Occasionally it occurs to me what a strange thing this life is--for some reason we naturally think that others are feeling and thinking the same things we are.
And then reality hits.
Here I sit, in the (for once) fairly clean living room of The Beat, recently awakened from a nap but still strongly feeling the strangely expectant, quiet, mournful-yet-not spirit of this Great and Holy Saturday, imbued in me by the hours of intense liturgical worship in which I have been blessed to take part over the past week--my belly is empty and my heart is full of strangeness, of wonder, of expectation and at least some small part of the awed, silent worship which should be present on such a day. I have not felt so well for months. The Hour of the Resurrection is near. Awake, you that sleep!
One friend is sitting upstairs surfing the web and laughing at earthy jokes. Still another just left for a pig roast. Two more just came in with Oakley! subs, about to watch a movie. And the neighbors next door are drinking it up, shouting at passing cars and attracting loud honking in response.
None of which is bad. But today? This strange day when all Creation is silent and waiting for the wonder of the approaching Dawn? How can there be such noise today, of all days?
And the Synaxarion reading still echoes in my mind.
Awake, you that sleep! Your King is come!
I do not understand.
Saturday, April 26, 2003
Friday, April 18, 2003
Here is my most recent piece for the Collegian. It ran as the Weekly unsigned editorial. I was fairly happy with it...do tell what you think, whether you agree or disagree with me.
THE TENUOUS FUTURE OF IRAQI DEMOCRACY
As everyone now knows, the war in Iraq is essentially over. And with its swift and easy end, the world as we know it has changed. Hawks in the media and the administration are venting their rhetorical ire at Syria, Iran and North Korea in threats ranging from veiled suggestions that these nations beware to barefaced exhortations to change Syria�s regime as we did in Iraq.
Indeed, the ease with which the American military has prevailed in Iraq may prove the bane of the United States in coming years. Despite our obvious superiority, it is na�ve to assume that every military encounter from this moment on will fall to our advantage as quickly as that of the past month. Our overconfidence may well lead to situations far more costly than the invasion of Iraq. Hubris is always the worst enemy of a powerful people.
This will most likely be proven, however, not in war, but in a supposed peace, in the reconstruction of Iraq. The challenges facing the American occupation are all but innumerable.
It is a fine line that the coalition must walk in Iraq. Despite the hopes of the Bush administration that a strong democracy might be established in Iraq to serve as a beacon of civilization and moderation to the Arab world, it is simply not possible to establish the form of a democracy and leave the people to govern themselves. Democracy cannot be imposed�it must be chosen. Yet we cannot trust the Iraqis to choose democracy for themselves.
After all, that which we call democracy is a peculiarly Western phenomenon, depending on the conflicts, philosophies, religions and societal innovations of over three millennia for its continued propagation in the nations of the West.
The notions of individual rights, responsibilities and autonomy are fundamental to our very existence�we take them in with our mother�s milk. To put it simply, tribal societies such as Iraq�s do not. Yet democracy as we know it in America cannot exist without an almost universal recognition of these principles, and our demand that Iraq immediately adopt democracy is hence incredibly na�ve.
This experiment has been tried before, in the myriad colonies of the British Empire. So long as the British occupied those colonies, they abided in peace and prosperity, apparent havens of Western civilization amidst the brutality of the Third World before it even was the Third World.
But the moment the British withdrew, the Western system they had established dissolved into political corruption and tribal infighting, as seen in the transformation of Rhodesia to Zimbabwe described by Theodore Dalrymple in his sobering article �After Empire� in the Spring 2003 issue of the City Journal.
With this in mind, it is safe to say that almost any conflict between the cultural norms of a people and a government imposed upon them will inevitably end in the dissolution of that government. Therefore, the development of democracy in any nation must have organic roots in the history and culture of that nation and people. If that connection is absent, the institution cannot survive except at gunpoint.
This is not to say that the situation in Iraq is hopeless. The very fact of the location of Tuesday�s meeting in ancient Ur gives cause to hope that the Iraqi people may yet find their way out of their dark age�for after all, as any Hillsdale freshman knows, the oldest roots of the rule of law are found in the Code of Hammurabi, which governed the very land now occupied by modern Iraq. The London Times indulged in the same hope Wednesday, asserting that the symbolism cannot help but be powerful. By meeting in Ur, these disparate Iraqi factions have invoked their connection with the ancient civilizations of Mesopotamia, meeting �against a backdrop of 6,000 years of history.�
But the road will still be incredibly hard. Such a thing, after all, has never before been done.
Therefore, let us shun hubris.
THE TENUOUS FUTURE OF IRAQI DEMOCRACY
As everyone now knows, the war in Iraq is essentially over. And with its swift and easy end, the world as we know it has changed. Hawks in the media and the administration are venting their rhetorical ire at Syria, Iran and North Korea in threats ranging from veiled suggestions that these nations beware to barefaced exhortations to change Syria�s regime as we did in Iraq.
Indeed, the ease with which the American military has prevailed in Iraq may prove the bane of the United States in coming years. Despite our obvious superiority, it is na�ve to assume that every military encounter from this moment on will fall to our advantage as quickly as that of the past month. Our overconfidence may well lead to situations far more costly than the invasion of Iraq. Hubris is always the worst enemy of a powerful people.
This will most likely be proven, however, not in war, but in a supposed peace, in the reconstruction of Iraq. The challenges facing the American occupation are all but innumerable.
It is a fine line that the coalition must walk in Iraq. Despite the hopes of the Bush administration that a strong democracy might be established in Iraq to serve as a beacon of civilization and moderation to the Arab world, it is simply not possible to establish the form of a democracy and leave the people to govern themselves. Democracy cannot be imposed�it must be chosen. Yet we cannot trust the Iraqis to choose democracy for themselves.
After all, that which we call democracy is a peculiarly Western phenomenon, depending on the conflicts, philosophies, religions and societal innovations of over three millennia for its continued propagation in the nations of the West.
The notions of individual rights, responsibilities and autonomy are fundamental to our very existence�we take them in with our mother�s milk. To put it simply, tribal societies such as Iraq�s do not. Yet democracy as we know it in America cannot exist without an almost universal recognition of these principles, and our demand that Iraq immediately adopt democracy is hence incredibly na�ve.
This experiment has been tried before, in the myriad colonies of the British Empire. So long as the British occupied those colonies, they abided in peace and prosperity, apparent havens of Western civilization amidst the brutality of the Third World before it even was the Third World.
But the moment the British withdrew, the Western system they had established dissolved into political corruption and tribal infighting, as seen in the transformation of Rhodesia to Zimbabwe described by Theodore Dalrymple in his sobering article �After Empire� in the Spring 2003 issue of the City Journal.
With this in mind, it is safe to say that almost any conflict between the cultural norms of a people and a government imposed upon them will inevitably end in the dissolution of that government. Therefore, the development of democracy in any nation must have organic roots in the history and culture of that nation and people. If that connection is absent, the institution cannot survive except at gunpoint.
This is not to say that the situation in Iraq is hopeless. The very fact of the location of Tuesday�s meeting in ancient Ur gives cause to hope that the Iraqi people may yet find their way out of their dark age�for after all, as any Hillsdale freshman knows, the oldest roots of the rule of law are found in the Code of Hammurabi, which governed the very land now occupied by modern Iraq. The London Times indulged in the same hope Wednesday, asserting that the symbolism cannot help but be powerful. By meeting in Ur, these disparate Iraqi factions have invoked their connection with the ancient civilizations of Mesopotamia, meeting �against a backdrop of 6,000 years of history.�
But the road will still be incredibly hard. Such a thing, after all, has never before been done.
Therefore, let us shun hubris.
Wednesday, April 16, 2003
This piece is a sobering reminder of the difficulties and perhaps impossibilities of nation-building. Much remains to be seen in Iraq, but all indications suggest that the next several years are going to be very difficult. I wonder how right I was in my support of this war--I always said I was aware of the difficulties that were likely to present themselves after the war ended (or at least I always thought it), but I don't think I realized the half of it. I wonder how many other hawks find themselves in a similar state.
Do read the article, though--it is a fairly powerful reminder of the essential problems of colonial nation-building, as I said. And, I must add, the manner in which this enterprise has begun does not bode well for the future.
Do read the article, though--it is a fairly powerful reminder of the essential problems of colonial nation-building, as I said. And, I must add, the manner in which this enterprise has begun does not bode well for the future.
