Pandering for Power

When Reuters reports that a big winner in the recent passage of the United States Senate immigration bill is Mexico's President Vicente Fox, there must be something going painfully awry.

The House has yet to pass the immigration bill, but they may find it hard to resist urges from such countries as the Dominican Republic. America certainly should consider its policy implications on other countries, but not at the expense of its own welfare. The problem is apparently that the politicians in Washington D.C. are pandering to the illegal masses in order to secure votes – and with those votes, power.

Some of the items in the bill, such as declaring English the national language, are warranted. However, creating an amnesty program for illegal immigrants who have been in the country for more than two years is not going to work. First, how do you enforce it? How do you know whether someone has been in the country for more than two years? You don't know. If we did, we wouldn't have an enforcement problem with illegal immigrants anyway. Second, we are tacitly recognizing that by simply creating a majority (or a vocal minority) of people who want the rules to be changed you can do whatever you want. Simply because the there is a large number of illegal immigrants does not make their actions right.

Even the Senate bill qualifying illegal immigrants for Social Security seems to forget the basic problem with illegal immigration … it is illegal. In case anyone has forgotten, illegal remains defined as "prohibited by law." Laws exist for a reason. In this case, I would contend that we have immigration laws and border security in order to ensure national security and in order to ensure that America stays American.

As a quick aside, I'd like to address Senator Harry Reid's claim that "This amendment [to make English the national language] is racist. I think it's directed basically to people who speak Spanish." I have trouble formulating coherent words at the keyboard on this one. The "race card" is played so often, it has become quite redundant. Certainly, it may be justified upon occasion. This is not one of those occasions. To make the national language English would help immigrants more than anything else. It would help them to integrate into society and truly have advancement opportunities. Chinatown, Little Italy, and other non-English communities are a prime example of what tends to happen. The original immigrants' children serve as translators because the kids understand that to truly take advantage of all that America has it is best to speak a language that everyone else understands. This amendment is not racist; it is a necessary step to integrate all cultures into a truly "diverse" "melting pot" where all can benefit from social mobility so unique to a freely democratic society.

To get back on topic, whether we even need illegal immigrant labor in order to keep prices affordable is a matter of some dispute (despite my previous "Fence Hopping" post.) This bill just demonstrates the disconnect between the populace and its elected representatives. Even as 10 percent of the entire Mexican population lives in the United States, border security remains a negligible issue (some measures were taken in the bill, but not enough to protect some 2,000 miles of border), amnesty continues to be a viable option, and politicians throw out proposals in order to demonstrate their willingness to be re-elected.

I certainly think that we should propose legislation. I agree we should talk about the issues. We should not back down on the rule of law that makes this nation great. We should not condone illegal activity in the name of business. We should not propose legislation in order to stay elected. We should not pander to a growing number of illegal citizens and the subsequent voting block in order to remain in power. The democratic process is a wonderful thing. However, when one becomes too concerned with the process to actually do something about an unpleasant issue, then democracy begins to die from within. As Abraham Lincoln said, "as a nation of free men, we must live through all time or die by suicide."

Seek the Truth - Again

Although The Da Vinci Code novel came out in 2003, the May 19 movie release date finally urged me to get informed. I know that there are people who base their perception of Christianity, church, and religion from the ideas in the novel, so how much more would a visual representation create an impact on the masses?

In view of the increasingly large amount of information and critiques presented of the Da Vinci Code's material and claims, there isn't much point critiquing it here. Even the Discovery Channel quoted an author of "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" (on which Dan Brown's novel is based) as saying: "There is absolutely no evidence [that Christ was married and had a royal bloodline], but it does make an interesting hypothesis."

Indeed, the media furor reminds me of the Y2K bug. A problem was identified and swiftly dealt with in the fall of 1999. Yet in December of 1999 there were still people who predicted the end of the world was nigh and we would be hurled back to the Stone Age. Today there are still people who take Brown's fiction as cardinal truth.

Ecclesiastes 1:9 tells us, "there is nothing new under the sun." That statement definitely applies to the whole controversy surrounding The Da Vinci Code. All throughout the history of Christianity there have been claims that Jesus taught something hidden. His recorded words in the Bible are simply the surface. In the depth of Jesus's real teachings lay hidden what He really came to earth to say: be it a sacred feminine or secret cult. This is the idea behind the Gnostic Texts, Aldous Huxley's writings, or even claims that Allah and the Christian God are the same. The Da Vinci Code is simply again trying to go beyond specific teachings … this time in order to entertain.

