Aslan=Mohammed=Jesus=Buddha?

Liam Neeson (who provides Aslan’s voice in the new Narnia movie

series) made the news by claiming that Aslan could represent Mohammed or Buddha. “Aslan symbolises a Christlike figure, but he also symbolises for me Mohammed, Buddha, and all

the great spiritual leaders and prophets over the centuries [sic].”1 While on one hand we should perhaps be grateful that Mr. Neeson was able to understand that there is religious and spiritual meaning to C.S. Lewis’ classic stories, in claiming that Aslan could represent any spiritual leader from any religion, Mr. Neeson demonstrates the inability of our postmodern culture to appreciate important differences between divergent beliefs and the characters important to those beliefs. One need not be religious at all to understand and appreciate these differences. Merely looking historically at characters such as Mohammed and Buddha demonstrates that they are as different from Aslan as they are from Jesus Christ himself.

Of course, the differences between other religious leaders and Christianity’s Jesus have been written about extensively. Aslan is, however, nearly as poor of a candidate for a multicultural, multi-religious leader. Aslan, much like Jesus Christ, gives his life not only for his followers but for his enemy. Edmund was a traitor who betrayed not only his own family, but the return of Aslan and the plans for freedom. Aslan willingly laid down his life to preserve Edmund’s, trusting that the unproven “Deep Magic from before the dawn of time” would have the power to overcome the time-proven “Deep Magic from the dawn of time.” This willingness to sacrifice himself is something that is not seen in either Islam or Buddhism. Nor is Aslan portrayed as a great teacher or prophet; rather than discoursing to disciples or claiming to receive messages from heaven, Aslan is essential representative of “that which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled.”2 He is “touched with the feeling of our infirmities.”3 Whether redeeming Edmund at the cost of his own life or weeping at the fragile state of humanity after the death of Caspian, Aslan demonstrates that his existence was not about himself, but about serving and redeeming his creation. This is not the example given by Mohammed and Buddha. They remained aloof in their ivory towers unconcerned with the tangible and true struggles of their followers. Aslan, like Christ, made himself one of his creation, willingly took on their suffering, and worked to redeem them.

Like Christ, Aslan is distinct from Mohammed and Buddha in his roles of creator and redeemer. Aslan is no mere “spiritual leader” or “great teacher” he is the creator of the entire world of Narnia, the son of the Emperor over the Sea, the true king, and the one who makes entrance into Aslan’s Country possible. Neither Buddhism nor Islam ascribe to Buddha and Mohammed the role of creator, the power of deity, or the position of redeemer. Buddha and Mohammed left their followers to reach heaven (or Nirvana) on their own. Aslan made the way; it is only because of him that Aslan’s Country is reachable. As characters, Jesus Christ and Aslan (regardless of whether they actually exist) are fundamentally different from characters such as Mohammed and Buddha. This is not a matter of conjecture or opinion; this difference can be grasped merely by reading the different accounts of each character from each religion (or fantasy in the case of Narnia). Liam Neeson partakes of the common error of attempting to achieve political correctness despite the evidence; he also fails to accurately represent the characters of Mohammed and Buddha by equating them with Aslan.

1. Liam Neeson angers Narnia fans by suggesting Aslan is Mohammed

2. I John 1:1

3. Hebrews 4:15

Discrimination or Disguise?

One of the arguments for gay marriage that I find most disingenuous is the argument that it is discriminatory to prevent gay couples from marrying each other. Regardless of one’s views on the legality, morality, or philosophical justifiability of gay marriage, one ought to be able to see the fallacies behind the argument that preventing gay marriage discriminates against gay people. Like many other words batted around in political arguments, our society needs to understand what discrimination truly is.


The facial reason that prohibitions against gay marriage are not discriminatory is that no one, gay or straight, white or black, Christian, atheist, Muslim, Jew, etc. is allowed to marry someone of the same sex. I as a straight man am not able to marry another man – why should a gay man be granted a right that I am not granted? There is no specific class of individuals whose rights are abridged by the law, it is equally applicable to everyone. Of course, the objection made by proponents of gay marriage is that straight people are legally able to marry the individuals they might want, while gay people are unable to do the same.

This objection does seem, at first glance, to have a valid point. Historically, inter-racial marriage was often banned. These bans applied equally to everyone; nobody was allowed to marry outside their race. Then, in 1967, Loving v. Virginia ruled that inter-racial marriage bans were unconstitutional and discriminatory. The Supreme Court held first that marriage is a fundamental right protected by the 14th Amendment. Additionally, the Court correctly accused the state of Virginia of having a racially discriminatory intent in passing the law because the law only stipulated that whites and other races could not marry; it made no restriction on marriage between non-white races i.e. an African American would have been able to marry a Hispanic.

This case is often used by proponents of gay marriage to show that even though a law be universally applied, it can still be discriminatory. This argument fails to be applicable to the gay marriage issue, however, because the question is not one of preventing people of getting married, but of redefining marriage. If marriage is a fundamental human right, then everyone has the right to not be prevented from marrying by the government. This right extends beyond race, a woman is a woman no matter her race and the same is true for men. To discriminate in marriage rights between races cannot be more defensible than preventing marriages of couples with different hair or eye color or of different IQs or socio-economic statuses.


The right to marry, however, is limited by the definition of marriage. It is nonsensical to argue that one’s first amendment right to free speech guarantees one protection from warrantless searches in one’s home or that it guarantees one the right to be heard. A right must be limited to the definition of that right. Gays are legally able to be married anytime they choose – as long as it is to someone of the opposite sex. There is no discrimination. Marriage has always been defined as being between members of the opposite sex. If proponents of gay marriage wish to change that definition, then that is their prerogative. They ought, however, to be open and upfront enough to claim that as their aim, rather than setting up the red herring of “discrimination.”

If the definition of marriage is changed (if that is even possible), perhaps through a constitutional amendment declaring that marriage laws may not discriminate between sex or sexual orientation, then, and only then, will it become discriminatory to prevent gay marriages. Again, gay marriage is not a legal question, but a philosophical one. Just as it is not a legal question of discrimination that only women are able to give birth, so it is not a legal question (yet) that only people of the same gender are able to get married. It will not become a legal question until the philosophic definition of marriage is changed. Once again, marriage being between members of opposite sex, may be so deeply engrained into certain nations/cultures that gay marriage never becomes a legal question.

Finally, one must remember that even straight people have some restrictions on whom they may marry. They definitely are not able to marry their immediate family, and some states do not even allow first cousins to marry. Also, individuals are not permitted to marry more than one individual. The government is then able to place parameters narrowing the philosophic understanding of marriage (opposite sex individuals) but is not easily or simply able to change or expand upon that philosophic understanding. The philosophic understanding, if at all changeable, of the definition of marriage rests ultimately with the people.

Gun Rights Post-McDonald v. Chicago

A Maryland man is suing the state police and “Handgun Permit Review Board” because it requires citizens to provide "a good and substantial reason” for receiving a concealed carry permit. Interestingly, this man seems to have that reason – in 2002 his home was broken into by a 6’2” man. The intruder now lives a mere 3 miles from his house after receiving an eighteen month suspended sentence for the break-in. The homeowner was initially granted a two-year concealed carry permit which was renewed in 2005. His next request for renewal was denied due to a lack of “apprehended fear” – meaning there were no threats or repeat attacks from the intruder. This is the background for the constitutional questions posed by his lawsuit: First, does the fundamental right to own and bear arms include the right to concealed carry? If so, does one need to give a “good and substantial reason” for acting on that right. The homeowner’s question “Do you have to show a reason to have a driver's license?" seems very appropriate.

Soure: Fredrick Kunkle, “Md. crime victim sues over denial to renew permit to carry concealed handgun,” Washington Post, August 15, 2010. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/14/AR2010081402547.html (accessed August 16, 2010).