Tuesday, April 15, 2003
Well...the throes are over. This semester seems to be winding down more quickly (to be frank) than I'm quite ready for. But last week was still a great success--in one unexpected way as well as all the other things. My senior Honours thesis presentation went well when I delivered it a few weeks ago--I got some very positive feedback. Now I only have to do a little more research and expand the silly thing, and it'll be done. Perhaps I'll post the presentation up here sometime--or at least a link to it. It's fairly long. My recital went fairly well also--it was weak towards the beginning, but got better as it went on. I passed my Greek comprehensive exam strongly, according to Dr. Jones, and Dr. Holmes has decided that she'll give us an extra week off from Greek class to study for finals, so this Thursday's class will be our last. Finally, Holy Cross gave me another 10 days to submit the financial aid applications, which is perfect for me--things should be much more sane from now on. Not to mention (speaking of Holy Cross), I received my acceptance letter a little over a week ago. So I'll be starting there in September, God willing.
But the biggest news is that I finally asked my longtime girlfriend Elisabeth Dyess to marry me last Sunday. To which proposal she gladly consented. :) If you want to know how it happened, drop me a line and ask. It's a bit much to explain online. The date for the happy event remain undecided, but, God willing, it will be fairly soon. No later than a year from now, methinks. And, speaking of the Almighty, His mercy has been abundant towards me and, indeed, towards us, of late. Thanks be to Him.
So, while this is not precisely a post of substance, I submit the plea that I have been otherwise occupied in matters very important which, had I neglected them, my life would be in a much less satisfactory state. :)
More later.
But the biggest news is that I finally asked my longtime girlfriend Elisabeth Dyess to marry me last Sunday. To which proposal she gladly consented. :) If you want to know how it happened, drop me a line and ask. It's a bit much to explain online. The date for the happy event remain undecided, but, God willing, it will be fairly soon. No later than a year from now, methinks. And, speaking of the Almighty, His mercy has been abundant towards me and, indeed, towards us, of late. Thanks be to Him.
So, while this is not precisely a post of substance, I submit the plea that I have been otherwise occupied in matters very important which, had I neglected them, my life would be in a much less satisfactory state. :)
More later.
Friday, April 04, 2003
Yes, I know, it's been a long time. I have been in the throes of preparing a presentation of my senior Honours Thesis which I will present at 2 pm today, of rehearsing for a cello recital to be held next week, and the usual race to get ready for Greek class. I hoe to post something of substance soon, but until then, I will pacify my rabid audience (nonexistent though it may be) with a joke.
Thought for the day:
If Saddam loses a leg, but survives, how mad do you think his
doubles will be?
Thought for the day:
If Saddam loses a leg, but survives, how mad do you think his
doubles will be?
Friday, March 21, 2003
And so it begins. Before too much time passes, I wanted to post an addendum to my last post. While I am not exactly comfortable with some of these statements by the Orthodox Peace Fellowship, I am humbled and my hawkishness chastened by the dedication to peace evinced by the bishops, priests, deacons and laity who have signed the statement. This war is only justified in the slightest because it seeks to save life--to establish a truer peace than has existed in Iraq for many years, and to increase the security of the United States and the entire world.
With that said, I would like to point you to one more Orthodox statement on the war, this time from the Holy Eparchial synod of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America. This official encyclical exemplifies the position of the Church on any war: a recognition of the reality of this fallen world, a cautious support for those in service of the country, intense prayers for a swift and bloodless end to the conflict, and, most of all, for the salvation of all.
Amen and amen. Kyrie eleison.
With that said, I would like to point you to one more Orthodox statement on the war, this time from the Holy Eparchial synod of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America. This official encyclical exemplifies the position of the Church on any war: a recognition of the reality of this fallen world, a cautious support for those in service of the country, intense prayers for a swift and bloodless end to the conflict, and, most of all, for the salvation of all.
Amen and amen. Kyrie eleison.
Tuesday, March 18, 2003
Much has been written of war and peace in this small circle of the internet by many with a far better knowledge than I of history, philosophy and the fine line where theology must weigh in on political matters. I hesitate to disagree with the prevailing opinion that Bush is committing a heinous crime against the people of Iraq, that his war is a sin against God and against humanity.
The sheer volume of evidence and argument both for and against war is such that I find myself completely at a loss to condense it all into a convincing argument that this American president is acting as he ought, or at the least as he must. Nor can I reconcile the apparently inevitable clash between the moral and the necessary for this president. Before I venture to pass judgement on him, it seems I ought to come to some conclusion regarding the interaction of morality and necessity; I would far rather state an absolute moral rule (Thou shalt not kill) which forever subordinates the necessary to the moral. But I find myself unable to escape one simple fact.
George W. Bush is the leader of the United States of America. He carries directly on his shoulders the burden of millions of lives. For these four years, his sole concern is the safety and security of the American people. In that capacity, he will inevitably be forced to kill�worse, to order others to kill.
This is an office which I could never dream of seeking for myself. I have no desire to be bound by duty and necessity to decide for myself which imperative I hold higher. And yet it seems that the office is necessary to human society�necessary, indeed, for the sake of peace. All I can hope is that he who rules also bows before a higher Ruler and will not abuse the power given him�and that he will also hold sacred the trust given him, and will not unnecessarily risk the lives he has sworn to protect.
For, after all, one can always find hope for peace�that hope can never be killed if one is determined to find it, to never fight a war until every chance for peace is exhausted. Such determination, however, binds one to fight only defensive wars. Moral theorists�who do not rule, who do not bear the burden of a hundred million lives�can commit to this. A ruler cannot.
Especially in these sad times, such means accepting as a matter of course that anyone who chooses can have one good crack at killing your people before you act against them. With nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, millions could die. A good ruler has no choice but to act first. And again, the people he rules can only hope that he has the wisdom to see clearly who must be dealt with.
In theory, I think Bush is doing well. His policy of preemption is far from universal. It simply redefines those actions which the United States will�and I say must�view as attacks upon its people. If a nation supports terrorists, Bush will view it as an act of war. So too with pursuit of so-called weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps my only objection is to his choice of first target. Saddam Hussein simply does not appear to pose a threat comparable to that of North Korea.
And yet I have little doubt that Bush feels himself bound to do as he now does. Every decision he has made since September 11 has been one he found necessary to his task of preserving American lives. For all it appears hasty at first glance, there is no way for him to turn back now. Consistency, reputation and strength are all, unfortunately, necessary considerations for a ruler.
Yes, pride is a sin�but what if humility were to show weakness that would jeopardize a million lives. Vengeance is a sin�but what if turning the other cheek might end with a mushroom cloud over Chicago? So many sins�so many duties�small wonder rulers are so seldom saints.
May God have mercy on them.
Incidentally, the matter of the Orthodox bishops of the world, the majority of whom condemn this war in no uncertain terms. I fear that they are right--the deaths of civilians that will inevitably result from an American attack on Iraq are blood that will rest upon the heads of Mr. Bush and the American people. But I would that they were more hesitant to condemn Mr. Bush when they do not wear his shoes. And I remain grateful that, whether Mr. Bush be right or wrong, the Orthodox people of this nation will continue to pray for him and for all those in service of this country, both here and around the world. And, indeed, for all men, for those who love us and those who hate us. Including Saddam Hussein.
The sheer volume of evidence and argument both for and against war is such that I find myself completely at a loss to condense it all into a convincing argument that this American president is acting as he ought, or at the least as he must. Nor can I reconcile the apparently inevitable clash between the moral and the necessary for this president. Before I venture to pass judgement on him, it seems I ought to come to some conclusion regarding the interaction of morality and necessity; I would far rather state an absolute moral rule (Thou shalt not kill) which forever subordinates the necessary to the moral. But I find myself unable to escape one simple fact.
George W. Bush is the leader of the United States of America. He carries directly on his shoulders the burden of millions of lives. For these four years, his sole concern is the safety and security of the American people. In that capacity, he will inevitably be forced to kill�worse, to order others to kill.
This is an office which I could never dream of seeking for myself. I have no desire to be bound by duty and necessity to decide for myself which imperative I hold higher. And yet it seems that the office is necessary to human society�necessary, indeed, for the sake of peace. All I can hope is that he who rules also bows before a higher Ruler and will not abuse the power given him�and that he will also hold sacred the trust given him, and will not unnecessarily risk the lives he has sworn to protect.
