When the 13 original states formed our union and created the federal government to manage the business of the union, the states had the right to make the decision for themselves about slavery. This makes sense when one considers that these states were, in fact, independent and sovereign nations. As the union grew certain members of Congress expressed by various means their desire to limit membership of new states to territories which would ban slavery, thus depriving new states of a right previously enjoyed by the founding states – without amending the Constitution. The crisis was eventually resolved -- temporarily -- by the Missouri Compromise of 1850. But the idea remained that the members of the union could gang up on other (new) members and thus deprive them of such a right without amending the constitution as proved by the reaction to the Kansas-Nebraska Act and its provision for popular sovereignty on the slavery question. This attempt to deny to states a right recognized (albeit tacitly) by the Constitution ultimately led to the Civil War. To put it in contemporary terms, the slave states objected to the efforts of the free states to impose morality upon them.

In many ways this Constitutional crisis was brought about by the annexation of lands as “territories” rather than the admission of new states – Louisiana Purchase, Annexation of Texas and Vermont, etc. This was problematic because while the U. S. Constitution as ratified, did contemplate the admission to the union of new member states, it didn't really (in my opinion) provide very well for the admission as new member states former territories owned and governed by the Union in a manner similar to that in which Great Britain owned and governed the colonies. As properties of the Union, rather than members of the Union, territories had not the same relation to the federal government as did member states. An issue like slavery could therefore – and arguably – be determined for these properties by the Congress. If slavery were outlawed in the territories, and if the territories were to be admitted to the Union on condition of maintaining this prohibition then Congress could have power to create states which had a view of slavery determined for them, and thus give to “free” states more power in Congress and at the same time less power to the “slave” states. Hence, the aforementioned Kansas-Nebraska Act. Then too, there was the problem (for the free states anyway) of the possibility, entailed in the Kansas-Nebraska Act, of slavery being permitted (i.e., in a new state) where it had previously been prohibited (i.e., a former territory).

The Constitution, at ratification, left the issue of slavery for member states to determine for themselves. It also, as I mentioned above, contemplated and provided for the admission of new members to the Union. It would have been eminently reasonable to think that these new member states should also have had the freedom to determine the issue of slavery for themselves, even if (as I believe the “slave” states did) those new member states made the wrong decision.

Quite frankly, though I have never favored slavery, my sympathies with respect to the issue of states’ rights have long been with the southern states. For that same reason, I think that while I oppose the notion that two members of the same sex can marry I have to assert the right of each state to make that determination for itself, with the understanding that other states may arrogate to themselves the right not to recognize such a relation inside their borders. I also think that states should have the right to determine for themselves the matter of abortion. It's all about sphere sovereignty, a very important concept in reformational philosophy (here, also).

It is sad that so much of our national politics concern matters which are properly left to the states. It is also sad that some of the leaders of the various ideological communities do not seem to know much about federalism -- you know, those little things like limited government, enumerated powers, states rights. Sadder still that James Dobson, and other Christian leaders of his ilk, is one of those. How else to explain his resolve that if neither of the two major political parties nominates "an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life" he and his fellow travelers will vote for a minor-party candidate. Subsequently, he expressed concern about Rudy Giuliani's belief that states should decide the marriage issue for themselves. (The very idea!)

How unfortunate that Dobson seems unable to see that the problem is not that Rudy Giuliani wouldn't support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one women -- or whatever phraseology Dr. Dobson has in mind. The problem (well, one problem) is that Dr. Dobson either does not understand, or entirely like, federalism. Why should it matter to the union as a whole whether a state, or any group of them, permit same-sex unions? Yes, I know: there is the "full faith and credit clause" in the Constitution. (Once again, we have a problem created by those who, whether Liberal or Conservative, want to impose a morality upon every state in the union. Naturally. But I digress.) This clause has its limitations. For example it ought not by simple fiat legalize what a state has prohibited. But -- again -- I digress.

The problem, even on a Christian worldview, is not that a state may permit same-sex marriages. Neither is the problem, really, that states may permit abortions. The problem is that people want these things. A Christian ought to be able to envision a society which permits behaviors to which he himself objects on moral grounds while at the same time envisioning a society in which those behaviors aren't engaged in -- at least very much -- because so few people want to do.

It strikes one as "pie in the sky by and by", I know, like visualizing world peace. But it is, I think, a bit more consistent with Christian theology than the approaches of either the Christian Right (use legal means to stymie such practices) or the Christian Left (utilize strange interpretive techniques, involving higher criticism to excuse the practices). First, it takes into account the "whole story" as we have it from Paul. Second, unlike visualizing world peace, it doesn't pretend that visualization can produce results.

Many Christians approach the issue of homosexuality and same-sex marriage from Romans 1.27 (among other passages): "...the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts...." Quite clearly, St. Paul thinks this is wrong. But moving from there to political action, even if that political action amounts simply to denying the "marital" union of two (or more?) members of the same sex, fails to account for all that St. Paul says here. For he doesn't say only that "men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another,...committing indecent acts." He explains why this is so (Romans 1.18-27):

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

Paul's argument is that, first men reject the knowledge of God which they possess (by virtue of having been created in His image) and then (because God "gives them over" to it due to their refusal to acknowledge his authority) they become inflamed with same-sex passions -- among others. And being thus inflamed the desire for same-sex unions follows rather logically, I think. If this is the case then one must wonder what Dobson and his compatriots think is to be done. This is not a problem easily resolved (if resolved at all) by law. Law cannot quench desire, quite the contrary in fact -- something else Paul knew (see Romans 7.5).

If the situation arises as a result of God's providence, I don't know how one escapes the conclusion that the situation must also be resolved by some providence of God. Authoritarian law will hardly work when "authority" is precisely the problem. (If they won't obey God, why should they obey James Dobson?)

And it's not just the homosexual who has a problem with a law which would prohibit him marrying another man. We have those who, believing that an accident of birth cannot constitute a grant of authority (as I occasionally tried -- unsuccessfully -- to explain to my parents decades ago), work aggressively at undermining parental authority, doing all they can to drive a wedge between parents and children, even to democratize the family. Even the so-called laws of logic, according to the post-modernist critique, have no authority. For still others facts are not authoritative either. In this milieu, a law restricting marriage to one man and one woman must appear as arbitrarily tyrannical -- and mean -- as a law putting Jews into concentration camps.

So the issue, as Paul informs us, isn't sex . It isn't marriage, either. The issue is authority. The Christian recognizes that behind the authority of the state is the authority of God (see Romans 13.1-7). But if there is no authority behind the state, then what? Law is arbitrary. This is true even in a democracy, since its fundamental principle -- rule of the majority -- is also arbitrary. Why should the majority rule? Because they say so? You see the problem. The rule of the many is no less arbitrary and tyrannical than the rule of the few -- or even the one.

Beginning with ego-centric (rather than theo-centric) presuppositions men -- according to St. Paul -- are handed over to "degrading passions." The Christian who recognizes the function of these ego-centric presuppositions must also recognize the visceral tendency which men have to be consistent with their presuppositions. These presuppositions -- and the passions which now accompany them -- require the permission of same-sex unions. However -- and this is the part where we get to the aforementioned visualization -- should men repent of their ego-centric presuppositions, their passions may be altered as well. And that is how a Christian can visualize a society which permits something like same-sex marriage and yet sees very few instances of it. What the law permits, the regenerate human may refrain from doing, by virtue of God's gracious empowerment. The same with abortion. Not pie in the sky by and by, like visualizing world peace, but taking seriously Christian theology (especially hamartiology) and applying it.

One can't help but wonder, then, where Dobson and others get the idea -- the Biblical warrant -- for the agenda they espouse. It is true that in the Scriptures same sex relations are prohibited. It is also true that the Scriptures specify the general conditions under which human life may be taken; and the unborn satisfy none of those conditions. So I am with Dobson (he'll be so glad to know that, I'm sure) from the ethical perspective on same-sex relations and abortion, among other things. And I certainly agree that Christians can and should be involved in the political life of the nation in which God has providentially planted them. But there is a step from "Scripture teaches us that these things are wrong" to "Scripture teaches us to make our nation's laws reflect what the Scriptures teach is wrong."

Some find this warrant in the Cultural Mandate, while others find it in the so-called Dominion Mandate. As a Neocalvinist I certainly accept the Cultural Mandate (and reject the Dominion Mandate). However the relation between the Cultural Mandate and the Mosaic law is problematic -- problematic, that is, in terms of using the Cultural Mandate to justify bringing outsiders under covenant stipulations. There is a social aspect to the Cultural Mandate. In being "fruitful" and "multiplying" families and extended families will be formed; out of this family formation societies will develop. These societies, naturally, will require some system for regulating these relational affairs, a system of formulating, executing and enforcing laws. From the desire of the Self to express itself and to satisfy its curiosity, the arts and sciences develop. Technology and skills develop for the provision of needs and wants. Being human, it ought to go without saying that the Christian will participate on some level in this process.