Stimulus Spending?

Senators McCain and Coburn have created a document detailing what they feel to be the 100 most wasteful items from the stimulus bill. Regardless of what one thinks about stimulus spending, many of these items will not increase employment, stimulate the economy, or provide any benefit to American taxpayers. Here are some of the highlights:

2. “Dance Draw” - Interactive Dance Software Development (Charlotte, NC) - $762,372
The University of North Carolina at Charlotte received more than $750,000 in stimulus funds to help develop a computerized choreography program that its creators believe could lead to a YouTube-like “Dance Tube” online application. “This will allow choreographers to explore interactive dance without always having a full cast of dancers present,” the grant states.

6. Ants Talk. Taxpayers Listen (San Francisco, CA) - $1.9 million
The California Academy of Sciences is receiving nearly $2 million to send researchers to the Southwest Indian Ocean Islands and east Africa, to capture, photograph, and analyze thousands of exotic ants. The photographs of the ants – over 3,000 species’ worth, according to the grant proposal – will be posted on AntWeb, a website devoted to organizing and displaying pictures and information on the world’s thousands of ant species. “Everyone has run into ants . . . now we need to listen to them.”

11. Upgraded Office Space and Indoor Parking for Kansas Politicians (Topeka, Kansas)- $39.7 million plus
“The school finance crisis in Kansas continues with no end in sight,” announced the Lawrence Journal-World, but that has not stopped Kansas lawmakers from directing federal stimulus funds towards the cost of renovating and upgrading their own offices and the statehouse. Statehouse architect Barry Greis says the price tag now will be “$285 million plus,” adding, “I just don’t know what the plus is.” Democrat state Senator Chris Steineger of Kansas City “said taking advantage of the stimulus program will add to the massive federal budget deficit” and “the underlying problem is that the Capitol renovation project is out of control.” Steineger added “this is not creating new jobs."

18. Jamming for Dollars (Atlanta, GA) - $762,372
A Georgia Tech assistant professor of music will receive $762,372 to study improvised music. The project will apparently involve the professor jamming with “world-renowned musicians” to “hopefully also create satisfying works of art.” The project “seek[s] to understand, model, and support improvisation, or real-time collaborative creativity, in the context of jazz, Indian classical, and avantgarde art music,” according to the project description. How will this help pull the United States out of an historic economic slump? “We are putting money into the local economy that is supporting local jobs,” the project’s principal, Parag Chordia, an accomplished classical Indian music performer, told a reporter.“We are creating the intellectual capital to support future growth.”

20. Monkey and Chimpanzee Responses to Inequity (Atlanta, GA) - $677,462
“Seven species of primates will be asked to make decisions about whether or not to accept rewards in a series of studies in which their outcomes vary relative to their social partners. The influence of social factors like group membership and individual factors like personality will also be investigated. Previous research by the investigator on this project had found that “Chimpanzees respond with temper tantrums if they do not get what they desire,” and that “Capuchin monkeys and
chimpanzees both respond negatively to distributional inequity.”

24. Ship Museum Averaging 30 Visitors A Day (Toledo, OH) - $200,000
The museum is only open from April through October, and hosts 6,000 visitors a year, or an average of only 30 visitors a day. It lost its funding from the City of Toledo in 2007. Now the American taxpayer is funding what the boat’s own city will not, and what one visitor described as “ready for the scrapyard.”

25. Weather Predictions for Other Planets (San Antonio, TX) - $298,543
Want to know if it’s going to rain this week ... on Venus? According to scientists at the Southwest Research Institute (SWRI) in Texas, you absolutely do. So the government has given them nearly $300,000 in stimulus funds to satisfy the American taxpayer’s profound need for interplanetary weather info. “The atmospheric forecasting of weather and climate on other planets has great public appeal,” insist the SWRI researchers in their grant summary. Therefore, they will boldly go where few meteorologists have gone before: the lower atmosphere of Venus.

28. Monkeys Get High for Science (Winston-Salem, NC) - $144,541
The Department of Health and Human Services has sent $71,623 to the Winston-Salem college to see how monkeys react under the influence of cocaine. The project, titled “Effect of Cocaine Self-Administration on Metabotropic Glutamate Systems,” would have the monkeys self-administer the drugs while researchers monitor and study their glutamate levels. When asked how studying drugcrazed primates would improve the national economy, a Wake Forest University Medical School Spokesman said, “It's actually the continuation of a job that might not still be there if it hadn't been for the stimulus funding. And it’s a good job.” He added, “It’s also very worthwhile research.”

30. Two Riders an Hour Get Brand New Buses (Winter Haven, FL) - $2.4 million

31. Studying the Effect of Local Populations on the Environment...in the Himalayas (Ann Arbor, MI) - $529,648
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has awarded researchers at the University of Michigan a grant to study the “reciprocal relationship between population processes (marriage, fertility, and migration) and the environment landusefcover [sic], vegetation abundance, species diversity, and consumption of natural resources) in the foothills of the Nepalese Himalayas.”

36. Scientist Attempts to Create Joke Machine (Evanston, IL) - $712,883

38. Reducing Menopausal Hot Flashes Through Yoga (Winston-Salem, NC) - $294,958
A total of 60 post-menopausal women who experience more than seven hot flashes a day are being recruited to participate.

39. Research: Marketing Video Games to the Elderly (Raleigh, NC and Atlanta, GA) - $1.2 million

44. Ferry Boat Company Serving Island of 600 Gets Terrorism Prevention Grant (Beaver Island,MI) - $30,000

45. Understanding Perceptions of the Economic Stimulus (Dallas, TX & Houston, TX) -$193,956

59. Commerce Department Gets Makeover, Moves Aquarium Door (Washington, DC) - $185 million

68. Museum With 44 Annual Visitors Gets Funding for Bug Storage (Raleigh, NC) -$253,123
The museum boasts being an “internationally recognized resource for the study of insects and mites in North Carolina, the Southeastern United States, and, in several insect groups, the world.” The Museum, which has “virtually no public presence” (it gets about 44 visitors a year), will also use the money for outreach efforts. It also hosts the annual Hexapod Haiku Challenge every March on its blog. "This effort will help raise awareness of how insects contribute to our lives (focusing on positive contributions) and why natural history collections are critical to understanding and documenting biodiversity trends.”

72. Studying Whether a Soda Tax Will Stimulate Health (Chicago, IL) - $521,005

75. The Meteorite Hunters of Antarctica (Cleveland, OH) - $600,001

84. Stimulus Funds Going to the Dogs (Ithaca, NY)505 - $296,385
Researchers believe that there is common understanding of where dogs descended from, but the progression from there to Lassie “is poorly understood.” The new study “will likely to [sic] challenge current theories of dog origins and develop village dogs into a useful system for the study of domestication, speciation, behavior and morphology.”

85. Let’s Polka at the International Accordion Festival! (San Antonio,TX) - $25,000

86. Preserve and Rehabilitate FDR’s Home (Hyde Park, NY) - $4.6 million
[Personal commentary here] It wasn't bad enough that FDR cost this nation millions and billions of dollars in welfare spending. Now we have to continue spending money on his personal effects decades after he died. Will he ever stop costing us money?

87. Study: Does Retirement Help or Hurt Marriage? (Los Angeles, CA) - $174,661

93. National Institute of Health Spends Stimulus Money to Promote the Impact of Its Stimulus Projects (Silver Spring, MD) - $363,760

95. A Better Way to Freeze Rat DNA (Columbia, MO) - $180,935
Calling it an “urgent need,”558 scientists at the University of Missouri received stimulus funds “to develop freezing protocols for epididymal rat sperm which would allow reconstitution of genetics by using standard artificial insemination and in-vitro fertilization methods.”