This idea that there is something hidden or beyond the stated Word flies in the face of what Jesus Himself said. There are several examples, but two fit readily:

John 6:47 "I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life."

John 14:6 "Jesus answered and said, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Certainly some of Jesus's parables require analysis and interpretation beyond a surface level, but the core of Christ's message is readily available to the "uninitiated" and the life-long Christian.

As a piece of literature, and probably as a piece of entertainment in the theatre, Dan Brown's work is great. He writes very well. One only has to approach the ideas within as false. So then, I urge you to get informed. Read the book. See the movie. Be prepared to discuss it analytically. Do not go crazy overboard. Remember that this is the same sort of thing we have been seeing since the beginning of the Church. As the movie's tagline states, "Seek the Truth." To apply it to a Christian life, we could say "Keep the Truth … and Spread the Word."

Culture, Religion, and Henry Van Til

Quote: "Culture is religion externalized." - Henry Van Til

I attended the First Annual Christian Heritage Homeschool Conference (get your tongue around that name!) awhile back and picked up some pretty nifty things. Like that quote up there. I listened to some things I didn't agree with as well, but the main speaker, Douglas Phillips, was spot on in just about everything he said. (Like the number of commas in that last sentence?)

But I digress. Take a look at that quote again. Do you realize how rife with application that quote is? Don't believe me? Look again! Those four words have so many implications it makes me giddy.

Point: All men are inherantly religious.

This is dangerously close to anthropology, but it is true. One of the things that makes men men (mankind, as in "of the race of men") is their spiritual nature. To put it simplistically, we have souls, dogs do not. Because we have a spiritual nature, we do things *of* a spiritual nature, or at the least, we do things in a "spiritual" way. One man may commune with the Lord of Hosts, and another may never miss an episode of his favorite TV show. One man may help the poor and destitute because God has commanded it, and another may kill those of a different skin tone because his is the only "true" skin tone. No man can be totally divorced from his spiritual nature and be human. We all have our gods. We all worship something.

Point: All cultures are religious.

Since men are inherantly religious, and since cultures are made up of men, cultures are religious. This is merely a logical progression from the first point, but it is also a point that can easily be seen in the annals of history. Every culture has someone or something it reveres, whether it's a statue that's called a god or some abstract ideal. The Greeks had "noble manhood," the Americans have individualism. Et cetera.

Point: There is a distinctly Christian culture.

This is the point I'd never really thought about before, even if I'd already lived by it. There really is a distinctly Christian culture. Now your thoughts of multicultural tolerance and pluralistic diversity will rise to the top, I know, because mine did as well. "But all cultures are different, so the applications of Christianity will be different." Perhaps, but only if you mean that some areas of one culture will be more affected than the same areas of a different culture. The savages in Paupa New Guinea are saved and are told to put on clothes, marry only one wife, and quit killing each other. The savages in America are saved and are told to stop hoarding clothes, quit lusting after your neighbor's wife, and care for the widows and orphans. However, the teachings of the Bible if followed will inevitably move the culture towards a specific end, because the teachings of the Bible are specific. Love God, love your neighbor. By loving God, you will be loving your neighbor. By loving your neighbor, you will be loving God. There is no room for cultural differences when it comes to these fundamental truths, and any difference in these fundamental truths will be accounted as sin, not "cultural diversity."

Back when Jesus the Messiah was walking the earth instead of sitting beside the Father, he said "By their fruits ye shall know them." He was speaking of false prophets, but it is so with culture and the people that make up the culture as well. "Culture is religion externalized" is not some stuffy quote for scholars with 50-pound heads to sagely nod about. It's the way of the world. How is your soul? Thus shall be your religion. How is your religion? Thus shall be your culture.

Scared yet?

The World is Flat

It appears that Ptolemy, Eratosthenes, and Pliny the Elder were wrong after all. The world is flat and actually getting flatter. Perhaps not in a physical sense (I suppose definitions are important), but certainly in an individual's ability to contact, communicate, and compete with other individuals on the globe.

This isn't just my idea. More accurately, I'm quoting Thomas Friedman and his book, (coincidentally) "The World is Flat. Ever since the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, the world has been getting progressively smaller. Countries, companies, and individuals within countries now have new opportunities that could not have existed more than 10 years ago.

