they can figure out a way to transplant a heart from person A to person B any better?

Fourth, the fire department. Once again this is a bad example because fire departments are not ran by the federal government, but local municipalities. Again, if you want a local ran health care system, say so. As far as I know, no one is seriously advocating such a system, and Obama and Clinton are definitely not doing so.

Now I know that this artist was probably doing this tongue-in-cheek, but I do think it highlights to a great deal how many people think about health care. It sounds so easy to just say the government should provide it and then stop thinking. But, it’s not that easy. Yes, they can provide our health care, but you have to figure out how we’re going to pay for it (the doctors, nurses, and staff are still going to get paid either way), who gets to decide if you get to have that life-improving but non life-threatening surgery, and how we can keep the program from becoming bloated with waste (which we still have yet to figure out how to do with Medicare and Medicaid).

Oral History at the University of North Texas

This is a picture I took with my cell phone at the University of North Texas library. I couldn’t help but notice the irony in the fact that their Oral History section has no books.