Saturday, February 08, 2003

Social Theory Part 2 More from Frank, again, purely extemporaneous: "It seems that (and I'm using a broad generality here) many who call themselves Christians (of any denomination), at least in America, tend to shy away from socialism. And that puzzles me, because, it would seem to me that if Jesus were alive today he would indeed be a socialist. Help the sick and the poor and the weak and those less fortunate than ourselves. Is it possible that in our capitalistic country Jesus would be a left-leaning liberal?" The fact that Frank felt comfortable writing this to me is a compliment. It means that he considers me level-headed enough to talk about this without getting all agitated. There are some who would consider these fighting words. I do not. Let me explain. I have seen first hand the effects of socialism taken to the extreme. I spent two years as a missionary in Bucharest, Romania. Romania was widely considered to be on par with North Korea as a hard-core communist country. Conditions there were still terrible almost five years after their bloody revolution which toppled the dicator Nicolae Ceausescu. Why were things so bad? They had a strong government which was supposed to provide for the needs of its people. Property was almost entirely communal. But still, people would spend a third of their day waiting in line for bread. Why? Because absolute power corrupts mortals absolutely. Even though they were in a society which was supposed to be focused on providing things for "the people" and everything was supposed to be owned by "the people" there were still some who grabbed what they could, who gathered connections and influence to get gain and take from "the people." Communism just plain doesn't work. It is true that Jesus acted with charity and generosity, which traits socialists believe they also espouse. I can understand why Frank asked those questions. The difference is that Jesus was one man giving to other men. He would never compell a man to give to another. He taught that we should give of our substance and turn the other cheek and seek the kingdom of God and not riches, but He will never force anyone to do those things. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is based on free agency. Socialism and communism are the antithesis of free agency, because there will always be those who do not want to give of their substance to others. To me, socialism denies the potential good that men can do by taking away the freedom to choose. 2:38:15 PM    comment []

Iraq I have a good friend at work named Frank with whom I shared a cubicle for a couple of years. Frank is a likable guy from Nebraska who has had some very  interesting experiences in his life. I always enjoy talking to Frank and hearing about his writings and ideas. Frank and I find often find ourselves on different sides of political issues. He is more liberal than I am. Still, I like to think that the conversations that we have about issues exemplify the discourse that the founders of our nation hoped we would have, because they are always civil and reasoned, and we acknowledge each other's right to hold the beliefs that we do. I really respect Frank. This week Frank was reading davemcnamee.com and he sent me some comments on my post against affirmative action. I would like to address some of those comments here, and I will quote frank with his permission. Frank extemporaneously wrote, "... I've noticed that throughout history ... and our country's history as well ... that more often than not it is the "Christians" (or someone using Christianity as their shield) who call for war so readily. I would think that those who espouse living by the word of Jesus rather than holding up his name as a badge of honor would shy away from armed conflict at all costs. Turn the other cheek and all, at least until they had no other choice but to defend themselves. But right now, in our current situation, it is the religious "right" that seems to be pushing for the conflict with Iraq more than any other group." I believe Frank makes a very good point here. Historically speaking, those who call themselves Christians really haven't had much inhibition as far as war is concerned. It is true that Jesus taught about peace and did away with the old law of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I also believe that Jesus would do whatever he could to defend the defenseless against violence and oppression. I believe there is such a thing as justified war. I am religious, and politically conservative. I believe that there are times when it is our duty to go to war in the defense of liberty and freedom. I think that a lot of the religious right think it is their God-given right to defeat whatever oppression or evil there is in the world. It's easy for them to support going to a country and defeating a dictator that everyone acknowledges is among the worst of the worst. How does that translate into our current predicament with Iraq? Is the impending conflict in Iraq justified? I don't know. Does Irag have WMD, or "weapons of mass destruction?" I don't know. What the heck is a WMD anyway? A ryder truck is a WMD if you load it with a couple of tons of ammonium nitrate and diesel fuel, so this whole WMD thing is problematic for me. What I hope is that our government knows what Iraq has and what saddam intends to do and that they will make the right judgement. The danger here is the fact that the public isn't presented with all of the evidence. If we had all of the intelligence information that the president had, and we put it to a vote, would we go to war? I guess that depends on the information. We elected a president to make those judgements for us. I just pray that he makes the right decision. 2:12:06 PM    comment []

Social Theory Part 1 The following is a letter that I wrote in response to an Op/Ed piece by Mike Martinez of the Deseret News on January 27th. It didn't get published, which doesn't surprise me, so I am going to publish it myself: I often wonder when those who support affirmative action policies will acknowledge that said policies are just discrimination of another form. While it is true that white people unfairly and unjustly excluded minorities in the past, it seems that unfairly and unjustly excluding qualified members of the majority just because they are members of the majority simply perpetuates the practice of racial bias and discrimination. At what point will people like Mr. Martinez admit that as long as we have affirmative action racial inequalities will never go away? What is the end goal? At what point will content of character and not color of skin be the determining factor in what a person accomplishes? Recently I had the option to receive preferential treatment in a job application process simply because I am a veteran of the armed forces. Even though this was a right that I earned by eight years of service in the Marine Corps Reserve, I chose not to claim preferential treatment because I felt it had no impact on my qualifications for the position. Why should we perpetuate policies that allow people to claim preferential treatment because of some characteristic over which they had no control? Finally, if Mr. Martinez were charged with some crime and had to choose between two defense attorneys, which one would he choose, assuming they are both Hispanic: the defense attorney who got into law school because of affirmative action, or the defense attorney who got in because he was smarter than the rest of the applicants? 1:26:26 PM    comment []

© Copyright 2004 Dave McNamee. Last update: 3/2/2004; 9:46:23 PM.