For guidance in participating in his society's legal-political life, the Christian understandably seeks out the Law, the Mosaic law. What he will overlook when he does this is that this law mediates a covenant; and it does not mediate this covenant to every human indiscriminately, but rather to the descendants of Abraham. And while the Jews' working out of the Cultural Mandate was governed by the Law of Moses, Israel -- the people of God -- had no mandate to bring into submission to this Law people who lived outside of her national boundaries, her "jurisdiction" if you will -- outside of the covenant. (This is why Jews have never proselytized.)

So one question for the Christian is this: Do the people of God have a mandate from God to bring "outsiders" into submission to those laws given to the people of God as his peculiar people? (You might want to answer, "Yes, by evangelizing them." But that will make them members of the covenant community, in which case they would not be outsiders. I'm talking about making outsiders submit to the covenant requirements while still "strangers" to the covenant.) Even after reading several Reconstructionists' essays, I cannot see that there is such a mandate. (Later today I'll be re-reading one of Greg Bahnsen's essays on the subject. I'll let you know if I change my mind.)

More importantly for the Christian is the fact that Jesus, a second Moses, mediates a new covenant, which fulfills the Mosaic Law. The non-Christian is not a party to that new covenant either. Again: How does one go about arguing that "strangers" to a covenant are bound to the legal stipulations entailed in a covenant to which they are not parties? Riddle me that.

The only covenant to which non-Christians and non-Jews are parties is the Noachian Covenant (see Genesis 9.4-6). Rabbinic Judaism has deduced 7 laws from this covenant, but on its face it provides for little more than the preservation and protection of human life by explicitly requiring the life of one who takes a life. From this explicit provision one can logically deduce other provisions for protecting human life, including human government which, in addition to meting out the punishment to the murderer, can craft positive laws for the furtherance of the mandate to hold human life in high esteem. (Indeed, I happen to believe that many of those things Dobson calls "traditional family values" are also consistent with the high esteem for human life entailed required by the Noachian Covenant.) It is easy enough to make arguments against abortion on such a basis, but not so much against homosexuality or same-sex unions. Besides, I think we shall find that most people hold human life in high esteem, but differ on when human life begins. And they certainly do not see how permitting same-sex unions is harmful to human life.

This relation of law and covenant is crucial to understanding the Christian's relation to his (earthly) country. The prevailing notion is that the Christian, in the U S, stands in the same relation is the "remnant" in apostate Israel or apostate Judah. Hence the felt need for Christians (the "remnant" of apostate US) to reclaim the US for Christ. I don't deny that Christians were far more numerous and politically powerful at the nation's founding than today, but there is nothing to reclaim for Christ. Christians in the US are not Israel's and Judah's "remnant". The Christian -- no matter how friendly, or even how "Christian", his country is to him -- is always a stranger in a strange land. If anything the Christian's relation to whatever nation he lives in is more like that of a Jew in Babylon. And to those who were going captive to Babylon, God through the prophet Jeremiah said:

Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, to all who are carried away captives, whom I have caused to be carried away from Jerusalem to Babylon: "Build houses for yourselves and settle in. Plant gardens and eat from them. Marry and have children. Have your sons and daughters marry and have children in order that your population increases rather than decreases. And work for the health and prosperity of the city where I am sending you away captive, and pray to the LORD for it: for in their health and prosperity you will have health and prosperity. (Jeremiah 29.4ff, my translation.)

Like Jews in Babylon we have a duty to seek the good health and prosperity of the US. The question is whether Dobson's plan (especially the part about a new party) will truly serve the goal of peace, prosperity, and the good health of the nation. Will the strong arm tactics he proposes (let's call these tactics for what they really are) create peace for the the nation? Our Constitution requires a chief executive to sign or veto legislation, to execute the laws, to conduct treaty negotiations, to appoint judges and ambassadors, to serve as commander in chief of the armed forces. We require the smoothest, most peaceful and uneventful transfers of power from administration to administration. We need to have a country in order to have a country which treats the unborn the way we'd like to see the unborn treated. We need to have a country in order to have a country which, while it tolerates same sex relationships and makes certain provisions for them, does not marry them. And in order to have a country, we need a stable government, with peaceful elections providing for immediate and uneventful transfers from administration to administration, from Congress to Congress.

I have no personal issues with Dr. Dobson. I've met him -- and his wife-- though I doubt he would recall. He and his wife visited my church once or twice. On one occasion he and his wife sat right behind my wife and I. Very nice man, very nice couple. I don't question his motives. I don't question his Christian commitment. But I do question his understanding to the relation between covenant and law. I do question whether his application of the principles of the Christian worldview is correct. Mainly, I question whether the principles he seeks to apply are actually the appropriate principles to apply.

We don't really need a President who will affirm a commitment to the sanctity of human life. We don't need a President who shares our view of same sex relationships. What we really need -- for the good health and prosperity of the nation -- is a President who is committed to protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States, one who is committed to limited government and enumerated powers, and who as a consequence nominates to the federal bench judges committed to originalism. Goodness! If we could just get that!

Okay. Back to my "sabbatical".

What is it to be a "spiritual giant" in the Christian faith? I've heard it said of this or that person that he (or she) is (or was) a spiritual giant. I've been on a sort of sabbatical, during which time I've given much thought to this -- as well as other things. I have found this bit of wisdom worthy of serious attention.

Progress in the spiritual life is shown by an ever-increasing realization of our own worthlessness, in the full and literal sense of this word. The moment that we ascribe some value to ourselves, in any sense whatever, it will mean that things have gone wrong. It is also dangerous; the enemy will draw close and begin to divert our attention, throwing stumbling blocks in our path. A soul that thinks highly of itself is like the crow in the fable who listened to the fox's flattery, and let the piece of cheese drop in order to show off. May the Lord help you to become more thorough in the task of attributing no value to your labours. See to it, as well, that there are fewer images in your soul and more thought and feeling. Persevere with the inner prayer you have begun; this is the way to reduce the flow of images through the mind. The moment will come when you will feel the issue of them stanched, like the issue of blood in the woman (Luke 8.44). -- Theophan the Recluse

Incidentally, the "inner prayer" Theophan is talking about is the so-called Jesus Prayer, which goes like this: Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

I think the desire on the part of a Christian to be a so-called spiritual giant is unworthy, perhaps even sinful. I think we shall do well enough just to do -- or to try to do -- our duty.

Supposedly Rush Limbaugh (during his 26 September broadcast) insulted soldiers who oppose military operations in Iraq by calling them phony soldiers. A week later, a week during which any who wanted could hear or read for themselves what he said, he continues to take flak for it. It’s almost unbelievable. Almost.

Now, you would think that Limbaugh said, “It is my sincere belief that any soldier who opposes the war is a phony soldier.”

Here’s a phony transcript of the offending call (from Media Matters site, not Limbaugh’s):

LIMBAUGH: …Mike…in Olympia, Washington. Welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.

MIKE: Hi Rush, thanks for taking my call.

LIMBAUGH: You bet.

MIKE: I have a retort to [a previous caller], because I am a serving American military, in the Army. I've been serving for 14 years, very proudly.

LIMBAUGH: Thank you, sir.

MIKE: And, you know, I'm one of the few that joined the Army to serve my country, I'm proud to say, not for the money or anything like that. What I would like to retort to is that, if we pull -- what these people don't understand is if we pull out of Iraq right now, which is about impossible because of all the stuff that's over there, it'd take us at least a year to pull everything back out of Iraq, then Iraq itself would collapse, and we'd have to go right back over there within a year or so. And --

LIMBAUGH: There's a lot more than that that they don't understand. They can't even -- if -- the next guy that calls here, I'm gonna ask him: Why should we pull -- what is the imperative for pulling out? What's in it for the United States to pull out? They can't -- I don't think they have an answer for that other than, "Well, we just gotta bring the troops home."

MIKE: Yeah, and, you know what --

LIMBAUGH: "Save the -- keep the troops safe" or whatever. I -- it's not possible, intellectually, to follow these people.

MIKE: No, it's not, and what's really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.

LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.

MIKE: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they're willing to sacrifice for their country.

LIMBAUGH: They joined to be in Iraq. They joined --

MIKE: A lot of them -- the new kids, yeah.

LIMBAUGH: Well, you know where you're going these days, the last four years, if you signed up. The odds are you're going there or Afghanistan or somewhere.

MIKE: Exactly, sir.