You can read the rest of the list here: http://coburn.senate.gov/public//index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=e1e0624e-d02a-42d4-9dbb-f5b9f21b3572

Unenumerated Rights are Best

In Federalist 84, Alexander Hamilton argued that the anti-federalist fear of a constitution without a bill of rights was groundless. He went even farther and argued that a bill of rights, in the context of the American system, would lead to government interference in those rights. The anti-federalist, in the spirit of English common law, saw a bill of rights as an essential part of liberty. Who was correct? Which side does the history of this country come down on? The bill of rights has not prevented the government encroachment upon individual rights and has actually made increased the ease of such encroachment.

Alexander Hamilton provides many arguments as to why a bill of rights is not needed. His first is that several of the states did not have a bill of rights. He then proceeds to explain that most of the main rights granted by the King John in the Magna Carta were incorporated as restrictions on the national government within the text of the constitution. He includes in these restrictions habeas corpus, jury trials, no bills of attainder or ex post facto, no grants of nobility. The distinction between rights surrendered by the king and restrictions placed on the government is key. Hamilton argues that “they [the Magna Carta, English bill of rights, and the petition of right] have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants.”

The English bill of rights was based on the assumption that the king was sovereign and was promising certain rights to the lords and people. Edmund Burke wrote of the English bill of rights, “You will observe, that from the Magna Charta to the Declaration of Right, it has been the uniform policy of our constitution to claim and assert our liberties, as an entailed inheritance derived to us from our forefathers, and to be transmitted to our posterity[.] [emphasis his]” In Edmund Burke’s understanding, rights or liberties are a gift given by the king and passed down throughout time. Hamilton’s argument is that this concept cannot apply to a governmental system where the sovereignty rests with the people and the government has only the powers given to it by the people. In the United States, the rights are those historically enjoyed by Englishmen, but they no longer descend from the king; they are possessed by the people. This fulfills Edmund Burke’s theory that rights must be based on a historical progression. Additionally Burke wrote, “All other nations have begun the fabric of a new government, or the reformation of an old, by establishing originally, or by enforcing with greater exactness, some rights or other of religion.”

Another interesting difference in the development of the concept of rights in Great Britain and the United States concerns what exactly a right entails. Perhaps due to the idea rights were granted by the king, the word "rights" seems to entail much more in Great Britain. For example, people there talk of a child's "right" to education, a woman's right to reproductive health services, the right to freedom from poverty, etc., not as something that someone has a uninfringable right to do (as is the case of education or abortion in the U.S.), but as something that the government must provide its citizens. This concept of rights hasn't made significant headway into American political thought. Americans will often say that the government ought to do something - provide free education, welfare, medicare, etc. - but it isn't really until they have paid for it that they demand it.

Interestingly, taxpayer funded abortions have never been strongly supported in America; while women have the right to abortion on demand, its not something the government has a duty to provide its citizens. The national healthcare craze has only begun to implant the English conception of rights into the American political psyche. Because the concept of rights in the U.S., rather than being something provided or granted by the sovereign king, are retained from the government by the sovereign people. Thus, Americans only have a "right" to those services that which they authorize the government to provide and for which they (in theory) pay. There seems to be less of an expectation of provision under a system where rights are held by, not granted to, the people.

The United States reformed the old, English system and began with the understanding that all men have certain basic rights given to them by their Creator, not a king. The power over these basic rights rest then, first in the people, but ultimately in God. In the American system, the people are sovereign under God. A better comparison between the American and English system would be to look at the constitution as a bill of rights for the government. Both the English bill of rights and the constitution came from the power-holders, the king and the people respectively, and granted rights to the people and to the government respectively.

An especially compelling argument made by Alexander Hamilton is that “a minute detail of particular rights, is certainly far less applicable to a constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to one which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns.” This argument proceeds from his former argument regarding the English bill of rights. He argued that in a system, like the American constitution, where the government only has the powers given to it by the people, a bill of rights is unnecessary. A related concern with the “minute detail of particular rights” is that it is simply impossible to enumerate every right. The danger with a bill of rights, especially in a system based on the English system, is the mentality that it is only the enumerated rights which are protected.

This mentality has crept into our jurisprudence system. Supreme Court
Justice Antonin Scalia, a bastion of conservatism and original intent analysis in the Supreme Court, does not believe that the judicial system has the authority to protect unenumerated rights. In the case of Troxel v. Ganville, a parental rights case, the majority of the court ruled in favor of the right of the parents to make decisions for their children. Justice Scalia, however, dissented. His reasoning is clear. He believes that parental rights are part of the “unalienable rights” mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, but does not believe that the mention of rights in that document gives the judicial system power to protect those rights. He writes, “I do not believe that the power which the Constitution confers upon me as a judge entitles me to deny legal effect to laws that (in my view) infringe upon what is (in my view) that unenumerated right [emphasis his].” He writes further, “The Declaration of Independence, however, is not a legal prescription conferring powers upon the courts; and the Constitution’s refusal to “deny or disparage” other rights is far removed from affirming anyone of them, and even farther removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be, and to enforce the judges’ list against laws duly enacted by the people.”

Justice Scalia’s argument follows logically from the concept of a bill of rights. A bill of rights, traditionally, came from a king, someone who held supreme power, who granted rights and liberties for various reasons (needed cooperation with legislation, a war, new taxes, etc.). The bill of rights, therefore, did not necessarily extend beyond what was enumerated in the document itself. While other rights might exist, as Scalia would argue, these rights are not given the same amount of protection because they are not in the document. Essentially, a bill of rights carries with it the idea of its being a grant of protection of certain rights, even if that was not the intention of those who framed it.

Hamilton also raises the issue that a bill of rights will give the government the idea that they are able to interfere to some extent in those areas. His reasoning is that they would be restrictions on powers not granted, and, as such, would give the government a foothold for claiming some jurisdiction in that area. Even the federalists worked off the assumption that power wants to increase itself. Alexander Hamilton writes, “I go further, and affirm, that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted.” He continues, “For why declare that things shall not be done, which there is no power to do?” His reasoning is, that if the government has not been given the power to do a particular action, adding language telling the government that it cannot do a particular action is redundant. Is this redundancy a problem, however?

Telling the government that it may not interfere in a particular area in which it was never even given power is extremely problematic because it leaves open the question of what exactly interference entails and how much interference is allowed. For example, in 2002 Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act which prohibited corporations and unions from “using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech that is an ‘electioneering communication’ or for speech that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a candidate.” This is an example where the first amendment protection of free speech is open to interpretation. Does the first amendment protect the speech of corporations? or merely individuals? Did the national government go too far? Is it allowed to merely restrict instead of ban such speech? An enumerated right is no more free from interpretation than is any clause in the constitution. The Supreme Court ultimately decided that such restrictions were unconstitutional, but only after serious debate about the meaning of “free speech.” The national government is never granted any power to abridge free speech. It is limited to actions necessary and proper to accomplishing the actions it is allowed to do. None of the list of “foregoing powers” granted to Congress will be assisted by the abridgement of free speech. The inclusion of a right which the government cannot abridge, where the government has no authority to abridge anyway, leaves the right open for interpretation by any of the branches of government. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court restrained government interference, but it did so not by stating that the government had no right to legislate in this area, but by deciding that it was undue interference.

Additionally, there exists the problem of advances in technology. Does the second amendment protect the right of the individual? or the militia? Is an individual citizen allowed to own an automatic assault rifle? a high-powered sniper rifle? Does the freedom of the press include the internet? Once these issues are enumerated as rights, someone must interpret them. In our system, the government interprets the rights. This, while unavoidable, is regrettable. If the government was limited merely to interpreting its powers, it would be much more restricted.