For, after all, one can always find hope for peace�that hope can never be killed if one is determined to find it, to never fight a war until every chance for peace is exhausted. Such determination, however, binds one to fight only defensive wars. Moral theorists�who do not rule, who do not bear the burden of a hundred million lives�can commit to this. A ruler cannot.
Especially in these sad times, such means accepting as a matter of course that anyone who chooses can have one good crack at killing your people before you act against them. With nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, millions could die. A good ruler has no choice but to act first. And again, the people he rules can only hope that he has the wisdom to see clearly who must be dealt with.
In theory, I think Bush is doing well. His policy of preemption is far from universal. It simply redefines those actions which the United States will�and I say must�view as attacks upon its people. If a nation supports terrorists, Bush will view it as an act of war. So too with pursuit of so-called weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps my only objection is to his choice of first target. Saddam Hussein simply does not appear to pose a threat comparable to that of North Korea.
And yet I have little doubt that Bush feels himself bound to do as he now does. Every decision he has made since September 11 has been one he found necessary to his task of preserving American lives. For all it appears hasty at first glance, there is no way for him to turn back now. Consistency, reputation and strength are all, unfortunately, necessary considerations for a ruler.
Yes, pride is a sin�but what if humility were to show weakness that would jeopardize a million lives. Vengeance is a sin�but what if turning the other cheek might end with a mushroom cloud over Chicago? So many sins�so many duties�small wonder rulers are so seldom saints.
May God have mercy on them.
Incidentally, the matter of the Orthodox bishops of the world, the majority of whom condemn this war in no uncertain terms. I fear that they are right--the deaths of civilians that will inevitably result from an American attack on Iraq are blood that will rest upon the heads of Mr. Bush and the American people. But I would that they were more hesitant to condemn Mr. Bush when they do not wear his shoes. And I remain grateful that, whether Mr. Bush be right or wrong, the Orthodox people of this nation will continue to pray for him and for all those in service of this country, both here and around the world. And, indeed, for all men, for those who love us and those who hate us. Including Saddam Hussein.
Thursday, March 13, 2003
YOU WANT TO KISS ME HOW??
Now this is funny. The cafeteria for the House of Representatives decided it was going to be patriotic, replacing old mainstays with "freedom fries" and "freedom toast." The idea (and it is very stupid, I opine) is to boycott France in every way possible. Ridiculous.
Cut to Louisiana, where signs welcoming visitors to the state are written in French and the language is actually spoken by a significant number of natives. There, Elaine Clement, president of the Cajun heritage group Action Cadienne, objected to the congressional name change with this pithy query.
"Are they going to change French kiss to freedom kiss?"
A probing question indeed.
Now this is funny. The cafeteria for the House of Representatives decided it was going to be patriotic, replacing old mainstays with "freedom fries" and "freedom toast." The idea (and it is very stupid, I opine) is to boycott France in every way possible. Ridiculous.
Cut to Louisiana, where signs welcoming visitors to the state are written in French and the language is actually spoken by a significant number of natives. There, Elaine Clement, president of the Cajun heritage group Action Cadienne, objected to the congressional name change with this pithy query.
"Are they going to change French kiss to freedom kiss?"
A probing question indeed.
Tuesday, March 11, 2003
I am tired of posting political junk to this blog. Political arguments annoy me. In an effort to avoid argument and limit myself to the facts that actually matter, I have created another blog (you laugh that I don't sufficiently update ONE blog, much less two--I nod in tired concession to your biting point).
Called Pilate's Question, it is intended to be a place for bare facts, indeed (hopefully) truth. As such, the idea is to keep my opinions out of the way, but post only those "facts" of whose veracity I am convinced beyond reasonable doubt. The idea is also to figure out precisely what place politics play in the Christian life. I fear that they must be addressed in some manner, but hesitate to wade once more into the mess I got myself into with my speculations about the best manner in which to address nuclear proliferation. So once again, welcome to my self-searching musings.
Called Pilate's Question, it is intended to be a place for bare facts, indeed (hopefully) truth. As such, the idea is to keep my opinions out of the way, but post only those "facts" of whose veracity I am convinced beyond reasonable doubt. The idea is also to figure out precisely what place politics play in the Christian life. I fear that they must be addressed in some manner, but hesitate to wade once more into the mess I got myself into with my speculations about the best manner in which to address nuclear proliferation. So once again, welcome to my self-searching musings.
MENTAL MASTURBATION: THE FINAL MOVIE RANT
From my presentation at Fairfield Society here at Hillsdale College last month, here at last is the final version of my argument that movies damage the human soul.
First, allow me to refer you, dear reader, to this article by Wes Moore of Disinformation.com . Although his argument is scientific, and mine is not, it nonetheless serves as a good jumping off point for me, for they run roughly parallel to my philosophical objections to the medium�that it serves as an escape from reality, an addictive sating of base passions. Even more importantly, we are agreed that, regardless of its artistic quality, television, and, by extension, movies at large, by their very nature, have a vegetative effect on humanity.
My argument, of course, is much more difficult to establish than a scientific study asserting that the brain is not as active while watching television. I must convince my readers that entertainment is, by its very nature, spiritually destructive. My own belief that this is the case is based in personal experience and a degree of intuition�that is to say, I�m following my gut. Being a more-or-less rational human being, I am trying to determine if my gut is right in this situation, reasoning my way through various arguments to try to explain why precisely I am so certain that movies are destructive. In my search for the Logos behind my rejection of entertainment, I think I can at least rule out subliminal manipulation by television�no television advertiser, movie director or book author would have an interest in causing me to completely reject their products. Although, of course, as a child of the �80�s, television and movies played a significant in the formation of my personality and character, I think the examination of how precisely that relates to my current rejection of the medium is a matter for another to research. A perverse, sick devil would such a one be, but I digress�
In examining such an issue, dealing with matters destructive to the human soul, let us go back to the beginning and look at the nature of God and the nature of man as created in His image and likeness. If something is destructive, it will run counter to man�s telos.. I take my text (not that I�m preaching or anything) from the first epistle of St. John the Theologian.
�Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.� (I John 4:7-8) God is Love, three distinct persons in one essence, existing in eternal communion of self-emptying love. Hence man, created in the image of God, is created to love. This is the sum of all good, the very purpose for our existence. I call attention to Matthew 22:36-40: ��Teacher, what is the great commandment in the law?� Jesus said to him, �You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.��
And what is love? Love is communion. Let there be no confusion on this point. There can no Love without communication, relationship, communion and unity, without knowing another so well that you set him above yourself, willing even to die for him. Seeing another as he truly is is fundamental to Love. �Beloved, now we are children of God; and it is not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.� (I John 3:2) And such knowledge means that our life, our very existence, becomes tied up in the other�s�in some way, we begin to dwell and have our being in one another. �Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has seen God at any time. If we love one another, God abides in us, and His love has been perfected in us. By this we know that we abide in Him, and He in us, because He has given us His Spirit.� (I John 4:11-13). John is saying that, even though God has never been seen, through love for one another we may abide in Him and actually come to know Him truly.
If we know that we abide in him because He has given us His Spirit, let us look at the descent of the Spirit. �When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord in the same place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing might wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. Then there appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit�� (Acts 2:1-4)
They were there with one accord�that is, they were unified in love. And at that moment, the Holy Spirit descended on them with power, elevating that formerly motley crew to the heights of human existence, enabling them to be sons of God in the image of Christ Himself�men as men were created to be. To love is to be in one accord, to commune one with another in a unity without confusion, in oneness without any loss of distinction. Human love is to be divine�in our love for one another we imitate and reflect God Himself, who is three persons united in one essence without confusion and without loss of distinction. Such love, such communion and such unity are the fundamental reason for our being.
Movies and all entertainment are all diametrically opposed to this. This seems self-evident to me�it is not possible to really get to know anyone while watching a movie. The screen takes all of your attention. And, of course, it is even less possible to pray, to commune with God, at the same moment as one seeks fulfillment, happiness and rest from mere pictures on a screen. In so doing we turn away from Him, the source of all good, seeking mere gratification of our desires.