It seems to me quite clear that Mike believes that soldiers who oppose the war are phony soldiers and that war supporting soldiers are “real.” Rush’s problem is that his interjection (i.e., “The phony soldiers”), in context, does seem to agree with Mike’s assessment. I think it is quite clear that Rush thought the caller’s reference to “these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media” was to truly phony soldiers – people who claim either to be soldiers and are not, or soldiers who have made claims about their service which are not true. I think it’s very clear that Rush and Mike were not talking about exactly the same thing. As it turns out, Mike – but not Rush – thinks that soldiers who oppose the war in Iraq are not real soldiers. That’s his problem. Frankly, each time I read this transcript I find myself unsure that I know what Mike meant by “real soldiers”. Sometimes I wonder if the non-real soldiers are those who enlisted in order to get college money, or something like that. I don’t know. He doesn’t express himself very well. (Of course, to be fair, Rush did interrupt and distract him from the point of his call.)

Now, I just happen to have been listening to Limbaugh that day so I heard the rest of the call, and also heard Limbaugh immediately give an example of just what he meant by the phrase “phony soldiers”. Media Matters’ excision of this part of the call is why I refer to theirs as a phony transcript. A real transcript ought to have included what follows. It went like this (from his site):

(NOTE: What you are about to read resumes right after Mike says, “Exactly, sir.”)

MIKE: …My other comment, my original comment, was a retort to Jill about the fact we didn't find any weapons of mass destruction. Actually, we have found weapons of mass destruction in chemical agents that terrorists have been using against us for a while now. I've done two tours in Iraq, I just got back in June, and there are many instances of insurgents not knowing what they're using in their IEDs. They're using mustard artillery rounds, VX artillery rounds in their IEDs. Because they didn't know what they were using, they didn't do it right, and so it didn't really hurt anybody. But those munitions are over there. It's a huge desert. If they bury it somewhere, we're never going to find it.

RUSH: Well, that's a moot point for me right now.

MIKE: Right.

RUSH: The weapons of mass destruction. We gotta get beyond that. We're there. We all know they were there, and Mahmoud even admitted it in one of his speeches here talking about Saddam using the poison mustard gas or whatever it is on his own people. But that's moot. What's more important is all this is taking place now in the midst of the surge working, and all of these anti-war Democrats are getting even more hell-bent on pulling out of there, which means that success on the part of you and your colleagues over there is a great threat to them. It's frustrating and maddening, and why they must be kept in the minority. I want to thank you, Mike, for calling. I appreciate it very much.

Here is a Morning Update that we did recently, talking about fake soldiers. This is a story of who the left props up as heroes. They have their celebrities and one of them was Army Ranger Jesse Mcbeth. Now, he was a "corporal." I say in quotes. Twenty-three years old. What made Jesse Macbeth a hero to the anti-war crowd wasn't his Purple Heart; it wasn't his being affiliated with post-traumatic stress disorder from tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. No. What made Jesse Macbeth, Army Ranger, a hero to the left was his courage, in their view, off the battlefield, without regard to consequences. He told the world the abuses he had witnessed in Iraq, American soldiers killing unarmed civilians, hundreds of men, women, even children. In one gruesome account, translated into Arabic and spread widely across the Internet, Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth describes the horrors this way: "We would burn their bodies. We would hang their bodies from the rafters in the mosque."

Now, recently, Jesse Macbeth, poster boy for the anti-war left, had his day in court. And you know what? He was sentenced to five months in jail and three years probation for falsifying a Department of Veterans Affairs claim and his Army discharge record. He was in the Army. Jesse Macbeth was in the Army, folks, briefly. Forty-four days before he washed out of boot camp. Jesse Macbeth isn't an Army Ranger, never was. He isn't a corporal, never was. He never won the Purple Heart, and he was never in combat to witness the horrors he claimed to have seen. You probably haven't even heard about this. And, if you have, you haven't heard much about it. This doesn't fit the narrative and the template in the Drive-By Media and the Democrat Party as to who is a genuine war hero. Don't look for any retractions, by the way. Not from the anti-war left, the anti-military Drive-By Media, or the Arabic websites that spread Jesse Macbeth's lies about our troops, because the truth for the left is fiction that serves their purpose. They have to lie about such atrocities because they can't find any that fit the template of the way they see the US military. In other words, for the American anti-war left, the greatest inconvenience they face is the truth.

The transcript ends there. Limbaugh segued immediately into an explanation of what he meant by “phony” – or “fake” – soldiers. I heard that Morning Update also. Limbaugh wasn’t talking about soldiers – real soldiers – who oppose the war. He was talking about truly fake soldiers. And I find it very telling, though hardly surprising, that Media Matters’ redaction of the transcript ends where it does. The entire transcript shows their phony assertion for what it is.

These are people who want honesty and believe the President lied us into war. These are people who assert that Limbaugh is disingenuous. And yet, to substantiate a charge against him they can only be, shall we say, less than honest in their transcript editing.

For their false witness against Limbaugh I think Media Matters should receive whatever consequences they intended for him. Whatever they may have been. Too bad they don’t have a radio show that Democrats want to pull off the Armed Forces Network.

Of course, following General Wesley Clark’s suggestion, Media Matters, like Limbaugh (and along with CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, L.A. Times, N.Y. Times The New Republic, and others) need to be rated. (On the grounds that since there are standards in public broadcasting – X-rated, R-rated, etc – there ought to be standards in political discourse. Ratings on political speech. And these people insist it is the Right who are trying to take away freedoms.) After all, many (like Elizabeth Edwards and Brian Gough, of VoteVets.org) have demonstrated the true purpose of these phony charges: to silence, or at least muffle, the loudest voice in their opposition.



IN THE INTEREST OF FULL DISCLOSURE: I am somewhat of a fan of Limbaugh’s. He's very well-read and informed for someone with no college education (in an era which over emphasizes university education). However, he is a bit (bit?) bombastic -- and more emotional than I can usually stomach from anyone. I still prefer him to any one of his critics.

I'm certainly no fan because I agree with everything he says, or every position he takes. I certainly don't. (I don’t even agree with my wife about everything.) And any agreements we have are accidental, perhaps even coincidental, and largely as a result of his borrowing from my (i.e., Christian) worldview. He’s a conservative; I’m a center-right Christian democrat. (No there isn’t a Christian Democrat party in this country – well, not one in which I would be comfortable, anyway – but as a political view, that is where I am.) It stands to reason that we will have many positions in common. But we have those positions for different reasons.

For example his position on economics seems to me pragmatic. His position on taxes is very similar to my own, especially as regards the welfare state. But his grounds are pragmatic: his primary concern seems to be that raising taxes doesn't "work", that the welfare state actually harms the people intended to be helped. My own opposition to the welfare state is normative: I have scruples about taking one man’s money (just because he has “plenty”) and giving it to someone else (just because he doesn’t have plenty). And I happen also to think that it doesn't work, but that is not the first question I ask. The first question I ask is: Is it ethical? (Hint: Thou shalt not steal; Thou shalt not covet, etc.)

Some Christian Democrats assert that the welfare state follows logically from the teaching of Scriptures to remember the poor. But to force non-Christians, an entire society, to exercise Christians' duties isn't right and ought to be seen (if certain people are to be consistent) as a violation of the so-called separation of church and state. After all, the same Scriptures teach us to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy. I note that these same Christian Democrats – unless I missed it – who desire that we give the force of law to the Scriptural injunction to remember the poor are not advocating a return of the blue laws.

Be all that as it may. Rush critics are inclined to lump me in with him so I'm inclined, ocassionally, to defend him, rather than distance myself from him.

Besides, I'd rather be lumped in with Limbaugh than his ideological opponents. If for no other reason than that Limbaugh is right about at least one thing: his opponents' tactics are Stalinistic. A kinder, gentler Stalinistic to be sure. But Stalinistic nevertheless.

I love this stuff. It's how I plan to spend my retirement.



Clearly, a couple of guys inspired by the same drummer who inspired me as a youth.

NOTE: OMGG = Oh, my goodness gracious.

I wonder if – in response to this – we will be reading about six Jewish youths beating down a German-American kid who demonstrably did not perpetrate the act (but who may be somehow “associated” with those who did)?

Probably not. Revenge is prohibited to Jews. And their standard of justice does not permit “punishment” of anyone who shares some superficial similarity (including worldview) with the actual perpetrator but limits “punishment” to the person who actually committed the offense. Not only that, but their standard of retribution is eye for eye, tooth for tooth, etc (Biblical source). The tendency is think that this standard is harsh. Actually, this standard imposes a limitation on the severity of punishment, protecting the accused from punishment which is over harsh in comparison with the crime.

The standard of justice for the Jena Six seems to have been an eye and a tooth (i.e., assault and battery) from John for (non-verbal!) slap in the face by Joe. With the hearty approval of The Justice Brothers, of course.