Madison’s ideal of the separation of powers was “Ambition [being] made to counter ambition.” In a system where the branches of government interpret what their powers are, each branch will attempt to protect its own power and be jealous of the increases of the other branches’ power. If one branch gains more power, it has the potential to use it against the others. This system works incredibly well because it is based on correct understandings of human nature and power: man is fallen and power corrupts and seeks to expand.

To allow the government to interpret our rights, however, is vastly more problematic. By this means, ambition can actually foster and complement ambition. For example, the Supreme Court can gather more power by deciding something completely outside the meaning of the constitution, such as finding trimester qualifications on abortion as it did in Roe v. Wade . By gathering this decision power to itself, the court trampled on the powers of the state governments and gave more power to Congress which had to regulate this new issue. Allowing the government to interpret our rights rather than merely its powers negates the true strength of the doctrine of the separation of powers and allows for parallel government growth. A particular branch of government will most likely be completely comfortable with permitting the growth of power in another branch provided that the action used to gain that power expands its own power as well. This being the case, a type of democratic tyranny as envisioned by Madison in Federalist 48 is very possible. The rights of the people would rest more secure if the government had no ability to interpret them and was limited to interpreting its enumerated powers. The strongest protection of individual rights is a clear understanding that the government has only those powers given to it by the people.

The American system is different than the British system in that in the American system power comes from the people. A bill of rights comes with the connotation of the rights being granted to the people by a higher power such as a king. A bill of rights cannot contain all rights, and this limitation opens the door for the government to deny protection of those rights. Allowing the government to interpret rights limits the effectiveness of the doctrine of separation of powers and allows the branches of government to expand conjunctly; the combination of these two results, given the natures of man and power, will result in a reduction of rights. “An elective despotism was not the government we fought for;” a bill of rights enhances the potential for the abuse of governmental power.

Reflections: November 6th, 2008 & January 20th, 2009

Where has discernment gone, countrymen, my countrymen?
When will your eyes see your error, what you have done? When
“The days have gone down in the West … into shadow
And the world of men falls into chaos below?
What will you say when your world is no more,
You who have chosen to give up this war?
What will you do when they come to your door,
And there is no escape anymore?
Will you then take back this empty choice?
Why did you follow naught but a voice?
Why did you choose this, what were you offered?
How were you deceived by what was proffered?
And why was it so easy?

Where has your courage gone, countrymen, my countrymen?
When did battle become the choice that you feared most? When
Did freedom lose all to the dream of endless peace,
And the ever vain hope that all battles might cease?
“Is … peace so sweet as to be purchased at
The price of chains and slavery”, yes, that
Is the question left unasked. And hereat
We must never shrink from the just combat.
But how will your strength return again,
Once you are conquered what will remain?
Why did you lose heart, why did you give in?
What caused this cowardice to begin,
And can you be brave once more?



Where has your freedom gone, countrymen, my countrymen?
When did its value fade, what did they tell you, and when
Did they begin? How is it that what you held dear
And sacred and inviolable now you fear?
You would give it up without a tear!
How foolish your choice soon will appear.
What will you then do to change this doom?
Will you wait ‘till your land is a tomb,
And the “forgotten people” you become?
What then, what then will be reckoned the sum
Of the greatness that you lost?

McDonald v. City of Chicago

I found the recent Supreme Court decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago to be very encouraging. This decision, of course, is an extension of the Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller which held that the city’s handgun ban was a violation of the second amendment. Washington D.C. is, of course, a federal enclave, so the Supreme Court did not officially make a decision affecting state laws in D.C. v. Heller. The decision was disappointingly, but not surprisingly, not unanimous – four justices held that the second amendment is not applied to the states by the fourteenth amendment.

The majority opinion relied heavily on original intent, both the original intent of the second amendment as well as the fourteenth. They looked at Blackstone, ratification debates, and the Federalist and Anti-federalist papers. They also looked extensively at the debates surrounding the passage of the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments. In response to the City of Chicago’s attorney’s argument that the Court needed to think about whether a civilized society could exist without gun rights and his examples of “civilized” societies that do not have gun rights, the Court correctly observed that many of the rights incorporated under the fourteenth amendment, rights like the right to trial by jury, are not protected in other civilized countries. The Court also observed that it is not international consensus or opinion that ought to be considered, but our national history and consensus. The Court found that the majority of states do have constitutional protections of gun rights and that that right is inherent to our system of government and conception of freedom. The majority held, then, that right to own and bear arms is a fundamental right. Based on previous decisions, this means that the right to bear arms is incorporated against state governments under the Due Process clause of the 14th amdendment.

Justice Scalia’s concurring opinion was highly effective in pointing out the errors in the reasoning of the four dissenters as well as their logical inconsistencies. He pointed out that, by looking at international standards, it would be very possible to do away with many of our most important rights. He lambasted them for their hubris in thinking that they were able to issue rulings based on their political opinion alone.

The part of this decision I found most encouraging (besides the failure of the dissenters to come up with a valid reason not to incorporate gun rights to the states) was Justice Thomas’ concurrence. He agreed that gun rights were fundamental, but his argument was that gun rights were part of the Privileges or Immunities clause of the 14th amendment. Justice Thomas went into an in-depth explanation of the history and philosophy of the 14th amendment and explained what the writers intended. He disagrees with the Court’s historical broad interpretation of the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment, arguing that it would be more accurate to protect those rights under the Privileges or Immunities clause, which the Court usually refused to do.

Justice Thomas goes on to explain that the terms “privileges or immunities” mean rights, liberties, or freedoms to the people that ratified the 14th amendment – he points to concurrent court decisions as well as dictionary definitions of the time. Thus, those ratifying the 14th amendment understood that their fundamental rights as U.S. citizens were to be incorporated against the states. Because the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right of U.S. citizenship (as based on its historical importance to the founders and Common Law and its place in the Bill of Rights), and because the word privileges is synonymous with “right,” the Privileges and Immunities clause protects gun rights from state abridgement.

The original intent analysis of this decision was very in-depth. The majority used it extensively to prove that gun rights are fundamental rights. Justice Thomas used it even more precisely to disagree with decades of precedent in order to go back to the founders’ (and those that ratified the 14th amendment) intent. Overall, it was a well reasoned and encouraging decision. Justice Scalia’s concurrence was just the icing on the cake!

The War Rhetoric of George Bush and Winston Churchill

Both George W. Bush and Winston Churchill were great leaders who brought their countries through times of turmoil and disaster. Part of their success was their ability to galvanize their respective nations in a time of crisis. Two of their most important and powerful speeches were George Bush’s “Freedom at War with Fear” speech and Churchill’s “We Shall Fight on the Beaches” speech. George Bush’s speech came after the terrorist attacks in New York and at the Pentagon, and was given nine days after the event at a joint session of Congress. Winston Churchill’s speech was in response to the collapse of the Allied defense in France and the German aerial bombings and impending invasion; interestingly, his speech was given nine days later as well. Both speeches came at times which perfectly exemplified Lloyd Bitzer’s concept of the “rhetorical situation” in that both were at a time of exigency, were prepared for the universal audience of fellow countrymen, and emphasized fitting restraint and response. The effectiveness of their speeches in reaching their countrymen, in reassuring them, rallying them, and preparing them for action is directly linked to the effective use of rhetorical methods and techniques including ethos, pathos, kairos, and to prepon.