Because billions of people are becoming a part of the competing system of capitalism, the contest to get any job becomes more difficult. Outsourcing of jobs, the "giant sucking sound" of capital, factories, and labor to other countries that can do the same job quicker, better, or cheaper, raises the question, what is the U.S. to do to stay on top?

Our economy certainly is in good shape. It continues to create wealth, expand, and benefit its consumers; however, very soon it will be overtaken. Our economy is running fine, other economies (like China and India) are on fire.

We can't race these economies to the bottom; we cannot simply produce goods and services for less cost like other countries can. If you can get three software engineers in India for the price of one in America, why not go for three? America must therefore continue to race economies upward. We must continue to use innovation, imagination and invention to create new a better technologies.

In order to keep America on top, we must first move upward as individuals. Education is the rocket ship in this medium. As individuals we need to educate ourselves in order to be more competitive in the global marketplace. The second, and just as important, move is horizontal. As Americans approach the higher rungs of the educational ladder, individuals need to branch out horizontally. This lateral moving requires depth and breadth of understanding in order to make yourself employable even as the marketplace moves and rearranges around you.

At this point, America as a whole is lagging behind. It seems that too many people take a good job with lifetime employment for granted. This lazy man is competing against Indian and Chinese "Zippies" who are eager and determined to succeed. They have drive. For example, if you are a "one in a million" in China, you need to remember that there are 1,300 other people just as gifted as you are.

Therefore, this is a call to action. Get an education, work hard, compete hard, think hard, imagine hard, and play hard. Remember, the playing field of global economics and politics is being flattened. Where will you be?

(Can't) Talk of the Times

Last Wednesday I had the opportunity to go to a debate. This was the real deal. Sponsored by the Seattle P-I's "Talk of the Times" series at the Seattle Town Hall. I didn't know Seattle had a town hall …

To clarify, intelligent design (ID) is the theory based on nature's clear design and "irreducible complexity" there is an "intelligence" that created or guided all of creation. It does not claim to know that intelligence, but simply presents the idea that such a "creator" exists. This is different from creationism, defined by Merriam Webster as "Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible." However, the similarities between creationism and intelligent design are fairly apparent. In the not-so-old Dover School case, the judge ruled that ID was too much of a "religious alternative" to evolution and could not be taught in the school.

Nevertheless, the debate I attended was regarding ID versus evolution. Stephen Meyer, Director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute supports ID and went head to head with Peter Ward, Professor of Earth and Space Sciences at the University of Washington, in an engaging discussion of ideas … at least that's what I expected.

Unfortunately, Peter Ward tried to substitute flippancy for facts. Stephen Mayer presented far more evidence, quotes, analysis, talking points, rebuttals, and critiques than Ward, who would simply interject with comments like "It [ID] is not a theory," "you know if President Bush supports ID [obvious pause]," and "because evolutionary knowledge helps scientists to understand the mutation of viruses and ID does not, all you ID people can't use immunizations and remain intellectually honest!" I was disappointed that Ward did not adequately address the ideas and arguments presented by Meyer.

One other point that Ward kept repeating was that teaching the controversy between evolution and ID to students, such as a ninth graders, would be detrimental to their educational career and dull their intellectual curiosity. One only need to look over the crowd of 200+ people present to see that people want to know more about the controversy. Curiosity is actually diminished and incomplete ideas are ingrained in students' heads if other positions are not at least mentioned.

John Stewart Mill wrote about the "free market place of ideas." He asserted that the truth has a unique ability to survive and rise to the top of human knowledge when placed in direct conflict with other ideas. This is my primary issue with evolution today. Unlike the Scopes "Monkey" Trials that fought for evolution to be presented in a classroom, proponents of evolution today seek to remove all discussion from the school. The free market of ideas only works when there is contention and debate over ideas and theories. Covering up other points of view only harms the discussion seeking truth, be it evolution or ID.

This issue is certainly an important one in today's culture. However, we also need to look at the "big picture." If schools are not even able to discuss critically something that contains religious inferences, how is that preparing students for life? Quite frankly, if students don't hear about evolutionary criticism from an "objective" context, they will have to muddle it out when they hear about the controversy from their parents or even the news media. The suppression of other points of view in support of any truth has dangerous implications. If one can't talk about the origin of man, what won't we be able to talk about next?