It’s not as if Jews celebrate “Beat Up a Gentile Day”.

We do have a race problem when it comes to justice in this country. But only because some people think they belong to a class each member of which is “more sinned against than sinning” (see King Lear, 3.2.59) by each member of some other class and therefore are justified in retaliating against any given member of the offending class.

or the next war is free.

We are blessed to live in a relatively stable society. One of the blessings of this stability is a great deal of predictability. That is, most of us are able to live fairly predictable lives, predictable in a good way.

The city nearest to my present location is 32 miles away. I can tell you just about exactly how long it will take to drive from a specific building here to a specific building in that nearest city. When I leave for work in the morning, I know exactly what time I need to leave because I know exactly how long it takes from the time I walk out my door, arrive at the building I work in, and make it to my desk – twelve minutes. Not ten. Not fifteen. Twelve.

When I mow the grass here, I know how long it will take. When I put something in the microwave I know just about how many minutes it will be before I’m eating. When I go to make a pot of coffee, I know how long it will take. When I sit down to watch the news, or anything else, I know how long I’m going to sit and watch before it’s over. If I take a trip to my parents’ house, I know almost exactly how many hours that trip will take. When I mail something, I have an idea when the package will arrive at its destination. When I see a crew break ground on a new building, I can fairly well predict how many days, weeks, or months it will be before the building is completed (assuming weather conditions are favorable). And unlike countries with parliamentary democracies, we also know how long our administrations are going to be in power.
Yes. We live fairly predictable lives.

We ask, “How long will it take?” and are accustomed to getting an answer that sticks. And if it takes longer than the time we were given we may get a discount, or better: “Your pizza in thirty minutes or its free,” “When it absolutely, positively has to be there overnight,” “Your pictures tomorrow or they’re free,” and so on.

There are some disadvantages to living in such a stable society, however. One such is that it can give some people certain unreasonable expectations. Some people think its absurd not to be able to predict how long anything and everything will take. Like, for example, a war.

A caller to Rush Limbaugh’s show (2nd hour, 26 September 2007) wanted to know how much longer its going to take to win in Iraq. Limbaugh told the young man that we’ll have to remain there until we win. (What other answer can we expect?) The young man (I think his name was Mike) asked Limbaugh to define winning in Iraq. To each formulation of an answer to the request for that definition, Mike replied, “Yes, but how long is that going to take?”

Four times, at least, he asked: Yes, but how long is that going to take? How long is that going to take? How long is that going to take? How long is that going to take?

This young man is clearly a product of the times and therefore thinks successfully finishing up a war is something like nuking something in the microwave.

How long is this war going to take?

Unbelievable.

Actually, no it isn't. Now that I'm thinking about it, I recall reading something by Isaac Asimov (well, I'm pretty sure it was Asimov) a few years before he died. Asimov was lamenting the fact that it was becoming difficult to retain young scientists. The reason? They were too impatient. Scientific breakthroughs take a great deal of time, if they ever come. These young scientists were not interested in working for indefinite lengths of time before achieving success.

The fault is not entirely theirs, I suspect: very little in our society is designed to instill patience ("long suffering") in people.

The great mistake made…is to take up with the notion that class is naturally hostile to class, and that the wealthy and the working men are intended by nature to live in mutual conflict. So irrational and so false is this view that the direct contrary is the truth. Just as the symmetry of the human frame is the result of the suitable arrangement of the different parts of the body, so in a State is it ordained by nature that these two classes should dwell in harmony and agreement, so as to maintain the balance of the body politic. Each needs the other: capital cannot do without labor, nor labor without capital. Mutual agreement results in the beauty of good order, while perpetual conflict necessarily produces confusion and savage barbarity. Now, in preventing such strife as this, and in uprooting it, the efficacy of Christian institutions is marvelous and manifold. First of all, there is no intermediary more powerful than religion...in drawing the rich and the working class together, by reminding each of its duties to the other, and especially of the obligations of justice.

From Rerum Novarum (para. 19), the encyclical of Pope Leo XIII on capital and labor.

Some – notably, Rush Limbaugh – have pointed out the number of Democrat “talking points” (let the reader identify them for himself) appear in the President’s speech. The presence of these “talking points” – we are to believe – is evidence of just how much aid and comfort the enemies of the U.S. have been given by the Democrat Party. But the fact of the matter is that if the Democrat “talking points” happen to be true (I happen not to believe they are, altogether) President Ahmadinejad can hardly be faulted for citing them himself. The “talking points” aren’t falsified by the fact that an enemy of the U.S. happens to believe them also. (Linda Chavez might say Democrats demonstrate that they are comfortable in the company of our nation’s enemies.)

All in all I agree with Ed Koch:

All in all, it was a fiasco for America and a blunder by Bollinger, as well as a coup for Ahmadinejad. His goal was not to respond to...the Columbia students or Americans seeing him on television. His goal was to talk over their heads to the Islamic world and its terrorists and show how he bearded the Columbia lion in its own den. (Emphasis mine.)

But, in the interests of academic freedom and all that, here it is, for whatever it’s worth:

In the name of God, the compassionate, the merciful...

“Oh, God, hasten the arrival of Imam al-Mahdi and grant him good health and victory and make us his followers and those to attest to his rightfulness.”

Distinguished Dean, dear professors and students, ladies and gentlemen, at the outset I would like to extend my greetings to all of you. I am grateful to the almighty God for providing me with the opportunity to be in an academic environment, those seeking truth and striving for the promotion of science and knowledge.

At the outset I want to complain a bit from the person who read this political statement against me. In Iran tradition requires that when we demand a person to invite to be a speaker we actually respect our students and the professors by allowing them to make their own judgment and we don't think it's necessary before this speech is even given to come in with a series of claims and to attempt in a so-called manner to provide vaccination of some sort to our students and our faculty.

I think the text read by the dear gentleman here, more than addressing me, was an insult to information and the knowledge of the audience here. In a university environment we must allow people to speak their mind, to allow everyone to talk so that the truth is eventually revealed by all.Certainly he took more than all the time I was allocated to speak, and that's fine with me. We'll just leave that to add up with the claims of respect for freedom and the freedom of speech that's given to us in this country.

Many parts of his speech, there were many insults and claims that were incorrect, regretfully.Of course, I think that he was affected by the press, the media, and the political, sort of, mainstream line that you read here that goes against the very grain of the need for peace and stability in the world around us.

Nonetheless, I should not begin by being affected by this unfriendly treatment. I will tell you what I have to say, and then the questions he can raise and I'll be happy to provide answers. But as for one of the issues that he did raise, I most certainly would need to elaborate further so that we, for ourselves, can see how things fundamentally work.

It was my decision in this valuable forum and meeting to speak with you about the importance of knowledge, of information, of education. Academics and religious scholars are shining torches who shed light in order to remove darkness. And the ambiguities around us in guiding humanity out of ignorance and perplexity.

The key to the understanding of the realities around us rests in the hands of the researchers, those who seek to discover areas that are hidden, the unknown sciences, the windows of realities that they can open is done only through efforts of the scholars and the learned people in this world. With every effort there is a window that is opened, and one reality is discovered.

Whenever the high stature of science and wisdom is preserved and the dignity of scholars and researchers are respected, humans have taken great strides toward their material and spiritual promotion. In contrast, whenever learned people and knowledge have been neglected, humans have become stranded in the darkness of ignorance and negligence. If it were not for human instinct, which tends toward continual discovery of truth, humans would have always remained stranded in ignorance and no way would not have discovered how to improve the life that we are given. The nature of man is, in fact, a gift granted by the Almighty to all. The Almighty led mankind into this world and granted him wisdom and knowledge as his prime gift enabling him to know his God.

In the story of Adam, a conversation occurs between the Almighty and his angels. The angels call human beings an ambitious and merciless creature and protested against his creation.But the Almighty responded, quote, "I have knowledge of what you are ignorant of," unquote. Then the Almighty told Adam the truth. And on the order of the Almighty, Adam revealed it to the angels.

The angels could not understand the truth as revealed by the human being. The Almighty said to them, quote, " Did not I say that I am aware of what is hidden in heaven and in the universe?" unquote. In this way the angels prostrated themselves before Adam.

In the mission of all divine prophets, the first sermons were of the words of God, and those words -- piety, faith and wisdom -- have been spread to all mankind.... Regarding the holy prophet Moses, may peace be upon him, God says, quote, "And he was taught wisdom, the divine book, the Old Testament and the New Testament. He is the prophet appointed for the sake of the children of Israel, and I rightfully brought a sign from the Almighty, holy Koran," The first words, which were revealed to the holy prophet of Islam, call the prophet to read, quote, "Read, read in the name of your God, who supersedes everything," unquote, the Almighty, quote again, "who taught the human being with the pen," unquote. Quote, "The Almighty taught human beings what they were ignorant of," unquote.