Ethos is the most important characteristic to have as a speaker – if an audience has no trust in the speaker, then he is simply wasting his time. Aristotle breaks ethos into three parts, eunoia, phronesis, and arete. Eunoia is the demonstration of good will to others. George Bush utilized this aspect very effectively in his speech. He asked Americans not to feel hate for or prejudice against Muslims, especially those in the U.S. He made the distinction between peaceful Muslims and terrorists with phrases such as, “Islamic extremism [has] been by Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim clerics”, and, “The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends.” He mentioned Arabs when speaking of people in other nations supporting the U.S., and mentions the “saying of prayers – in English, Hebrew, and Arabic.” He deflected the anger many Americans would potentially have felt towards innocent Muslims toward the terrorists deserving of that anger. He demonstrated goodwill by acknowledging all the nations who were supporting and praying for the U.S and thanks them for their support. He also makes good use of eunoia by commenting on the unity the different political parties have shown in the face of the tragedy. His use of eunoia is very effective both in calming the fear of his audience and in focusing anger and desire for revenge to where it is warranted.

Winston Churchill used eunoia to a much lesser degree. He expressed goodwill and gratitude to King Leopold and the people of Belgium for protecting Dunkirk, though he hinted that he thought their plan of neutrality was one of the causes of the problem. He, similarly to Bush’s method, used the term Nazi rather than German when speaking of war crimes such as the bombing of hospital ships, thereby removing the full blame from the German people at large. He was also very gracious in speaking of the French and Belgians, even though it was largely due to their unwise decisions and military blunders that Britain was dragged into a lost battle.

Churchill could get away with using less eunoia than Bush, because his situation did not really call for it. The enemy was more clearly defined in World War II than it is in the war on terror. Churchill was completely justified in using the term German to describe Britain’s enemy, but Bush needed to define the enemy and ensure peaceful Muslims that they could expect peace in return.

Phronesis could be defined simply as good sense or practical wisdom; it includes showing relevance, referencing past experience and similar cases, and showing which issues are most important. Both Bush and Churchill had almost no need to show the relevance of what they were speaking about to their audiences – both of their countries were in imminent danger and had just sustained major blows. Churchill mentioned past history in the second to last paragraph of his speech. He said that Britain had never been truly free from the danger of an invasion, reminded the British people of Napoleon’s planned invasion, and said that, just as their navy protected them before, it would protect them again. Finally, he compared the military, particularly the RAF, to medieval knights and crusaders defending civilization, implying that they were carrying on the tradition of those who had gone before. He also emphasized important issues such as forming a unified front against the impending German invasion. But he didn’t fail to remind his listeners what the main issue was; he told his listeners the main issue was the conflict between good and evil and freedom and tyranny. Churchill used phronesis very effectively.

Bush used phronesis in the comparison of the September 11th attacks to the Pearl Harbor attacks. He reminds Americans that we have been through similar situations before, but that this one is worse because this attack hit us at home, killing thousands of civilians.4 He compared Islamic jihadists to the opponents the U.S. had faced before including Nazis and fascists. He stressed the fact that, while the U.S. needed to respond to this threat as it had to past threats, this war would be drawn out unlike any war Americans had yet seen. He, like Churchill, in stating the important issues made the claim that this too would be a war of good against evil and freedom against tyranny. He identified the enemy and explained why they hate Americans. He, as Weaver wrote a speaker should, appealed to the underlying values and principles most American’s have and stated that they were the reasons the terrorists hate and fear America. Bush and Churchill used phronesis almost in the exact same way, with great ease and perfection.

Arete is the demonstration of a good moral character, demonstrating personal virtue. Both Churchill and Bush had the credibility and trust at those times to gain this aspect from their audience. In addition, both claimed that their country had the moral high-ground in the struggle. This reflects back to the idea that both struggles were for freedom against tyranny. Britain stepped in to defend Belgian neutrality and France against an aggressor. The U.S. was attacked for its stance for freedom and against tyranny and its support of Israel. Arete played an important role, especially in Bush’s speech, of justifying the actions the audiences are called to fulfill.

Pathos is defined by Quintillion as passionate or emotional appeals. Churchill uses style to effectively communicate pathos as suggested by Francis Bacon. He uses phrases like, “the German eruption swept like a sharp scythe”, “dull brute mass of ordinary German Army and German people”, “ignominious and starving captivity”, and, “great trial of strength.” He appealed to Britain’s history of heroes, knights, and crusaders. He mentioned the typical British duties to king and country and gave the hope that the commonwealth would support them. He employed metaphor, “this armored scythe-stroke [German army]”, alliteration, irony, and hyperbole. His use of anaphora, “we shall fight… we shall fight... we shall fight”5, is especially motivating and effective. He fulfilled Quintillion “essential for stirring the emotions” by first feeling the emotions he wanted his audience to feel. Winston Churchill was extremely patriotic and unashamedly thought his country the best and the last European bulwark of freedom in the face of Nazi tyranny.

The main method George Bush used to employ pathos was introducing or mentioning people involved in the terrorist attacks. He introduced Lisa Beamer whose husband died in an airplane preventing terrorists from taking control of the plane. He introduced New York City’s mayor Rudy Giuliani and Britain’s prime minister, Tony Blair, saying, “America has no truer friend than Great Britain.” He told the nation of the people all around the world who were praying and feeling their grief. He spoke of rescuers, firemen, and policemen who gave their lives. He made their sacrifice come alive to his listeners by showing George Howard’s police badge; George Howard was killed at the World Trade Center site. He appealed to the human desire for justice by saying that, “Whether we bring our enemies to justice, or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done.” He appealed to his listeners love for and desire to protect American values like freedom, faith, heroism, equality, religious freedom, and sacrifice. He blatantly stated the reason for the terrorists’ hate of America, “They stand against us, because we stand in their way.”

He, like Churchill, also included some stylistically catchy phrases, “[terrorists] will follow that path all the way, to where it ends: in history’s unmarked grave of discarded lies”, “we are in a fight for our principles”, “this will not be an age of terror, this will be an age of liberty”, etc. He explained the evil of the terrorists and the justice of America’s cause, and called on the world to join the U.S. in that cause, thereby reinforcing the arete of America. He also had a memorable phrase very similar to Churchill’s famous string, “we will come together … we will come together … we will come together.” Churchill and Bush seem to have equally employed pathos, though in different methods. It would seem that their speeches were tailored to their specific audiences, Churchill utilizing great verbiage and Bush introducing heroes. They both realized the importance of incorporating emotion into their speeches, as Richard Weaver would say, they “move men’s feelings in the direction of a goal.”

Kairos is the practice of giving a speech at the best time. It is very interesting that both Bush and Churchill waited nine days before delivering their speeches. Bush’s waiting was good, because it gave time for investigations to be made, for wounds to begin to heal, and for grief to begin to abate. On September 13th Bush proclaimed a “National Day of Prayer and Remembrance”, and the next day from the ash and twisted metal of the Twin Towers offered comfort and security to Americans. By the time he was in front of Congress ready to give his speech, Americans were angry and ready to hear fighting words. On September 20th Americans were ready to hear who had attacked us and how they would be punished. By September 20th the time was right; as Bush said so powerfully, “Our grief has turned to anger, and anger to resolution.”


Churchill’s speech was also aptly timed. Nine days before he gave his speech the bulk of the British army was trapped at the French seaport of Dunkirk. They had no safe way of escape and it was estimated that only about fifteen percent would make it back to Britain. In a miraculous turn of events all the British soldiers were rescued, and so were most of the French soldiers. Churchill waited until all the soldiers were home before he gave the speech. Britain had faced one of the direst calamities ever, and if Churchill had given the speech any earlier he would have given it in a time when people were holding their breaths to see what would happen and its effect would have been lost and his appeals would have been lost. Both Bush and Churchill accurately gauged the appropriate time in deciding when to speak.

To prepon is the practice of having one’s speeches fit for the occasion. Churchill gauged the public mood, and, rather than give a speech that simply rejoiced in the deliverance of the soldiers, he spent most of the time telling his listeners what the next few years would entail. The mood of Britain at this time was one of euphoria and relief and Churchill realized that he needed to sober them up to the realities of what the war would bring. He then gave them a realistic analysis of the struggles and hardships that they were going to face and prepares them for the road ahead. He asked them to make the necessary sacrifices to help with national security.