Not that our desires are bad�God created us with them, and, fallen or not, they are, at root, good. But they are intended to draw us closer to one and another and to God. The perversion of television, movies and most entertainment is that they offer at least some degree of fulfillment of those fundamental human desires without requiring the work inherent in any relationship. Even when we watch them in company with others, they isolate us in our own desires. We can just sit down, relax, and get a quick fix for our desire for romance, for example. No need for sacrifice, no need to open ourselves to anyone, no need to risk being hurt. We just enjoy the story, feel all the emotions, get the endorphins to release, and we�re done. It�s like mental masturbation.
This sort of thing is murder on the soul. It isolates us, confuses our hearts, messes with our sense of reality, and skews our expectations of the real world. It works to enforce our culture of instant gratification�I can feel good right now and experience anything I desire without having to put any work into it, without risking hurt, without any danger�so why should I put the work into getting to know my friends, why should make the effort to pray? I�m happy enough alone, so why do I need anyone else�.and so it goes.
Some may say that movies and their like help us to better understand our culture, enable us to better relate to people�some may say that they are a necessary and edifying tool to integrate us into our society. I do not necessarily deny this�they are a human creation, and thus, without exception, inherently contain a germ of truth and show us something of the image of God in man. But then, so does pornography.
St. John Climacus relates a story about this sort of thing:
�Someone told me of an extraordinarily high degree of purity. He said: �A certain man (NOTE: St. Nonnus, Bishop of Heliopolis), on seeing a beautiful woman (the harlot Pelagia), thereupon glorified the Creator; and from that one look, he was moved to the love of God and to a fountain of tears. And it was wonderful to see how what would have been a cause of destruction for one was for another the supernatural cause of a crown.� If such a person always feels and behaves in the same way on similar occasions, then he has risen immortal before the general resurrection.�
(St. Nonnus� tears, of course, were shed in shame that this harlot spent all her energies in beautifying herself for her customers, yet he himself, the beloved of the Lover of mankind, was so lazy in his zeal to please Christ the Bridegroom.)
This demonstrates rather well the fact that even in the most vile thing on this earth there exists the possibility for redemption and edification. All is but a perversion of a creation that was once perfectly good, and if you can see through that perversion, you see something of the Divine. But still, who among us will seek out pornography as an aid to bring us closer to God or our fellow man? Or movies, for that matter? The reality of life should be more than enough for us�after all, it was created for us. In creating for ourselves artificial means of fulfillment, happiness and rest, we will in the end only destroy ourselves.
From my presentation at Fairfield Society here at Hillsdale College last month, here at last is the final version of my argument that movies damage the human soul.
First, allow me to refer you, dear reader, to this article by Wes Moore of Disinformation.com . Although his argument is scientific, and mine is not, it nonetheless serves as a good jumping off point for me, for they run roughly parallel to my philosophical objections to the medium�that it serves as an escape from reality, an addictive sating of base passions. Even more importantly, we are agreed that, regardless of its artistic quality, television, and, by extension, movies at large, by their very nature, have a vegetative effect on humanity.
My argument, of course, is much more difficult to establish than a scientific study asserting that the brain is not as active while watching television. I must convince my readers that entertainment is, by its very nature, spiritually destructive. My own belief that this is the case is based in personal experience and a degree of intuition�that is to say, I�m following my gut. Being a more-or-less rational human being, I am trying to determine if my gut is right in this situation, reasoning my way through various arguments to try to explain why precisely I am so certain that movies are destructive. In my search for the Logos behind my rejection of entertainment, I think I can at least rule out subliminal manipulation by television�no television advertiser, movie director or book author would have an interest in causing me to completely reject their products. Although, of course, as a child of the �80�s, television and movies played a significant in the formation of my personality and character, I think the examination of how precisely that relates to my current rejection of the medium is a matter for another to research. A perverse, sick devil would such a one be, but I digress�
In examining such an issue, dealing with matters destructive to the human soul, let us go back to the beginning and look at the nature of God and the nature of man as created in His image and likeness. If something is destructive, it will run counter to man�s telos.. I take my text (not that I�m preaching or anything) from the first epistle of St. John the Theologian.
�Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.� (I John 4:7-8) God is Love, three distinct persons in one essence, existing in eternal communion of self-emptying love. Hence man, created in the image of God, is created to love. This is the sum of all good, the very purpose for our existence. I call attention to Matthew 22:36-40: ��Teacher, what is the great commandment in the law?� Jesus said to him, �You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.��
And what is love? Love is communion. Let there be no confusion on this point. There can no Love without communication, relationship, communion and unity, without knowing another so well that you set him above yourself, willing even to die for him. Seeing another as he truly is is fundamental to Love. �Beloved, now we are children of God; and it is not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.� (I John 3:2) And such knowledge means that our life, our very existence, becomes tied up in the other�s�in some way, we begin to dwell and have our being in one another. �Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has seen God at any time. If we love one another, God abides in us, and His love has been perfected in us. By this we know that we abide in Him, and He in us, because He has given us His Spirit.� (I John 4:11-13). John is saying that, even though God has never been seen, through love for one another we may abide in Him and actually come to know Him truly.
If we know that we abide in him because He has given us His Spirit, let us look at the descent of the Spirit. �When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord in the same place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing might wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. Then there appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit�� (Acts 2:1-4)
They were there with one accord�that is, they were unified in love. And at that moment, the Holy Spirit descended on them with power, elevating that formerly motley crew to the heights of human existence, enabling them to be sons of God in the image of Christ Himself�men as men were created to be. To love is to be in one accord, to commune one with another in a unity without confusion, in oneness without any loss of distinction. Human love is to be divine�in our love for one another we imitate and reflect God Himself, who is three persons united in one essence without confusion and without loss of distinction. Such love, such communion and such unity are the fundamental reason for our being.
Movies and all entertainment are all diametrically opposed to this. This seems self-evident to me�it is not possible to really get to know anyone while watching a movie. The screen takes all of your attention. And, of course, it is even less possible to pray, to commune with God, at the same moment as one seeks fulfillment, happiness and rest from mere pictures on a screen. In so doing we turn away from Him, the source of all good, seeking mere gratification of our desires.
Not that our desires are bad�God created us with them, and, fallen or not, they are, at root, good. But they are intended to draw us closer to one and another and to God. The perversion of television, movies and most entertainment is that they offer at least some degree of fulfillment of those fundamental human desires without requiring the work inherent in any relationship. Even when we watch them in company with others, they isolate us in our own desires. We can just sit down, relax, and get a quick fix for our desire for romance, for example. No need for sacrifice, no need to open ourselves to anyone, no need to risk being hurt. We just enjoy the story, feel all the emotions, get the endorphins to release, and we�re done. It�s like mental masturbation.
This sort of thing is murder on the soul. It isolates us, confuses our hearts, messes with our sense of reality, and skews our expectations of the real world. It works to enforce our culture of instant gratification�I can feel good right now and experience anything I desire without having to put any work into it, without risking hurt, without any danger�so why should I put the work into getting to know my friends, why should make the effort to pray? I�m happy enough alone, so why do I need anyone else�.and so it goes.
Some may say that movies and their like help us to better understand our culture, enable us to better relate to people�some may say that they are a necessary and edifying tool to integrate us into our society. I do not necessarily deny this�they are a human creation, and thus, without exception, inherently contain a germ of truth and show us something of the image of God in man. But then, so does pornography.
St. John Climacus relates a story about this sort of thing:
�Someone told me of an extraordinarily high degree of purity. He said: �A certain man (NOTE: St. Nonnus, Bishop of Heliopolis), on seeing a beautiful woman (the harlot Pelagia), thereupon glorified the Creator; and from that one look, he was moved to the love of God and to a fountain of tears. And it was wonderful to see how what would have been a cause of destruction for one was for another the supernatural cause of a crown.� If such a person always feels and behaves in the same way on similar occasions, then he has risen immortal before the general resurrection.�
(St. Nonnus� tears, of course, were shed in shame that this harlot spent all her energies in beautifying herself for her customers, yet he himself, the beloved of the Lover of mankind, was so lazy in his zeal to please Christ the Bridegroom.)
This demonstrates rather well the fact that even in the most vile thing on this earth there exists the possibility for redemption and edification. All is but a perversion of a creation that was once perfectly good, and if you can see through that perversion, you see something of the Divine. But still, who among us will seek out pornography as an aid to bring us closer to God or our fellow man? Or movies, for that matter? The reality of life should be more than enough for us�after all, it was created for us. In creating for ourselves artificial means of fulfillment, happiness and rest, we will in the end only destroy ourselves.