You see, in the first verses revealed to the holy prophet of Islam, words of reading, teaching and the pen are mentioned. These verses in fact introduced the Almighty as the teacher of human beings, the teacher who taught humans what they were ignorant of.

In another part of the Koran, on the mission of the holy prophet of Islam, it is mentioned that the Almighty appointed someone from amongst the common people as their prophet in order to, quote, "read for them the divine verses," unquote, and quote again, "and purify them from ideological and ethical contamination" unquote, and quote again, "to teach them the divine book and wisdom," unquote.

My dear friends, all the words and messages of the divine prophets from Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, to David and Solomon and Moses, to Jesus and Mohammad delivered humans from ignorance, negligence, superstitions, unethical behavior, and corrupted ways of thinking, with respect to knowledge, on the path to knowledge, light and rightful ethics.

In our culture, the word science has been defined as illumination.In fact, the science means brightness and the real science is a science which rescues the human being from ignorance, to his own benefit. In one of the widely accepted definitions of science, it is stated that it is the light which sheds to the hearts of those who have been selected by the almighty.

Therefore, according to this definition, science is a divine gift and the heart is where it resides. If we accept that science means illumination, then its scope supersedes the experimental sciences and it includes every hidden and disclosed reality.

One of the main harms inflicted against science is to limit it to experimental and physical sciences. This harm occurs even though it extends far beyond this scope. Realities of the world are not limited to physical realities and the materials, just a shadow of supreme reality. And physical creation is just one of the stories of the creation of the world.

Human being is just an example of the creation that is a combination of a material and the spirit. And another important point is the relationship of science and purity of spirit, life, behavior and ethics of the human being. In the teachings of the divine prophets, one reality shall always be attached to science; the reality of purity of spirit and good behavior. Knowledge and wisdom is pure and clear reality.It is -- science is a light. It is a discovery of reality. And only a pure scholar and researcher, free from wrong ideologies, superstitions , selfishness and material trappings can discover -- discover the reality.

My dear friends and scholars, distinguished participants, science and wisdom can also be misused, a misuse caused by selfishness, corruption, material desires and material interests, as well as individual and group interests.Material desires place humans against the realities of the world.

Corrupted and dependent human beings resist acceptance of reality. And even if they do accept it, they do not obey it.

There are many scholars who are aware of the realities but do not accept them. Their selfishness does not allow them to accept those realities.

Do those who, in the course of human history, wage wars, not understand the reality that lives, properties, dignity, territories, and the rights of all human beings should be respected, or did they understand it but neither have faith in nor abide by it? My dear friends, as long as the human heart is not free from hatred, envy, and selfishness, it does not abide by the truth, by the illumination of science and science itself.

Science is the light, and scientists must be pure and pious. If humanity achieves the highest level of physical and spiritual knowledge but its scholars and scientists are not pure, then this knowledge cannot serve the interests of humanity, and several events can ensue.

First, the wrongdoers reveal only a part of the reality, which is to their own benefit, and conceal the rest. As we have witnessed with respect to the scholars of the divine religions in the past, too, unfortunately, today, we see that certain researchers and scientists are still hiding the truth from the people.

Second, science, scientists, and scholars are misused for personal, group, or party interests. So, in today's world, bullying powers are misusing many scholars and scientists in different fields with the purpose of stripping nations of their wealth.... And they use all opportunities only for their own benefit.

For example, they deceive people by using scientific methods and tools. They, in fact, wish to justify their own wrongdoings, though. By creating nonexistent enemies, for example, and an insecure atmosphere, they try to control all in the name of combating insecurity and terrorism.

They even violate individual and social freedoms in their own nations under that pretext. They do not respect the privacy of their own people. They tap telephone calls and try to control their people.They create an insecure psychological atmosphere in order to justify their warmongering acts in different parts of the world.As another example, by using precise scientific methods and planning, they begin their onslaught on the domestic cultures of nations, the cultures which are the result of thousands of years of interaction, creativity and artistic activities.

They try to eliminate these cultures in order to separate the people from their identity and cut their bonds with their own history and values. They prepare the ground for stripping people from their spiritual and material wealth by instilling in them feelings of intimidation, desire for imitation and (inaudible) submission to oppressive powers and disability.

Making nuclear, chemical and biological bombs and weapons of mass destruction is yet another result of the misuse of science and research by the big powers. Without cooperation of certain scientists and scholars, we would not have witnessed production of different nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Are these weapons to protect global security? What can a perpetual nuclear umbrella threat achieve for the sake of humanity? If nuclear war wages between nuclear powers, what human catastrophe will take place? Today we can see the nuclear effects in even new generations of Nagasaki and Hiroshima residents, which might be witnessed in even the next generations to come.

Presently, the effects of the depleted uranium used in weapons since the beginning of the war in Iraq can be examined and investigated accordingly.These catastrophes take place only when scientists and scholars are misused by oppressors.

Another point of sorrow: Some big powers create a monopoly over science and prevent other nations in achieving scientific development as well.This, too, is one of the surprises of our time. Some big powers do not want to see the progress of other societies and nations. They turn to thousands of reasons, make allegations, place economic sanctions to prevent other nations from developing and advancing, all resulting from their distance from human values and the teachings of the divine prophets. Regretfully, they have not been trained to serve mankind.

Dear academics, dear faculty and scholars, students, I believe that the biggest God-given gift to man is science and knowledge. Man's search for knowledge and the truth through science is what it guarantees to do in getting close to God. But science has to combine with the purity of the spirit and of the purity of man's spirit so that scholars can unveil the truth and then use that truth for advancing humanity's cause.These scholars would be not only people who would guide humanity, but also guide humanity towards a better future.

And it is necessary that big powers should not allow mankind to engage in monopolistic activities and to prevent other nations from achieving that science.

Science is a divine gift by God to everyone, and therefore, it must remain pure. God is aware of all reality. All researchers and scholars are loved by God. So I hope there will be a day where these scholars and scientists will rule the world and God himself will arrive with Moses and Christ and Mohammed to rule the world and to take us toward justice.

I'd like to thank you now but refer to two points made in the introduction given about me, and then I will be open for any questions.

Last year -- I would say two years ago -- I raised two questions.You know that my main job is a university instructor. Right now, as president of Iran, I still continue teaching graduate and Ph.D.-level courses on a weekly basis. My students are working with me in scientific fields. I believe that I am an academic, myself.

So I speak with you from an academic point of view, and I raised two questions. But, instead of a response, I got a wave of insults and allegations against me. And regretfully, they came mostly from groups who claimed most to believe in the freedom of speech and the freedom of information. You know quite well that Palestine is an old wound, as old as 60 years. For 60 years, these people are displaced. For 60 years, these people are being killed. For 60 years, on a daily basis, there's conflict and terror. For 60 years, innocent women and children are destroyed and killed by helicopters and airplanes that break the house over their heads. For 60 years, children and kindergartens, in schools, in high schools, are in prison being tortured. For 60 years, security in the Middle East has been endangered. For 60 years, the slogan of expansionism from the Nile to the Euphrates is being chanted by certain groups in that part of the world.

And as an academic, I asked two questions; the same two questions that I will ask here again. And you judge, for yourselves, whether the response to these questions should be the insults, the allegations, and all the words and the negative propaganda or should we really try and face these two questions and respond to them? Like you, like any academic, I, too, will keep -- not yet become silent until I get the answer. So I'm awaiting logical answers instead of insults.

My first question was if -- given that the Holocaust is a present reality of our time, a history that occurred, why is there not sufficient research that can approach the topic from different perspectives? Our friend referred to 1930 as the point of departure for this development. However, I believe the Holocaust from what we've read happened during World War II, after 1930, in the 1940s. So, you know, we have to really be able to trace the event.

My question was simple: There are researchers who want to approach the topic from a different perspective. Why are they put into prison? Right now, there are a number of European academics who have been sent to prison because they attempted to write about the Holocaust or research it from a different perspective, questioning certain aspects of it.

My question is: Why isn't it open to all forms of research? I have been told that there's been enough research on the topic. And I ask, well, when it comes to topics such as freedom, topics such as democracy, concepts and norms such as God, religion, physics even, or chemistry, there's been a lot of research, but we still continue more research on those topics. We encourage it.

But, then, why don't we encourage more research on a historical event that has become the root, the cause of many heavy catastrophes in the region in this time and age? Why shouldn't there be more research about the root causes? That was my first question.