Bush’s speech also made effective use of to prepon. He realized that it was no longer the time for extreme public grief, and, after thanking rescue workers, heroes, and our allies, proceeded to tell the nation who their enemy was and what the government was going to do about it. His speech was stirring in that it is unabashedly pro-American and anti-terrorism. It is the equivalent of Ronald Reagan’s calling the U.S.S.R. the “Evil Empire”. In his speech he helped Americans turn their grief into a productive resolution. Another aspect he employed in making his speech fit for the occasion was emphasizing America’s arete. He emphasized America’s just cause and moral responsibility to bring the terrorist groups to justice. Finally, Bush, like Churchill, asked Americans to patiently make the new sacrifices needed to bolster national security.

Both speeches were perfect for their occasions, but in different ways since the occasions were different. Churchill used his speech to prepare his country for the long and troubled road ahead; his speech is more sobering. Bush used his speech to help Americans feel safe and secure as well as to prepare them for an almost unending war; his speech is more comforting and martial.

Both speeches are masterpieces and had the desired effect. The British populace rallied, prepared for war, fought through the bombings, and pushed the Nazis back into Germany. America rallied around its president and troops and sent them to Afghanistan. The speeches were so effective because of Churchill and Bush’s impressive use of rhetorical technique gave them the necessary powers of persuasion.

Capital Punishment and Democratic Society

A society such as the one in the United States which has a relatively high value for human life, as evidenced by the amount of resources spent to rescue individuals in emergency situations or the vast amounts of money spent on foreign aid to starving people, may struggle with the concept of capital punishment. Democratic societies focused on commercialism and equality of conditions often induce a certain softness into their people. This softness may make it difficult for the society to accept capital punishment. The finality of capital punishment is antithetical to a system that values equality and comfort above justice and honor.

Friedrich Nietzsche writes in Beyond Good and Evil that “the herd man in Europe today gives himself the appearance of being the only permissible kind of man, and glorifies his attributes, which make him tame, easy to get along with, and useful to the herd, as if they were the truly human virtues: namely, public spirit, benevolence, consideration, industriousness, moderation, indulgence, and pity." This is true of both the individuals and the government in the United States today. Indulgence and pity and moderation of punishment are seen as inherent goods rather than something to be meted out when deserved; interestingly, phronesis or the practical wisdom needed to adjudicate well is not a value that Nietzsche saw as important to a democratic society. A democratic society that focuses on equality will be less inclined to favor a system that meets out different punishments for the same crime. Its solution is to gradually reduce its penalties.

Nietzsche goes on to write, “There is a point in the history of society when it becomes so pathologically soft and tender that among other things it sides even with those who harm it, criminals, and does this quite seriously and honestly. Punishing somehow seems unfair to it, and it is certain that imagining ‘punishment’ and ‘being supposed to punish’ hurts it, arouses fear in it.” A people this soft tends to forget the victim of the crime and the justice due him; so long as the danger to society is neutralized no further action need be taken. Such an idea is completely antithetical to the Bible’s teaching on justice and retribution for capital crimes. , Nietzsche explains the feelings of individuals in such a soft society, “‘Is it not enough to render him undangerous? Why still punish? Punishing itself is terrible.’”

Of course, Nietzsche’s argument is that fear is the only reason that morality exists, but his reflections on the nature of a soft, democratic society need not be rejected on that ground. He writes of a society concerned merely with commerce and comfort, “Wherever the will to power beings to decline, in whatever form, there is always an accompanying decline physiologically, a decadence. The divinity of this decadence, shorn of its masculine virtues and passions, is converted perforce into a god of the physiologically degraded, of the weak. Of course they do not call themselves the weak; they call themselves ‘the good.’” He recognizes that as a society that begins to worship decadence and pleasure becomes weak but frames its weakness as goodness or kindness. Capital punishment has no place in such a system; it does not seem kind. Such a society is far less interested in the justice owed the victims of crimes as it is in preserving a kind and friendly façade. It is not comfortable to hear of someone’s being executed.

Alexis de Tocqueville agrees with Nietzsche on the affect that democracy’s love of material enjoyments has on the individual. He writes of democratic individuals, “They fall into softness rather than debauchery.” He helps to explain this tendency of democratic societies to reject strong punishment. He begins with a brief discussion of how individuals view punishment in an aristocratic society. He writes, “In an aristocratic people each caste has its own opinions, sentiments, rights, mores, and separate existence. Thus the men who compose it do not resemble everyone else; they do not have the same manner of thinking or of feeling, and they scarcely believe themselves to be part of the same humanity. Therefore they cannot understand well what the other feel, or judge them by themselves.” De Tocqueville is arguing that the social differences between people in an aristocratic society keep them from fully participating in punishments meted out to criminals. Thus the French aristocrat can speak of a man being drawn and quartered without feeling anything.

Democratic societies are exactly the opposite according to de Tocqueville. He asks, “Do we have more sensitivity than our fathers?” His answer is simple. The equality of rank causes each individual to imagine each penalty as being imposed on himself. “It makes no difference whether it is a question of strangers or of enemies: imagination immediately puts him in their place. It mixes something personal with his pity and makes him suffer himself while the body of someone like him is torn apart.” “In democratic centuries, men rarely devote themselves to one another; but they show a general compassion for all members of the human species…they are not disinterested, but they are mild.… There is no country where criminal justice is administered with more kindness than in the United States.” Notice the use of such words as Nietzsche found so objectionable; notice also that there is no mention of an equally strong desire to be just as to be kind.

De Tocqueville saw the tendency of democratic societies to reduce penalties. In writing about how Americans treat women well, he states, “The legislators of the United States, who have made almost all the provisions of the penal code milder, punish rape with death; and there is no crime that public opinion pursues with more inexorable ardor.” Today, a mere 170 years after de Tocqueville wrote those words, it is a violation of the constitutional protection against cruel and unusual punishments to give a life sentence for rape of any form including aggravated sexual assault of a child.

The death penalty is strictly limited, under the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution, to cases of murder. That being the case, many states do not allow for the death penalty. The number of states allowing the death penalty is down to thirty-five and they are steadily in decline. In 2009, only 106 death sentences were handed down; down over 66% from 1994. In 2009, a mere 52 prisoners were executed for capital offences. In addition to the problem of the reduction of the use of capital sentencing, many sentences are not carried out, at least for years. As of 2008 there were 3,207 prisoners sentenced to capital punishment in the prison system. Even in the few cases where capital punishment is meted out, the public is still not ready to put people to death.

This focus on feeling, the feeling of dislike of ending anyone’s life, rather than a focus on justice is the result of an epistemological error – the idea that expressions of value are merely expressions of feeling. A democratic society is especially prone to this as, absent religion, the equality of man causes him to reject any system of morality passed down from an authority. Morality, absent religion, tends to be subjective to the individual or to society. De Tocqueville writes, "It is therefore always necessary, however it happens, that we encounter authority somewhere in the intellectual and moral world. Its place is variable, but it necessarily has a place. Individual independence can be more or less great; it cannot be boundless. Thus, the question is not that of knowing whether an intellectual authority exists in democratic centuries, but only where it is deposited and what its extent will be." He writes that the equality of conditions makes belief in an intellectual authority outside of man somewhat incredulous and that it exaggerates the capabilities of the human intellect.

De Tocqueville writes, “…as people become more like one another, they show themselves reciprocally more compassionate regarding their miseries, and the law of nations becomes milder.” He writes that the basis of such new standards is found either in themselves or in the collective impulse of the society. This tendency towards relativism was retarded in the early years of the American democratic society by the extent of influence which religion held over them. Over time that influence has diminished, and society has had to come up with a new system of morality to accommodate its materialism and immorality.