Here are two excellent pieces on the impending war with Iraq: one by Richard Cohen and the other by Philip Bobbitt. Between the two, they outline what are to my mind the bare essentials of the Iraq issue. In many ways, this is what I have been trying to say so badly over the past few weeks. This is why I support the war on Iraq. For the rest of Bush's pre-emption strategy--I'll have to see. I certainly see his point. I think the policy's detractors overestimate both the success of former strategies and the probable problems inherent to Bush's ideas. And with that, perhaps I can make myself leave this issue be.
Thursday, February 27, 2003
And, while I'm posting articles, this is an excellent argument against my post below. At the least, it creates an extremely compelling argument for seeking international cooperation before going into Iraq. Beyond that, I'm still thinking about implications.
*sigh* So much for leaving politics alone.
*sigh* So much for leaving politics alone.
In regard to the impending war upon Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, I submit this article. Setting aside the matters of foreign policy, prudence, national sovereignty and risk, I'd like to at least attempt to lay the moral issue to rest. The claim is not in the least that America is morally unstained. Simply that the removal of Saddam Hussein will be the payment of a debt we have owed the Iraqi people for 12 years, since the day we failed to remove their unholy dictator as we should have.
Wednesday, February 26, 2003
Jonathan Metzger recently posted this parody of a number of Hillsdale-related blogs. Below is his parody of mine.
"3) So, how about the environment then? I�ve been thinking about it, and I think we should just start clubbing baby seals over the head as quickly as we can. First off, they�re cute. This is a seductive danger of the world, which leads us away from our calling to communion with God and our brethren. While their big, soulful eyes may look innocent, we must remember that they don�t actually have souls, and the seeming innocence and love in their eyes distracts us from the maintenance of our immortal souls. Puppies do this too; we should start killing them as soon as we can as well.
Secondly, we should kill the baby seals because they and other wild-life are blocking the pipeline paths to precious oil in Alaska which we�ll need for the two weeks or so that Iraqi oil will be unavailable to us while we�re conquering them. If a baby seal were to wander into one of the pipelines while they�re being constructed, it might die in there unnoticed and its corpse could block desperately needed oil at exactly the wrong moment.
I realize that this may not be a popular position, but I�ve reasoned it out very carefully, and I think this is what we have to do."
Quite humorous, Metzger--but you give me reason to pause and consider. I seem to have managed to paint myself as quite the extremist over the past month. Which is quite a feat, considering the infrequency of my posts over that period--especially considering the fact that I don't really think myself very extreme at all.
Hence (in pursuit of a more civilized moderation) a brief explanation of my basic motivations for what I've had to say. First: the movies issue. My objection is based purely in my personal experience. Entertainment, with its central place in our culture, tickles our fancies but gives no fulfillment. Something is awfully wrong with human life as we see it lived and live it ourselves in this world and age. This is not how men were meant to live. Myself, I have at least some idea what the good life looks like. Movies still threaten to keep me from that life. So I try to avoid them, and try to explain why. If that makes me an extremist, then so be it.
Second, the war thing. That's not so defensible, I suppose. I rather regret writing it at all.Nonetheless, I don't really see much hope for the world down the road if the powers that be in this world do not act decisively in whatever fashion is most effective (and moral) to end the proliferation of those all-too-cliched weapons of mass destruction. My argument below is a primarily a musing (that is, a thinking aloud) on how that might be accomplished--an optimistic musing, hoping that the current American president has in mind this end and has a comprehensive game plan for its accomplishment. This because I am an optimist--I'd like to think that the relative freedom, security and what I honestly think is a concern for the rest of the world and a charity towards it that is unique in human history might endure and spread. Or, for a much less ambitious optimism, I'd like to think that the nations of the world can somehow forestall the sorts of holocausts that such weapons can create. But then, optimism is generally foolish and blind. And pessimism is usually overrated. Perhaps it will all pan out. I really don't know.
With that, I'm going to leave politics alone. It's a generally annoying and imponderable subject that fosters a lot of anger and excessive rhetoric (not least in myself) with little profit. Pretty much, what happens happens politically. We're left mainly with living with whatever may come as best as we can. Which, incidentally, brings us back to movies. Funny how that happens. ;)
So that's where I've been coming from. Now, I'm off to go bash some seals. Nasty, smelly, anti-capitalist buzzards. And they make those gosh-awful noises too. Sure as heck a species worth exterminating.
"3) So, how about the environment then? I�ve been thinking about it, and I think we should just start clubbing baby seals over the head as quickly as we can. First off, they�re cute. This is a seductive danger of the world, which leads us away from our calling to communion with God and our brethren. While their big, soulful eyes may look innocent, we must remember that they don�t actually have souls, and the seeming innocence and love in their eyes distracts us from the maintenance of our immortal souls. Puppies do this too; we should start killing them as soon as we can as well.
Secondly, we should kill the baby seals because they and other wild-life are blocking the pipeline paths to precious oil in Alaska which we�ll need for the two weeks or so that Iraqi oil will be unavailable to us while we�re conquering them. If a baby seal were to wander into one of the pipelines while they�re being constructed, it might die in there unnoticed and its corpse could block desperately needed oil at exactly the wrong moment.
I realize that this may not be a popular position, but I�ve reasoned it out very carefully, and I think this is what we have to do."
Quite humorous, Metzger--but you give me reason to pause and consider. I seem to have managed to paint myself as quite the extremist over the past month. Which is quite a feat, considering the infrequency of my posts over that period--especially considering the fact that I don't really think myself very extreme at all.
Hence (in pursuit of a more civilized moderation) a brief explanation of my basic motivations for what I've had to say. First: the movies issue. My objection is based purely in my personal experience. Entertainment, with its central place in our culture, tickles our fancies but gives no fulfillment. Something is awfully wrong with human life as we see it lived and live it ourselves in this world and age. This is not how men were meant to live. Myself, I have at least some idea what the good life looks like. Movies still threaten to keep me from that life. So I try to avoid them, and try to explain why. If that makes me an extremist, then so be it.
Second, the war thing. That's not so defensible, I suppose. I rather regret writing it at all.Nonetheless, I don't really see much hope for the world down the road if the powers that be in this world do not act decisively in whatever fashion is most effective (and moral) to end the proliferation of those all-too-cliched weapons of mass destruction. My argument below is a primarily a musing (that is, a thinking aloud) on how that might be accomplished--an optimistic musing, hoping that the current American president has in mind this end and has a comprehensive game plan for its accomplishment. This because I am an optimist--I'd like to think that the relative freedom, security and what I honestly think is a concern for the rest of the world and a charity towards it that is unique in human history might endure and spread. Or, for a much less ambitious optimism, I'd like to think that the nations of the world can somehow forestall the sorts of holocausts that such weapons can create. But then, optimism is generally foolish and blind. And pessimism is usually overrated. Perhaps it will all pan out. I really don't know.
With that, I'm going to leave politics alone. It's a generally annoying and imponderable subject that fosters a lot of anger and excessive rhetoric (not least in myself) with little profit. Pretty much, what happens happens politically. We're left mainly with living with whatever may come as best as we can. Which, incidentally, brings us back to movies. Funny how that happens. ;)
So that's where I've been coming from. Now, I'm off to go bash some seals. Nasty, smelly, anti-capitalist buzzards. And they make those gosh-awful noises too. Sure as heck a species worth exterminating.
Thursday, February 20, 2003
Oh...one more thing. As an actual threat, Saddam may well be negligible. Nonetheless, I submit that, if Mr. Bush is to pursue the policy he has outlined in his speeches since September 11, 2001, he has no choice but to attack Iraq first. Otherwise, every "enlightened" commentator, European, American or otherwise, will charge him with inconsistency in keeping a blind eye turned to the violations of the nation that is already the primary example of American apathy in the '90's. If we count the nations whom we have allowed to flaunt the strictures of the past few decades, Iraq tops the list. North Korea may pose the greater threat, but Iraq has flaunted itself against vain American threats for far longer. If this nation is to regain any semblance of credibility against so-called rogue nations, it cannot allow Saddam Hussein to successfully win another toss.
This is not to say I am happy with the policy of the Bush administration thus far towards North Korea. But it seems that, at this early stage in the game, one must admit a certain degree of pragmaticism--as things currently stand, we simply are not capable of dealing with both North Korea and Iraq without suffering high casualties in men and political capital. To win, and win well (that is, with the least damage either to us or the nations we liberate), we need to be able to throw overwhelming force against our enemies. I hope and pray that Bush has a plan for North Korea (after all, my family lives near the west coast, and the range of North Korean missiles is only increasing)...but taking Iraq on first seems to be Bush's only choice.