And my second question, well, given this historical event, if it is a reality, we need to still question whether the Palestinian people should be paying for it or not. After all, it happened in Europe. The Palestinian people had no role to play in it. So why is it that the Palestinian people are paying the price of an event they had nothing to do with? The Palestinian people didn't commit any crime. They had no role to play in World War II. They were living with the Jewish communities and the Christian communities in peace at the time. They didn't have any problems.

And today, too, Jews, Christians and Muslims live in brotherhood all over the world in many parts of the world. They don't have any serious problems.

But why is it that the Palestinians should pay a price, innocent Palestinians, for 5 million people to remain displaced or refugees abroad for 60 years. Is this not a crime? Is asking about these crimes a crime by itself?

Why should an academic myself face insults when asking questions like this? Is this what you call freedom and upholding the freedom of thought? And as for the second topic, Iran's nuclear issue, I know there is time limits, but I need time. I mean, a lot of time was taken from me.

We are a country, we are a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency. For over 33 years we are a member state of the agency.

The bylaw of the agency explicitly states that all member states have the right to the peaceful nuclear fuel technology. This is an explicit statement made in the bylaw, and the bylaw says that there is no pretext or excuse, even the inspections carried by the IAEA itself that can prevent member states' right to have that right.

Of course, the IAEA is responsible to carry out inspections. We are one of the countries that's carried out the most amount of level of cooperation with the IAEA. They have had hours and weeks and days of inspections in our country, and over and over again the agency's reports indicate that Iran's activities are peaceful, that they have not detected a deviation, and that Iran -- they have received positive cooperation from Iran.But regretfully, two or three monopolistic powers, selfish powers want to force their word on the Iranian people and deny them their right.

They tell us you don't let them -- they won't let them inspect. Why not? Of course we do. How come is it, anyway, that you have that right and we can't have it? We want to have the right to peaceful nuclear energy. They tell us, don't make it yourself, we'll give it to you.Well, in the past, I tell you, we had contracts with the U.S. government, with the British government, the French government, the German government, and the Canadian government on nuclear development for peaceful purposes. But unilaterally, each and every one of them canceled their contracts with us, as a result of which the Iranian people had to pay a heavy cost in billions of dollars.

Why do we need the fuel from you? You've not even given us spare aircraft parts that we need for civilian aircraft for 28 years under the name of embargo and sanctions because we're against, for example, human rights or freedom? Under that pretext, you deny us that technology? We want to have the right to self-determination toward our future. We want to be independent. Don't interfere in us.

If you don't give us spare parts for civilian aircraft, what is the expectation that you'd give us fuel for nuclear development for peaceful purposes? For 30 years, we've faced these problems for over $5 billion to the Germans and then to the Russians, but we haven't gotten anything.

And the words have not been completed. It is our right. We want our right. And we don't want anything beyond the law, nothing less than international law. We are a peaceful, loving nation. We love all nations.

At the end of President Ahmadinejad's speech, he responded to questions posed by some students.

MODERATOR: Mr. President, your statements here today and in the past have provoked many questions which I would like to pose to you on behalf of the students and faculty who have submitted them to me.Let me begin with the question to which you just alluded.The first question is: Do you or your government seek the destruction of the state of Israel as a Jewish state?

AHMADINEJAD: We love all nations. We are friends with the Jewish people. There are many Jews in Iran, leaving peacefully, with security. You must understand that in our constitution and our laws and in the parliamentary elections for every 150,000 people, we get one representative in the parliament. For the Jewish community, for one- fifth of this number, they still get one independent representative in the parliament. So our proposal to the Palestinian plight is a humanitarian and democratic proposal. What we say is that to solve this 60-year problem, we must allow the Palestinian people to decide about its future for itself. This is compatible with the spirit of the Charter of the United Nations and the fundamental principles enshrined in it. We must allow Jewish Palestinians, Muslim Palestinians and Christian Palestinians to determine their own fate themselves through a free referendum.Whatever they choose as a nation, everybody should accept and respect. Nobody should interfere in the affairs of the Palestinian nation. Nobody should sow the seeds of discord. Nobody should spend tens of billions of dollars equipping and arming one group there.We say allow the Palestinian nation to decide its own future, to have the right to self-determination for itself. This is what we are saying as the Iranian nation.

MODERATOR: Mr. President, I think many members of our audience would like to hear a clearer answer to that question. The question is: Do you or your government seek the destruction of the state of Israel as a Jewish state? And I think you could answer that question with a single word, either yes or no.

AHMADINEJAD: You asked the question, and then you want the answer the way you want to hear it. Well, this isn't really a free flow of information.I'm just telling you what my position is. I'm asking you: Is the Palestinian issue not an international issue of prominence or not? Please tell me, yes or no? There's the plight of a people.

MODERATOR: The answer to your question is yes.

AHMADINEJAD: Well, thank you for your cooperation . We recognize there's a problem there that's been going on for 60 years. Everybody provides a solution. And our solution is a free referendum.Let this referendum happen, and then you'll see what the results are.Let the people of Palestine freely choose what they want for their future. And then what you want in your mind to happen there will happen and will be realized.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) second question, which was posed by President Bollinger earlier and comes from a number of other students: Why is your government providing aid to terrorists? Will you stop doing so and permit international monitoring to certify that you have stopped?

AHMADINEJAD: Well, I want to pose a question here to you. If someone comes and explodes bombs around you, threatens your president, members of the administration, kills the members of the Senate or Congress, how would you treat them? Would you reward them, or would you name them a terrorist group? Well, it's clear. You would call them a terrorist.My dear friends, the Iranian nation is a victim of terrorism. For --26 years ago, where I worked, close to where I worked, in a terrorist operation, the elected president of the Iranian nation and the elected prime minister of Iran lost their lives in a bomb explosion. They turned into ashes.A month later, in another terrorist operation, 72 members of our parliament and highest-ranking officials, including four ministers and eight deputy ministers' bodies were shattered into pieces as a result of terrorist attacks. Within six months, over 4,000 Iranians lost their lives, assassinated by terrorist groups. All this carried out by the hand of one single terrorist group. Regretfully, that same terrorist group now, today, in your country, is being -- operating under the support of the U.S. administration, working freely, distributing declarations freely, and their camps in Iraq are supported by the U.S. government. They're secured by the U.S. government. Our nation has been harmed by terrorist activities. We were the first nation that objected to terrorism and the first to uphold the need to fight terrorism. We need to address the root causes of terrorism and eradicate those root causes. We live in the Middle East. For us, it's quite clear which powers, sort of, incite terrorists, support them, fund them. We know that. Our nation, the Iranian nation, through history has always extended a hand of friendship to other nations. We're a cultured nation. We don't need to resort to terrorism. We've been victims of terrorism, ourselves. And it's regrettable that people who argue they're fighting terrorism, instead of supporting the Iranian people and nation, instead of fighting the terrorists that are attacking them, they're supporting the terrorists and then turn the fingers to us. This is most regrettable.

QUESTION: Mr. President, a further set of questions challenged your view of the Holocaust. Since the evidence that this occurred in Europe in the 1940s, as a result of the actions of the German Nazi government, since that -- those facts -- are well documented, why are you calling for additional research? There seems to be no purpose in doing so, other than to question whether the Holocaust actually occurred as a historical fact. Can you explain why you believe more research is needed into the facts of what are what are incontrovertible?

AHMADINEJAD: Thank you very much for your question. I am an academic, and you are as well. Can you argue that researching a phenomenon is finished, forever done? Can we close the books for good on a historical event? There are different perspectives that come to light after every research is done. Why should we stop research at all? Why should we stop the progress of science and knowledge? You shouldn't ask me why I'm asking questions. You should ask yourselves why you think that that's questionable? Why do you want to stop the progress of science and research? Do you ever take what's known as absolute in physics? We had principles in mathematics that were granted to be absolute in mathematics for over 800 years. But new science has gotten rid of those absolutisms, come forward other different logics of looking at mathematics and sort of turned the way we look at it as a science altogether after 800 years. So, we must allow researchers, scholars, they investigate into everything, every phenomenon -- God, universe, human beings, history and civilization. Why should we stop that? I am not saying that it didn't happen at all. This is not that judgment that I am passing here. I said, in my second question, granted this happened, what does it have to do with the Palestinian people? (H/T: “Altaf” at Ihsan)

Apparently, every nation on the earth except for the marauder-nations President Ahmadinejad has in mind are more sinned against than sinning. I have always loved the way Muslims of his stripe insist they are owed apologies and reparations, while their own past sins are easily overlooked. I have been observing the West's handwringing over colonialism, imperialism, slavery, racism, world wars, and the like for decades now. Whatever evils befall Western nations are deserved; whatever evils befall non-Western nations are the fault of the West, of course. I have observed handwringing on the part of Christians for the Crusades, the Inquisitions, the religious wars of the Reformation period. I have observed handwringing in the U.S. over slavery, the Indian Wars, the "stealing" of the Southwest from Mexico.