It is in this democratic system of relative morality that looks for moral guidance to the individual or to the public opinion of the whole that the focus shifts from a transcendent standard such as justice and instead focuses on feelings. Society worries about the criminal’s feelings, about how it will be viewed if it enacts penalties that seem harsh, about how the individuals making up society feel about such penalties, while simultaneously ignoring justice and the feelings of the victims of the crime. A society then attempts to assign penalties to crimes as the majority feels the crimes should be punished.

Nietzsche rejected the hypocrisy of such a system of morality. He realized that a system of morality based on society’s feelings (he believed the feeling to be fear) was completely arbitrary and nonsensical. Either morality, and hence standards like justice, must be based in a higher authority than man, or they must not exist at all. Nietzsche erred by choosing the latter because he declared God dead, but his rejection of an arbitrary human standard of morality should be noted.

The modern American democracy has completely traded a religion of a transcendent God with one of materialism and the pursuit of equality over freedom. The absence of religion has, as de Tocqueville argued it would, left a void in the area of moral truth and something will fill that void. When looking at the issue of capital punishment and its merits or flaws, Americans have not looked to whether capital punishment is just. They have rather, under a legal doctrine known as “the evolving standards of decency” set public and worldwide opinion as the standard of whether a punishment is legal or not. Americans have decided that they do not feel that capital punishment is right for many crimes, and are trending more and more away from supporting capital punishment at all.

This trend finds its basis in a society that rejects a transcendent moral standard or standard maker and subjects morality to the whim of public or personal opinion. The softness of character fostered by a decadent, materialistic lifestyle and the focus on the equality of individuals leads to a dislike of capital punishment – it does not seem “kind.” This softness coupled with a morality based on feelings rather than transcendent concepts such as justice, causes a society to reject capital punishment.

Homeschooling Works

Over the weekend, I worked at the Parentalrights.org booth at the Home Educators Association of Virginia (HEAV) conference in Richmond. While there, between times when our booth was swamped with people looking for more information or wanting to know how to help, I had the chance to observe some of the other displays. After doing so, I began to think about the benefits of homeschooling and the many options available.

There were well over a dozen comprehensive curriculum choices available. There were special curriculum choices for foreign languages (Rosetta Stone, etc.), geography, science, art, etc. They were all at this conference, all vying with each other to see who could provide the best and most effective services. There were organizations like the Heritage Foundation and several colleges, including Patrick Henry College of course, all recruiting homeschoolers. There were historical sites like Colonial Williamsburg and the New Market battlefield with offers of “homeschool days” and special discounts for homeschoolers. There were several homeschooling families with media or publishing industries selling their materials.

Two observations I made from this conference: Homeschooling is thriving both as an education choice and as an industry; Homeschooling gives parents the option to narrowly tailor materials to their children’s specific needs at an amazing and (probably) unparalleled level. Probably one of the most annoying comments that homeschool parents get, besides the ubiquitous question “What about socialization?” is “I could never do that, how do you manage to teach everything?” Despite the oddity of the assumption that one needs a teaching degree to teach elementary or even high school classes, the answer is simple – the multiple and diverse curriculum options make it easy to find a system that works for you and your children. Additionally, such a question ignores the ability of the child (especially in high school) to "self-teach."

One of the best results of homeschooling is that each child gets to move forward at his own pace rather than being held back by the lowest denominator in the class of twenty students. The student is often able to take the initiative and “self-teach” to a great degree. Speaking from my own experience, homeschooling gave me the freedom to pursue my own interests (law, languages, literature, and philosophy) along with the generic core which included the necessary, but oh-so-dull classes like physics and earth science. Homeschoolers are free in other ways as well. My father often travelled on business trips for his job; my family would just pack up our school materials and travel around with him visiting valuable historical and educational sites along the way.

Homeschooling is great because it gives the child the chance for hands-on, active, and involved learning. It gives one the freedom to tailor the curriculum to the interests and needs of the child and (often) gives the child a greater participation in his own education. It certainly is not for everybody, but with the many options and opportunities out there, it should never be looked as second class. Remember, Thomas Edison was homeschooled after his public school teacher said he was “addled” and “unteachable” – we should be glad his mother disagreed!

Sonnet 7: All I Need

As I sit here alone with naught to do,
I soon begin to think over my past,
Remembering those things which seemed so new
But now are empty, their joy did not last.
I think of all the places I have seen;
The novelty of newness soon wears thin.
My longings when fulfilled have only been
Like opened doors, inviting wishes in.
I’ve tried my friendships, they have had their rôle;
But there is something, something more I need.
I want to find a focus, life’s one goal,
A goal that’s more than satisfying greed.
O, God of love, you’re all that I require;
And more than that – you’re all that I desire.

Evaluation and Critique of Peter Singer's _Animal Liberation: The Definitive Classic of the Animal Movement_

This is part of a paper I wrote for Ethics last semester. I have not included the exposition section of my paper, if you are interested you should read his book: http://books.google.com/books?id=VryqNwAACAAJ&dq=Animal+liberation&ei=iBEPTNGPJI-oygSIp5HvCg&cd=9

Humans have always viewed themselves as distinct from animals. We use animal names as insults: we call someone a dog if they are behaving poorly or cowardly, pig if they are being selfish or gluttonous, and mulish is they are stubborn and obstinate. Resulting from this belief that humans are somehow above animals is the belief that humans are able, for the most part, to treat animals any way they wish. Animals are used for labor, for food, for clothing, and for experimentation. In his book, Animal Liberation: The Definitive Classic of the Animal Movement, Singer seeks to challenge this long standing approach with his utilitarian ideal of animal liberation. Singer examines the supposed differences between humans and animals and decides, based on the utilitarian goal of maximizing pleasure, that there is no real distinction between humans and most of the animal kingdom. Singer’s view of animal rights is based upon a faulty view of the distinction in nature between humans and animals.

Peter Singer has several valid critiques of the status quo. The use of animals in experimental research having no obvious benefit to humans seems indefensible especially when it causes the research animals’ severe physical or mental/emotional trauma. There is no serious benefit to humanity in torturing monkeys into psychopathy. Additionally, in the face of the evidence of misery that he presents regarding aspects of the factory farm system, one is forced to consider the one’s justification for eating veal, the result of torturous treatment of calves, or eggs gathered from chickens so packed with other birds that they cannot move.

One is also forced to question, however, Singer’s reasons for treating animals better. He believes that we owe special treatment to any beings that can feel pain. This distinction is artificial for two reasons. First, Singer basically limits the ability to feel pain to animals with nervous systems(1). This distinction seems artificial. Assuming that the ability to feel pain is the necessary and sufficient condition for inclusion in the moral community, one is forced to wonder why the ability to feel pain is limited to animals with nervous systems. Such an arbitrarily created distinction seems naïve and hubristic. It would seem that a protective response to negative stimuli would be a more appropriate qualification. Amoebae quite obviously have no nervous system (they are single celled organisms), but they do seek to defend themselves from danger. Lightly poke an amoeba with a pointed object, and it will seek to move away or morph itself in such a way as to neutralize the threat(2). Certain types of trees such as pines and myrrh will respond to a cut by excreting exorbitant amounts of sap in an attempt to seal the wound(3).

If one is going to define the moral community as those beings which can feel pain, it would seem much safer to define the ability to feel pain as the attempt to respond protectively to negative stimuli. This would seem impossible, as nearly all fauna and flora respond against negative stimuli. Yet Singer advocates abstaining from eating a particular type of organism, mollusks, because though one may be very confident that then do not feel pain (they have no nervous system) one cannot be completely sure. Can we be completely sure that amoebae and plants feel no pain? They seem to have responses to negative stimuli unlike a stone for example. Yet we must eat something. The ability to experience pain, no matter how feeling pain is defined, is an inadequate and unrealistic method of determining the scope of the moral community, those beings which need to be considered.