In my humble opinion, that is.
This is not to say I am happy with the policy of the Bush administration thus far towards North Korea. But it seems that, at this early stage in the game, one must admit a certain degree of pragmaticism--as things currently stand, we simply are not capable of dealing with both North Korea and Iraq without suffering high casualties in men and political capital. To win, and win well (that is, with the least damage either to us or the nations we liberate), we need to be able to throw overwhelming force against our enemies. I hope and pray that Bush has a plan for North Korea (after all, my family lives near the west coast, and the range of North Korean missiles is only increasing)...but taking Iraq on first seems to be Bush's only choice.
In my humble opinion, that is.
Hmmm...many many people--that is to say, Daniel Hugger, Daniel Silliman, Jonathan Metzger and Seraphim Danckaert--have written negative comments and refutations of my recent war commentary. Their many criticisms demand a response, but I unfortunately currently lack the time to reply in detail to each of their charges. Here, at least, are a few thoughts.
First, contrary to Mr. Silliman's assertions, I do not like war. It is ugly, brutal and horrific in all its forms. And most of all so in its latest forms as it has developed over the past century. It is first of all a desire to avoid war and preserve life that sparks my musings about potential methods to avoid nuclear holocaust.
Second, my suggestion that the United States is the only force capable of achieving any sort of nuclear disarmament, limitation and security worldwide is based in the fact of the utter impotence of the United Nations in pursuance of that end. My suggestion for a forced disarmament by a single police power is born of a search for an alternative to a bankrupt policy and fifty years of dashed hopes. There is enough cause for fear in the world in which we live today--I shudder to think of the perils of the world we will bequeath to our children and grandchildren in we fail to address the inescapable conclusion of today's nuclear proliferation.
Third, any claims that the United Nations is a legitimate or workable means of achieving world peace and security are nothing but balderdash. You should know better than that, Metzger. The United Nations gives equal voice to every nation in the world, and the most common interest shared by those nations is a desire to be rid of America's limiting influence on their ancient feuds with one another. The best thing I can say about the United Nations is that it provides the pithiest example of a bitter irony I can think of--the nations which have perpetrated the vast majority of histories atrocities, the nations deterred from continuing those atrocities by American might, lecturing America in the words of America's founding philosophies about the rule of law and national sovereignty. And we Americans, caring so much about doing the right thing, shrink and cower and back off, fearing the shrill, empty rhetoric of the impotent powers of the past.
Fourth, I am no imperialist. I would much prefer to sit in a nice, small nation that nobody cared about, living my life, raising my kids and striving towards God, than to live in a nation hated the world over for being powerful enough to save the world's ass whenever some potheaded dictator takes it into his head to raise hell. I refer readers to Kipling's Tommy. "Yes, making fun of uniforms that guard you when you sleep is cheaper than those uniforms--and they're starvation cheap...And it's Tommy this, and Tommy that, and Tommy, 'ow's your soul...but it's 'Thin red line of 'eroes when the drums begin to roll."
Whether or not America ever admits that she is an empire (and I doubt that it will), she will continue to serve as the backbone and muscle of the United Nations or whatever foolheaded council takes its place, and will continue to spill the blood of her sons and daughters on whatever barren battlefield the cowardly nations of Europe, Africa or Asia beg her to fill when their greed and moral turpitude finally leave them at the mercy of threats they ignored for far too long.
More later.
First, contrary to Mr. Silliman's assertions, I do not like war. It is ugly, brutal and horrific in all its forms. And most of all so in its latest forms as it has developed over the past century. It is first of all a desire to avoid war and preserve life that sparks my musings about potential methods to avoid nuclear holocaust.
Second, my suggestion that the United States is the only force capable of achieving any sort of nuclear disarmament, limitation and security worldwide is based in the fact of the utter impotence of the United Nations in pursuance of that end. My suggestion for a forced disarmament by a single police power is born of a search for an alternative to a bankrupt policy and fifty years of dashed hopes. There is enough cause for fear in the world in which we live today--I shudder to think of the perils of the world we will bequeath to our children and grandchildren in we fail to address the inescapable conclusion of today's nuclear proliferation.
Third, any claims that the United Nations is a legitimate or workable means of achieving world peace and security are nothing but balderdash. You should know better than that, Metzger. The United Nations gives equal voice to every nation in the world, and the most common interest shared by those nations is a desire to be rid of America's limiting influence on their ancient feuds with one another. The best thing I can say about the United Nations is that it provides the pithiest example of a bitter irony I can think of--the nations which have perpetrated the vast majority of histories atrocities, the nations deterred from continuing those atrocities by American might, lecturing America in the words of America's founding philosophies about the rule of law and national sovereignty. And we Americans, caring so much about doing the right thing, shrink and cower and back off, fearing the shrill, empty rhetoric of the impotent powers of the past.
Fourth, I am no imperialist. I would much prefer to sit in a nice, small nation that nobody cared about, living my life, raising my kids and striving towards God, than to live in a nation hated the world over for being powerful enough to save the world's ass whenever some potheaded dictator takes it into his head to raise hell. I refer readers to Kipling's Tommy. "Yes, making fun of uniforms that guard you when you sleep is cheaper than those uniforms--and they're starvation cheap...And it's Tommy this, and Tommy that, and Tommy, 'ow's your soul...but it's 'Thin red line of 'eroes when the drums begin to roll."
Whether or not America ever admits that she is an empire (and I doubt that it will), she will continue to serve as the backbone and muscle of the United Nations or whatever foolheaded council takes its place, and will continue to spill the blood of her sons and daughters on whatever barren battlefield the cowardly nations of Europe, Africa or Asia beg her to fill when their greed and moral turpitude finally leave them at the mercy of threats they ignored for far too long.
More later.
Tuesday, February 18, 2003
Ok then. How �bout this so-called war?
First off, I�ll admit candidly that my tendency, born of my conservative upbringing and personal recklessness, is undeniably hawkish. But I also plead that I am not blindly so�even the thought of what war means, to the Iraqi people, to the world, etc, gives me pause. After reading Jonathan Schell's latest piece against the war on The Nation�s website, I was quite dovish for a long moment.
Schell paints a picture much starker than any I�d allowed myself to entertain since I first heard of the atomic bomb and Mutually Assured Destruction in elementary school. The picture of rampant nuclear proliferation and inevitable use of the bomb is possibly the most hopeless thought I have ever had. Disarmament began to look quite attractive.
For a contrast, look at this piece, Paul Greenberg�s latest in the Washington Times. He makes telling comparisons (which had not escaped my notice last Friday as I listened to NPR�s coverage of the inspectors� presentation at the U.N. Security Council meeting) with the policies of western Europe in the �30�s when faced with Hitler�s growing threat in violation of the Treaty of Versailles. Europeans seem bound and determined to forget history and pursue peace at any cost. I honour their commitment to the protection of human life, but decry their stupidity and bad memory.
Hitler should be remembered well by the world as it faces Saddam Hussein. Likewise, the entire 20th century should be kept in mind as the world considers what to do in the post Cold War world of nuclear proliferation. A century has shown that inspections simply DO NOT WORK. Disarmament is a wonderful dream, but there is no hope that it will actually happen. As was pointed out to me last night by a friend, the argument for disarmament is the same argument as that made by gun control advocates. It would leave us with a lot of powerless nations terrorized by a few nuclear criminals.
Disarmament, however, remains the preferred method for many of preventing nuclear holocaust. The theory is that gradual, bilateral surrender of nuclear weapons could eventually reduce the nuclear stocks of the nations of the world first to a less dangerous quantity, then to a negligible quantity, and finally to nothing at all. A nice idea indeed. But one entirely overlooking the realities of human existence. If the technology exists, someone will use it. Ensuring that the civilized, law-abiding nations of the world do not possess it only guarantees that, when (not if) rogues such as North Korea or Iraq acquire such weapons, the rest of the world will be at their mercy.
The alternative to America leading the way in peaceful disarmament (which common sense assures us is a recipe for disaster) is ensuring that the only people possessing the bomb are trustworthy. Which, ideally, would mean that only we would have it. Unfortunately, we don�t. The one opportunity we had to ensure that passed over 50 years ago. (yes, I am suggesting that it would have been better to invade Soviet Russia the moment it became evident what they were seeking; yes, I am suggesting that we should have seized empire the moment World War II ended, when it could have been done relatively easily and peacefully with the threat of the bomb and our overwhelming conventional military superiority).