Do Muslims of Ahmedinejad's ilk ever engage in any handwringing over the Muslim conquest of the once-Christian middle east? I'm sure Ahmadinejad doesn't see it that way. There was no Islamic conquest of the middle east. And there are no homosexuals in Iran.

In the U.S. it’s okay to kill a harmless baby while its gestating, but never hurt a (tame) duck. Never. Never. Never.


NOTE: In the interests of full disclosure (having made clear my opposition to abortion) I should confess that 19 years ago I paid for an abortion. Not out of the kindness of my heart, but because I did not – then – desire to be a father. My opposition to abortion is clearly not based on my own behavior, but rather on my subsequent conversion and conviction that all human life belongs to God and ought only to be taken for causes which He outlines.

I know: How convenient. But I do not find it at all convenient. For when I was later ready to be a father my wife (not the woman who had the abortion) and I discovered that she could not have children. But God is gracious. He gave me the best step-daughter in the world. Bar none. (I shall be most firm on that point.)

There is, in my personal experience, nothing at all convenient about living with the consequences of one’s sins.

For whatever it’s worth, however, I never hurt a duck. Never. Never. Never.

In order to call a sentence in the imperative mood an editorial (and thus protected by the First Amendment), liberals, not satisfied with redefining terms such as “marriage”, and “family”, must now redefine “editorial”. Yes, I'm referring to the two-word "editorial" titled, "Tazer this!". (No link, since it contains an expletive.)

Before 21 September 2007, an editorial had been an article expressing the opinion of the person writing the article, usually (except in the case of the op-ed, or opposition editorial), written by a staff member. Since it’s relevant, an opinion (again, until 21 September) was an expression of a one's ideas and thoughts about something, an assessment, judgment or evaluation of something.

As an opinion – a statement of what one believes to be the case – an editorial is a truth claim and is, therefore, properly given in the indicative mood, not the imperative mood. “Tazer this…” regardless what follows, is in the imperative mood. “Tazer this...” has no truth value. It’s not an opinion and not, therefore, an editorial.

Some are asking whether the editorial staff should be fired for this so-called editorial. Clearly the answer is no: They should be fired because they don’t know what an editorial is. Heck, they might not even know what mood means, much less indicative and imperative.

Really now. The lowest ranking street soldier in MS-13 could have written that so-called editorial.

…and it will cost us, big time.

Ron Kuby, on Laura Ingraham’s show last week, complains that there will be more troops in Iraq after the surge than there were before. And that, he informs us, demonstrates that the surge isn’t working.

This is the problem with having a national debate about a war: some of the participants don’t understand military terminology and ways of thinking. A surge is an increase in the number of troops. Unless I'm missing something nuanced about it, Kuby’s position amounts to this: There will be more troops in Iraq after the increase in the number of troops in Iraq than there were before the increase in the number of troops in Iraq. And this increase in the number of troops in Iraq demonstrates that the increase in the number of troops in Iraq isn’t working.

We’ve had this problem for a long time, at least since the Vietnam era. It’s illustrated beautifully by American reactions to Tet. Because Tet accomplished none of the stated purposes (perhaps the most important of which was to spark an insurgency in South Vietnam), General Westmoreland hailed it as a defeat for the enemy and, by implication, a success for the U.S. and their allies. To give the enemy their due, Tet was hard-fought. But it was also, militarily speaking, a failure. However, when the news cameras showed the destruction wrought during the six months of the offensive Westmoreland’s assessment was difficult to accept. In the end, Tet was an overwhelming psychological victory. The fact that such an offensive (extensive in scope as it was) could even be launched in the first place – even if it failed – was enough to demoralize us. (Admittedly, the same military which successfully repelled Tet is largely to blame for this: military leadership, especially Westmoreland, had led us to believe that the enemy were incapable of anything of so vast a scope as the Tet Offensive.) So, what really was a victory for us was perceived as a defeat instead.

Not much has changed. We still have participants in the national debate who seem to think that fighting a battle – or a war – is like building a table or something: if you don’t succeed right away, or if it proves more difficult than you think it should be…quit. Some of them, like Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island (who delivered the Democratic response to the President’s speech last night and despite having been a commissioned Army officer) seem to think that one ends a war unilaterally by just ceasing to fight it. Never mind what the other guy does. According to Reed: “[O]nce again, the president failed to provide either a plan to successfully end the war or a convincing rationale to continue it.”

It occurs to me – I’m no general, of course – that an essential part of any plan to end any war successfully must include at least four things: (1) continuing to fight said war, (2) defining “success” as “thoroughly, completely, and totally defeating the enemy”—or something like that, (3) not allowing the enemy either to seize (or keep!) the initiative or dictating the terms of battle, and (4) going through generals until you find the one that gets the job done (sort of like Lincoln until he found Grant). I think the President does have a plan to end the war successfully. The problem for Democrats appears to be that the President will not accept the Democrat definition of “successfully” which seems to mean “we stop fighting”. And the convincing rationale for continuing the war is that the enemy have defined that move on our part as defeat for us and victory for them. Some of us find that unacceptable.

When we ultimately win this war, we will have the tortuous (and, for some of us, impossible) task of finding a way to live with a victory which costs the lives of thousands of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines. I doubt we will ever find a way to live with a defeat which costs thousands of lives. We still, in many respects, haven’t gotten over a defeat in Vietnam which costs so many lives.

According to Sally Field, if mothers ruled the world, “there would be no wars in the first place.” This is the sort of thing that can only be sincerely asserted by someone with little – if any – sense of history.

It’s hard to take this sort of thing seriously. Expressed categorically what she said was, “For all mothers and for all wars, if mothers ruled, there would be no wars.”

Is she kidding? Margaret Thatcher, for just a single example, is a mother. Hello? Did Field ever hear of The Falklands War? (To be fair, she was probably busy filming Kiss Me Goodbye that year.) Some mothers (a few are friends of mine, with sons in Iraq and Afghanistan) do just happen to think the present war is both just and necessary. Apparently, they don’t count. Spartan women told both their husbands and their sons to come back with their shields or upon them. And how about those proud mothers who have succeeded in raising suicide bombers. Again, more mothers who don’t count.

Field must believe that the relation between mothers and pacifism is analytic. Anyone who has seen women fight knows better than to think there would be no wars if they were in charge. And that’s all I’ve got to say about that.

We deliberate about things that are in our power and can be done…. We deliberate not about ends but about means. For a doctor does not deliberate whether he shall heal, nor an orator whether he shall persuade, nor a statesman whether he shall produce law and order, nor does any one else deliberate about his end. They assume the end and consider how and by what means it is to be attained; and if it seems to be produced by several means they consider by which it is most easily and best produced, while if it is achieved by one only they consider how it will be achieved by this and by what means this will be achieved, till they come to the first cause, which in the order of discovery is last. – Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics, III.3.

During his testimony, General Petraeus was asked if he thought the war in Iraq was making us safer. He said he didn’t know, that he hadn’t “sorted it out” in his mind, preferring instead “to focus on what [he] think[s] a commander is supposed to do.” The very idea. A general, trying to focus on what a general ought to be focused on. Next, we’ll be hearing about legislators trying to focus on what legislators ought to be focused on. (Okay, probably not. But hope springs eternal.)

No surprise that Chris Matthews, among others who seem to suffer from a deplorable lack of curiosity about the precise role of a general, sought to make hay of it. Imagine, asks Matthews (who referred to the testimony as a dog and pony show), General Eisenhower in a speech to American servicemen before the Normandy invasion saying to them, “Good luck, men. I don’t know if this war is going to make us safer, but I certainly wish you well.”

Imagine that there really wasn’t any question whether fighting the second world war would make us safer. Wait. Actually, there wasn’t much question whether fighting that war would make us safer. That is a salient difference between the circumstances in which Eisenhower gave his speech and those which hold presently for General Petraeus. I suppose one can hardly expect Matthews to be aware of that difference. He wants to compare two generals without, at the same time, comparing public opinion about those two wars.

Given the purpose of his testimony, the question should not have been asked of him. The question, Is this war going to make us safe? is a policy question. It is a question related to the decision to engage in warfare or to remain engaged. That is a question for civilians. In our system, generals do not take part in the decision for or against war. To ask General Petraeus, Is this war going to make us safe? is like asking the man on the street, rather than a jury panel, if the defendant in a trial is guilty. Oh, you can ask, of course, and do whatever you want with the answer. But the only answer that makes a difference, the only answers that really, really matters is the answer that the jury gives. In short, even if General Petraeus had answered in the affirmative it would not make a bit of difference. The question is not his, as a general, to answer.