Secondly, on the question of killing animals, Singer makes the utilitarian argument that to kill an animal ends its ability to experience pleasure and is, therefore, wrong. This begs the question of what one is able to do with animals (or people) who are living a life of misery. What if there was a cow that was so arthritic it could not move without incredible pain and began to be unable to digest food? Would not the general happiness be increased by anesthetizing the cow, killing it painlessly, and giving it to people to eat? Under Singer’s system, it is only wrong to kill animals, or humans, if their death increases misery.

Additionally, Singer does not adequately address the problem of animals killing and eating each other, even their own kind. One is left to wonder how beings can be part of a moral community and deserve the highest level of protection within that community without being subject to the rules of that moral community. It is senseless to say it is wrong for humans to kill animals for food merely because we do not need to in order to survive, yet not force the same line of reasoning on bears who are just as able to live a vegetarian life as we are. As mentioned earlier, Singer does recognize differences between humans and animals, yet asserts that these differences are merely limited to rights, not moral consideration. For example, we don’t allow dogs to vote, yet we must consider their pleasure and pain in any situation.

Singer’s argument is built off the faulty assumption that rationality does not work as a determinative for inclusion into the moral community because this would alienate infants and the severely mentally disabled. This argument ignores the idea of telos – an infant will become a rational, thinking, moral decision making human being; a dog will never participate in those activities of the mind. A better system for determining the moral community would be a system based on the ability to make moral decisions. Such a system should incorporate telos and recognize that even the severely mentally handicapped have more potential in this area than any animal. Additionally, the amount of shared characteristics between severely mentally handicapped humans and normal humans compared to the amount of shared characteristics with animals is so great that it warrants equal consideration, if not completely equal treatment (we do not allow the severely mentally handicapped to make certain decisions for themselves). Animals, due to their lack of participation in moral decisions are set in a different category than are humans.

Under such a moral system, there would be nothing wrong with killing animals in a humane way and eating them or in using them in research that benefits human lives. Even under Singer’s utilitarian system, causing extreme pain to a relatively few animals in order to discover a cure for cancer or AIDS would be completely acceptable, as would causing extreme pain to humans. As long as the general happiness is improved, personal misery may be imposed on either animals or humans. Singer fails to see that such practices as animal research and even the killing of animals for food, especially if it was done painlessly and the animal had lived a happy life, are actually perfectly acceptable under his system as well.

Even Singer does not attempt to argue that animal life is of equal importance to human life(4). Yet he continues to argue against the practice of eating animals. Given the lesser ability of animals to experience pleasure, it is no large assumption to think that an animal killed painlessly and used as food would not actually increase the general happiness rather than otherwise. A cow, for example, could provide food for many people. A simply mathematical moral system like utilitarianism cannot ultimately be used to enforce vegetarianism.

Singer’s attack on the Bible and Judeo-Christian thought regarding animals is a straw man attack at best. He does not address himself to the Bible’s actual argument that the creator God has given man stewardship over the creation and permission to use animals for food, clothing, and other purposes. Rather, Singer twists Biblical passages in an attempt to make the Biblical arguments for ethical treatment of animals consequentialist in nature. But that approach seems completely counterintuitive. What need is there for the Bible to tell men to take care of their animals merely because they will get better use of them? Is that not a self-evident truth? Rather it seems that the Bible, and consequently God Himself, is actually concerned about animal welfare and humanity’s stewardship role.

Proverbs 12:10 states, “A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.” Exodus 23:12 orders, “Six days thou shalt do thy work, and on the seventh day thou shalt rest: that thine ox and thine ass may rest….” Proverbs 27:23 commands, “Be thou diligent to know the state of thy flocks, and look well to thy herds.” Deuteronomy 25:4 orders, “Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.” These verses demonstrate that a humane treatment of animals is compatible (at least it is commanded in) with a moral system that sets man’s nature and worth above that of animals.

Not surprisingly, after his attack on Christianity and the Bible, Singer goes on to talk about individuals who made an impact ending animal cruelty thereby implying that they were not motivated by Christianity. This is far from the case. One of the most well known people he cites is William Wilberforce. Wilberforce was a carefree, indulgent young rake before his conversion experience(5). It was his conversion that led him to change his ways and become interested in changing his world for the better. Wilberforce was motivated by his Christianity to oppose both the slave trade and animal cruelty(6).

Peter Singer’s argument that animals’ ability to feel pain and experience pleasure requires that we not kill or use them does not stand up even to his own utilitarian moral system. His definition of the scope of the moral community is, upon further examination of the definition of pain, so broad as to be absurd. His moral system regarding the treatment of beings that can experience pleasure is impossible and futile. Christianity provides a much more realistic system which takes into account the differences between man and animals and the responsibility man has as a steward of creation. Singer fails to adequately address the arguments posed by opponents of his moral theory, and his argument ultimately fails because of his flawed view of the distinction in nature, or lack thereof, between man and animals.

1. Peter Singer, Animal Liberation: The Definitive Classic of the Animal Movement (New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 2009), 11-13.
2. Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, s.v. “Amoeba,” http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/21174/amoeba
(accessed April 3, 2010).
3. Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, s.v. “Myrrh,” http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/400685/myrrh
(accessed April 3, 2010).
4. Peter Singer, Animal Liberation: The Definitive Classic of the Animal Movement (New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 2009),18.
5. John Piper, Amazing Grace in the Life of William Wilberforce (Wheaton, IL: Good News Publishers, 2006), 35.
6. Stephen Tomkins, William Wilberforce: a Biography (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2007), 207.

Books...so many and so little time...

I decided that I was going to try to read a book a day this summer, and it's worked out pretty good so far. I'm starting a college Arabic class soon, so I'm not sure if I'll be able to keep up with it. My average so far is 221.5 pages a day. I decided to put my mad physics lab skills (thank you Dr. Kucks) to practical use and graph my progress.

Obviously, some days are better than other - sometimes life intervenes. I'm currently reading Heidegger, both his Introduction to Metaphysics and his magnum opus Being and Time. I also throw in light fiction, the other day I read Oscar Wilde's The Importance of Being Earnest. Serious novels like those by Dickens, Upton Sinclair's The Jungle, and Wilde's The Picture of Dorian Grey also interest me greatly. Two genres I'm beginning to be more interested in are Medieval works and Stream of Consciousness, especially James Joyce.

My Summer Internship

I currently work for an organization called ParentalRights.org. We are attempting to pass a constitutional amendment (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.J.RES.42:) that would enumerate the long supported rights of parents to direct the education and upbringing of their children. The amendment doesn't really give any more rights to parents, but rather gives stronger protection to those they already have and that have been upheld by decades of Supreme Court decisions. This amendment is a response both to the abuse of parental rights by various levels of the U.S. court system as well as the threats posed by international law and the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child.

I love my job. It gives me experience dealing with members of Congress. On May 19, I got to meet with Senator Scott Brown about a Senate Resolution(S.RES.519)opposing the U.N. CRC. I also get to learn how to keep grassroots groups motivated and active as well as try out my persuasive skills in getting organizations with similar goals to ally with us. I spend a lot of time either on the phone or reading and writing emails. My favorite part of the job is getting to meet with congressmen and staffers.

If you are interested in finding more about what I do and the dangers posed to long-standing parental rights, you should check out http://www.parentalrights.org/. If you want to add your voice to the thousands of others in support of parental rights, you can sign a petition here: https: https://www.thedatabank.com/dpg/385/personal2.asp?formid=OpposeRatifica More than 140 congressmen have decided to support the amendment, will yours? You can contact me if you would like to help at matthew@parentalrights.org.