But we didn�t, and now the situation we face is far worse than it ever was with Russia. It seems that practically every nation with the slightest beef against us has, or is in the process of acquiring, the technology for nuclear weapons.
But we retain an overwhelming superiority to the rest of the world in both nuclear and conventional weaponry. Our culture and ideals are sweeping the world. There is at least the theoretical possibility of a true new world order, enforced by America, not for imperialistic gain, but for our own simple security.
Thus, Bush�s National Security Directive of last year makes a lot of sense. Recognizing September 11�s writing on the wall guaranteeing that, sooner or later, someone will acquire and use nuclear or chemical or biological weapons against America, Bush is seeking to commit the United States to maintain completely unmatchable military superiority over the rest of the world. In this way alone can larger nuclear nations such as Russia or China be deterred�in this way alone can we possess the ability to safely neutralize rogue nations such as Iraq or North Korea.
But this path will lead to empire� it demands the manipulation and abandonment of the United Nations, NATO or any former alliance that stands in the way of American interests. And it is a path for which, if the last few weeks are any indication, we may not be ready.
This for two reasons. First, while we are powerful, most would admit that we are not powerful enough to take on the entire world in an all-out rumble. And even if we were, that price is far too high. Second, the American psyche is not adapted to the notion of empire. Isolationism is still a strong force here�and too many Americans cannot stomach the idea of running roughshod over the nations of the world in pursuit of our self-interests, even if those interests are simple survival. The true peril of our position still escapes the vast majority of Americans, as it does the rest of the world.
But the facts remain. Nuclear weapons will continue to proliferate among the nations of the world. The mini-arms race between Pakistan and India over the last few years bodes ill for the future. Eventually, someone will use the bomb again�probably in a regional conflict. Then someone else will�a smaller nation against a larger, even against Europe or the United States. The crossed sabers of past military maps and conflicts will be replaced with little mushroom clouds all around the world. And the only force with even the slightest hope of stopping this is the United States.
For Schell�s point, that proliferation is a natural and inevitable consequence of possession of nuclear weapons, might prove to be untrue in only one situation. If one nation possessed such superiority that it would be pointless and wasteful for any other to even make the attempt�and particularly if the good will of that nation was well established�others would cease to seek the bomb. The others could be brought to give them up if it were clear that they could gain nothing from their possession.
So essentially, I am still arguing for disarmament�but disarmament forced by the United States, which would remain the only nuclear power. Indeed, I admit the necessity of a one-world government�but it is clear to me that that government must be controlled by, and indeed BE, the United States. Such is ultimately the only way to ensure our security.
First off, I�ll admit candidly that my tendency, born of my conservative upbringing and personal recklessness, is undeniably hawkish. But I also plead that I am not blindly so�even the thought of what war means, to the Iraqi people, to the world, etc, gives me pause. After reading Jonathan Schell's latest piece against the war on The Nation�s website, I was quite dovish for a long moment.
Schell paints a picture much starker than any I�d allowed myself to entertain since I first heard of the atomic bomb and Mutually Assured Destruction in elementary school. The picture of rampant nuclear proliferation and inevitable use of the bomb is possibly the most hopeless thought I have ever had. Disarmament began to look quite attractive.
For a contrast, look at this piece, Paul Greenberg�s latest in the Washington Times. He makes telling comparisons (which had not escaped my notice last Friday as I listened to NPR�s coverage of the inspectors� presentation at the U.N. Security Council meeting) with the policies of western Europe in the �30�s when faced with Hitler�s growing threat in violation of the Treaty of Versailles. Europeans seem bound and determined to forget history and pursue peace at any cost. I honour their commitment to the protection of human life, but decry their stupidity and bad memory.
Hitler should be remembered well by the world as it faces Saddam Hussein. Likewise, the entire 20th century should be kept in mind as the world considers what to do in the post Cold War world of nuclear proliferation. A century has shown that inspections simply DO NOT WORK. Disarmament is a wonderful dream, but there is no hope that it will actually happen. As was pointed out to me last night by a friend, the argument for disarmament is the same argument as that made by gun control advocates. It would leave us with a lot of powerless nations terrorized by a few nuclear criminals.
Disarmament, however, remains the preferred method for many of preventing nuclear holocaust. The theory is that gradual, bilateral surrender of nuclear weapons could eventually reduce the nuclear stocks of the nations of the world first to a less dangerous quantity, then to a negligible quantity, and finally to nothing at all. A nice idea indeed. But one entirely overlooking the realities of human existence. If the technology exists, someone will use it. Ensuring that the civilized, law-abiding nations of the world do not possess it only guarantees that, when (not if) rogues such as North Korea or Iraq acquire such weapons, the rest of the world will be at their mercy.
The alternative to America leading the way in peaceful disarmament (which common sense assures us is a recipe for disaster) is ensuring that the only people possessing the bomb are trustworthy. Which, ideally, would mean that only we would have it. Unfortunately, we don�t. The one opportunity we had to ensure that passed over 50 years ago. (yes, I am suggesting that it would have been better to invade Soviet Russia the moment it became evident what they were seeking; yes, I am suggesting that we should have seized empire the moment World War II ended, when it could have been done relatively easily and peacefully with the threat of the bomb and our overwhelming conventional military superiority).
But we didn�t, and now the situation we face is far worse than it ever was with Russia. It seems that practically every nation with the slightest beef against us has, or is in the process of acquiring, the technology for nuclear weapons.
But we retain an overwhelming superiority to the rest of the world in both nuclear and conventional weaponry. Our culture and ideals are sweeping the world. There is at least the theoretical possibility of a true new world order, enforced by America, not for imperialistic gain, but for our own simple security.
Thus, Bush�s National Security Directive of last year makes a lot of sense. Recognizing September 11�s writing on the wall guaranteeing that, sooner or later, someone will acquire and use nuclear or chemical or biological weapons against America, Bush is seeking to commit the United States to maintain completely unmatchable military superiority over the rest of the world. In this way alone can larger nuclear nations such as Russia or China be deterred�in this way alone can we possess the ability to safely neutralize rogue nations such as Iraq or North Korea.
But this path will lead to empire� it demands the manipulation and abandonment of the United Nations, NATO or any former alliance that stands in the way of American interests. And it is a path for which, if the last few weeks are any indication, we may not be ready.
This for two reasons. First, while we are powerful, most would admit that we are not powerful enough to take on the entire world in an all-out rumble. And even if we were, that price is far too high. Second, the American psyche is not adapted to the notion of empire. Isolationism is still a strong force here�and too many Americans cannot stomach the idea of running roughshod over the nations of the world in pursuit of our self-interests, even if those interests are simple survival. The true peril of our position still escapes the vast majority of Americans, as it does the rest of the world.
But the facts remain. Nuclear weapons will continue to proliferate among the nations of the world. The mini-arms race between Pakistan and India over the last few years bodes ill for the future. Eventually, someone will use the bomb again�probably in a regional conflict. Then someone else will�a smaller nation against a larger, even against Europe or the United States. The crossed sabers of past military maps and conflicts will be replaced with little mushroom clouds all around the world. And the only force with even the slightest hope of stopping this is the United States.
For Schell�s point, that proliferation is a natural and inevitable consequence of possession of nuclear weapons, might prove to be untrue in only one situation. If one nation possessed such superiority that it would be pointless and wasteful for any other to even make the attempt�and particularly if the good will of that nation was well established�others would cease to seek the bomb. The others could be brought to give them up if it were clear that they could gain nothing from their possession.
So essentially, I am still arguing for disarmament�but disarmament forced by the United States, which would remain the only nuclear power. Indeed, I admit the necessity of a one-world government�but it is clear to me that that government must be controlled by, and indeed BE, the United States. Such is ultimately the only way to ensure our security.
Tuesday, February 04, 2003
Yes, I know, I'm talking far too much about movies. The topic has taken on a life of its own--but I am happy to say that it looks like it's about finished. I am fairly content with my most recent argument against the things, and got a lot out of last night's Fairfield Society presentation and discussion. I presented against movies, Daniel Silliman for, and then the entire society hacked the issue out for awhile. I think my position is less extreme than before, better considered and more liveable. Which is to say, I'm ready to stop blathering about it and go on to something more important. I'll post the basics of my presentation sometime in the next few days, and call that sufficient. I need to do some thinking about the nature of faith, and this seems as good a place as any to get some thoughts out. Expect that in the next several days.
Until then...
Until then...
Friday, January 31, 2003
Here is my revised reply to Jonathan Metzger's lengthy reply to my piece against movies.
You rightly note that my real argument against movies in general does not come until the end of the piece. The rest of the it is fairly standard stuff objecting to bad movies. Hence, your refutation of those with examples of good movies work perfectly well. My extremism is intended--the sweeping generalizations are included for shock value in hopes of provoking thought. Myself, I have numerous favorite movies which have helped to mold me into who I am today. I think their effect has been positive.
Incidentally, I should say that my objection to so-called Christian film is opposed precisely to the mere moralizing to which they stoop, indoctrinating instead of inspiring. Very few people need to hear the 10 Commandments rehashed yet again--most of us know them fairly well by now, and they don't much speak to the heart. The law never does. But enough of that. Suffice to say, I think we at least agree on this point.
Your final refutations, however, don't work so well. I don't deny that one could be said to converse with a movie's director and actors while viewing said film--but it is a faceless conversation, in which you see only as much of those people as they put into the movie. As I said earlier in my piece, a movie communicates a man's worldview divorced from the man. There may be a conversation, but it goes on only in your own head--the director has no further part in it once the final cut of the movie is complete. As viewers, we are affected by the movie, but give nothing in return. It's a one-way relationship, or rather, it is no relationship at all, for it does not result in a deeper communion between two human persons.
As far as your charge that hearing a sermon is just as impersonal as watching a movie, I completely disagree. In the course of listening to a priest, or a professor, or anyone for that matter, one does not merely hear facts (or opinions), but sees the whole man, his expressions, his eyes, his mannerisms, and so forth. In such a situation, two psychosomatic persons are present, talking, listening and communicating. All the prerequisites for a human relationship are present, as they are most certainly not in the viewing of movies. I'm certain you agree that there is a fundamental difference even between a live lecture and one recorded on video--it is precisely this potential for relationship.
Your implication that Scripture is not absolutely true is, at least in my case, beside the point. My beef with fiction is not with the absence of historicity, but with the false perspectives and philosophies that creep into most fictional work--the false understandings of the fiction's author that taint the worldview presented. Whether or not Scripture is historically factual, the faith of a Christian trusts that, as its creator is God, it is at least a true myth, accurately representing truths through story. The claim, at least as it would be made by a typical enlightened Protestant, is that the story told in Scripture, whether factually true or not, is true in a loftier sense in that it corresponds perfectly with the higher reality that is God in his relation to His creation. I would have made this point in the piece itself, but it was already a bit long for the Collegian.
For the other matters in which you charged me with inconsistency (or hypocrisy), I might grant you working for the Collegian (though I think an argument could probably be made that such work is not necessarily anti-personal), and will certainly grant you Kipling, but all the rest are the stuff of authentic human life, interaction and relationship. The attending of the Divine Liturgy in particular does not apply in the least, being by its very definition the ultimate experience of communion with others AND with God. Whether or not you accept that definition is beside the point.
Judging from the final portion of your retort, I guess I failed to communicate that, to my mind, true communion with one's fellow man and true communion with God go together...you cannot have one without the other. As Christ said himself, "If you did it not to the least of these my brothers, you did it not to me." (paraphrased from memory) That and that the sum of the law and the prophets is to love God with all one's heart, soul, mind and strength and to love one's neighbor as one's self. I do not deny that I should spend more of my time in caring for the orphans and widows, bandaging the wounded, and in meditation and prayer--all I can say in defense is that there are more ways of caring for those in need than those obvious ones to which you refer, including simple presence and conversation with those whom I encounter in my daily life. Beyond that, I point my plans for the future--the priesthood is nothing if not a life of just such ministry as that to which you refer.
Which is to say, I admit with sorrow that I AM in fact hypocritical, still playing the occasional video game, still watching the rare five minutes of the Simpsons or the not-so-infrequent movie with my housemates--but I utterly deny that my daily interaction with my close friends and girlfriend are a contradiction.
And, for myself, while I can accept your statement that movies do more to encourage you to love of others than any sermon you have ever heard, my own experience with them has been quite the opposite. Which is why I undertook to write what I did in the first place.
You rightly note that my real argument against movies in general does not come until the end of the piece. The rest of the it is fairly standard stuff objecting to bad movies. Hence, your refutation of those with examples of good movies work perfectly well. My extremism is intended--the sweeping generalizations are included for shock value in hopes of provoking thought. Myself, I have numerous favorite movies which have helped to mold me into who I am today. I think their effect has been positive.
Incidentally, I should say that my objection to so-called Christian film is opposed precisely to the mere moralizing to which they stoop, indoctrinating instead of inspiring. Very few people need to hear the 10 Commandments rehashed yet again--most of us know them fairly well by now, and they don't much speak to the heart. The law never does. But enough of that. Suffice to say, I think we at least agree on this point.
Your final refutations, however, don't work so well. I don't deny that one could be said to converse with a movie's director and actors while viewing said film--but it is a faceless conversation, in which you see only as much of those people as they put into the movie. As I said earlier in my piece, a movie communicates a man's worldview divorced from the man. There may be a conversation, but it goes on only in your own head--the director has no further part in it once the final cut of the movie is complete. As viewers, we are affected by the movie, but give nothing in return. It's a one-way relationship, or rather, it is no relationship at all, for it does not result in a deeper communion between two human persons.
As far as your charge that hearing a sermon is just as impersonal as watching a movie, I completely disagree. In the course of listening to a priest, or a professor, or anyone for that matter, one does not merely hear facts (or opinions), but sees the whole man, his expressions, his eyes, his mannerisms, and so forth. In such a situation, two psychosomatic persons are present, talking, listening and communicating. All the prerequisites for a human relationship are present, as they are most certainly not in the viewing of movies. I'm certain you agree that there is a fundamental difference even between a live lecture and one recorded on video--it is precisely this potential for relationship.
Your implication that Scripture is not absolutely true is, at least in my case, beside the point. My beef with fiction is not with the absence of historicity, but with the false perspectives and philosophies that creep into most fictional work--the false understandings of the fiction's author that taint the worldview presented. Whether or not Scripture is historically factual, the faith of a Christian trusts that, as its creator is God, it is at least a true myth, accurately representing truths through story. The claim, at least as it would be made by a typical enlightened Protestant, is that the story told in Scripture, whether factually true or not, is true in a loftier sense in that it corresponds perfectly with the higher reality that is God in his relation to His creation. I would have made this point in the piece itself, but it was already a bit long for the Collegian.
For the other matters in which you charged me with inconsistency (or hypocrisy), I might grant you working for the Collegian (though I think an argument could probably be made that such work is not necessarily anti-personal), and will certainly grant you Kipling, but all the rest are the stuff of authentic human life, interaction and relationship. The attending of the Divine Liturgy in particular does not apply in the least, being by its very definition the ultimate experience of communion with others AND with God. Whether or not you accept that definition is beside the point.
Judging from the final portion of your retort, I guess I failed to communicate that, to my mind, true communion with one's fellow man and true communion with God go together...you cannot have one without the other. As Christ said himself, "If you did it not to the least of these my brothers, you did it not to me." (paraphrased from memory) That and that the sum of the law and the prophets is to love God with all one's heart, soul, mind and strength and to love one's neighbor as one's self. I do not deny that I should spend more of my time in caring for the orphans and widows, bandaging the wounded, and in meditation and prayer--all I can say in defense is that there are more ways of caring for those in need than those obvious ones to which you refer, including simple presence and conversation with those whom I encounter in my daily life. Beyond that, I point my plans for the future--the priesthood is nothing if not a life of just such ministry as that to which you refer.
Which is to say, I admit with sorrow that I AM in fact hypocritical, still playing the occasional video game, still watching the rare five minutes of the Simpsons or the not-so-infrequent movie with my housemates--but I utterly deny that my daily interaction with my close friends and girlfriend are a contradiction.
And, for myself, while I can accept your statement that movies do more to encourage you to love of others than any sermon you have ever heard, my own experience with them has been quite the opposite. Which is why I undertook to write what I did in the first place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