With all due respect for the general, the answer he should have given was, “Senator, to answer that question is beyond my pay grade.” I mean, the answer he gave was probably true enough: “I haven’t really thought about it.” But it requires nuance, which he should really try to avoid. The nuance is this. He has thought about it; it is unavoidable that a soldier will ask if the sacrifice he makes will make his people safer. But when he asks that question he is asking it not truly as a soldier; the question for a soldier, when it comes to war is, What is my duty, how do I win this damn thing and go back home? It is as a private citizen that a man who in addition to being a citizen is also a soldier asks, Will this war make my country safer?

General Petraeus was offering testimony not as a private citizen named John Petraeus. He was offering testimony as to the facts on the ground in Iraq as those facts touch on present military operations. He was offering his testimony as a general, specifically as the general in charge of those operations. It is not his job, as that general, to ponder whether those operations are making us safer. That decision – whether right or wrong – has been made by those who have the requisite pay grades. It is his job, as that general – pursuant to the decision by others that the war will make us safer – to ponder how to win that war. It is the job of Congress, having authorized the use of force in Iraq, to decide whether the war is making us safer, or will if allowed to continue. I bet a large part of the general’s job would be much easer if Congress had the testicular fortitude to do their own.

Besides, if the general thinks the answer is the war is not making us safer then, before he so informs Congress, he has an obligation to resign his commission.

In the military, and other spheres, it is said, “Lead, follow, or get out of the way.” Congress has it easier: Legislate, or shut up. If you have authorized the use of force in Iraq and now think better of it, then pass legislation which rescinds the authorization. Legislate, or shut up. If you think the general’s report is a lie (Senator Lantos) and it is time to leave Iraq now, then introduce legislation which truly reflects that belief. Legislate, or shut up. If you truly believe President Bush lied to get the authorization for use of force in Iraq then introduce appropriate legislation. Legislate, or shut up. Oh, and be sure and charge the general with lying to Congress, which is a crime.

Consider this gem from Lantos’ opening statement:

America should not be in the business of arming, training and funding both sides of a religious civil war in Iraq. Did the Administration learn nothing from our country’s actions in Afghanistan two decades ago, when by supporting Islamist militants against the Soviet Union, we helped pave the way for the rise of the Taliban? Why are we now repeating the short-sighted patterns of the past?

(Compare with Senator Biden’s opening statement at the Senate Foreign Relations committee hearings. Biden has a plan for Iraq. Why he explains it to the general is a mystery. The general can't implement that plan. Again, legislate or shut up.)

Newsflash: In our system, a general has nothing to say in response to this. Why should a general be required to answer a question such as, “Did the Administration learn nothing from our country’s actions in Afghanistan two decades ago, when by supporting Islamist militants against the Soviet Union, we helped pave the way for the rise of the Taliban?” A general may have to answer to the Administration, but it is not his job to answer for the Administration. Why tell a general that, “America should not be in the business of arming, training and funding both sides of a religious civil war in Iraq”? A general can’t decide whether we shall arm, train, or fund any side, much less both sides of a religious war. It is not the job of a general to make that decision. It just happens to be Congress’s job, Lantos. Legislate, or shut up.

It isn’t the job of a general to do your job for you. You decide that the war will make us safer; or you decide that it won’t. Then legislate. Or shut up. You decide whether we should arm, train and fund anyone; or you decide that we won’t. Whatever you decide, it is the generals’ job to execute the decision, but not to make it for you. Don’t ask a general to answer what is a question for you to answer. Don’t hold a general responsible for policy decisions that he cannot, and did not, make, as if he can do anything in a policy dispute between various branches of our government. The general can tell you if, and how, we can win the war. He can tell you if, and how, we can successfully arm and train anyone. But he can’t tell you whether we should be fighting the war. He can’t tell you whether we should arm and train others. That’s not his job; it’s yours. Legislate, or shut up.

“Will this war make us safe?” is just another way of asking “Ought we to fight this war?” And that is not a military question. It’s a public policy question. And public policy questions are not for generals; they are for politicians and policy wonks.

Congress, you legislated us into this war. Either legislate us back out, or shut up. It’s a pretty cheap shot to lambaste a general who is commanding troops in war you authorized. (And to tell him he now owns that war authorized by Congress.)

And whether you legislate or shut up – or neither – think about the job description of a general. Oh, yes, and maybe think about your own job description. Congress has authority to declare war; perhaps you could try declaring an end to the war. Really. If you guys were serious you would pass legislation similar to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974, which, among other things, established a personnel ceiling of 4000 Americans in Vietnam within six months of enactment and 3000 Americans within one year. (True, Senator Biden introduced legislation which would alter our Iraq policy. Oddly enough it seems to be stuck in the Committee on Foreign Relations, since May. I would be interested in reading the minutes of those committee meetings.)

To win in Iraq will take someone with more conviction, more commitment, more audacity than bin Ladin or any insurgent. Such, apparently, are not to be found in either the House or the Senate. In those chambers are to be found those with no more conviction, no more commitment, but certainly the audacity, of an instant-gratification seeking child. Those with the authority to act in order to change what they do not like sniping at those with no authority to make the changes that will please those who do the complaining. Not very helpful.

“Another Jimmy Carter: proof positive that Americans increasingly desire peace.”

How the Arab world probably actually sees him:

“Allah be praised: another Jimmy Carter! How do you say, ‘hostage crisis’ in English, brothers?”

If his approach to peace is anything like his approach to violence, we're doomed. Kucinich favors a ban on the purchase, sale, transfer, or possession of handguns by civilians. (Of course, that really only means law abiding civilians, doesn’t it?)

You can watch his genuflecting interview here. H/T: Dennis Prager

...but apparently, wherever he is, all he can do is make videos.

The violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from Al-Qaeda said to these tribes, "We have to fight Al-Qaeda ourselves." It wasn't that the surge brought peace here. It was that the warlords took peace here, created a temporary peace here. – U.S. Senator Charles Schumer.

Schumer’s reasoning skills leave much to be desired. I seem to recall he was one of those who told us that it is the invasion of Iraq which created the insurgency there. That argument is simple enough. It goes like this: There were no terrorists in Iraq before we invaded. After we invaded the number of terrorists began increasing. In other words, the increase in terrorists came after the invasion; therefore the invasion is the cause of the increase. This is actually fallacious reasoning, specifically post hoc ergo propter hoc.

One would think that Schumer would appraise the peace in Anbar in the same way. That is: Peace in Anbar came after the surge; therefore the surge is the cause of the peace in Anbar. But no, the surge –somehow – is wholly unrelated to the peace in Anbar.

When the fact that A came before B is useful against your opponent, then you can blame him for B on the grounds that he did A. But when the fact that C comes before D is not useful against your opponent you can deny credit to your opponent for D by asserting that D occurred despite C. Nice.

It is of course possible that the peace in Anbar is despite the surge. One simply has to explain how the peace came about. Schumer does that: The tribal leaders decided that American troops weren’t doing the job so they’d have to do it themselves.

That’s what Schumer said. But one can’t help but wonder how he knows that. How does he know what went on in the minds of these tribal leaders? Did they write him letters informing him of this? Or is it, for him, an inference from the fact that the tribal leaders have stepped up. (And they have; there’s no disputing it. And it’s a good thing.) That argument is also simple: The peace in Anbar came after the tribal leaders stepped up; therefore, the tribal leaders’ stepping up is the cause of the peace in Anbar. But if that is his case then it, like the argument that the invasion of Iraq caused the increase in terrorist activity in Iraq, is an instance of post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Of course, this argument, even if true doesn’t really rule out the surge. It is possible that the surge combined with the tribal leaders’ stepping up resulted in the peace. It’s also possible that the surge motivated the tribal leaders to step up. But let’s not trouble Schumer with those possibilities.

I don’t care that Schumer thinks the surge is incidental to the peace in Anbar. It is surely possible. I just wish he’s have told us exactly how he know it is. I wish he’d have mentioned how he knows what goes on in the mind of a tribal leader.

NOTE: Yes, I have observed that others commit errors in logic. However, since Democrats and Left-Liberals insist that they are smarter, better educated and better read than the rest of us, I see no reason to spend too much time on others’ errors.

The recent reporting (here and here, for examples) of old news concerning Mother Teresa’s struggle with doubts in her sojourn in this world, reminded me of a chapter in Richard Foster’s book, Celebration of Discipline (a classic on the spiritual disciplines), the chapter on solitude. In this chapter he discusses what St. John of the Cross called The Dark Night of the Soul. I don’t know that Mother Teresa’s experience was the “dark night”, but it certainly sounds like it from the descriptions I’ve read.

Foster explains what it means to encounter the dark night of the soul:

[A]t some point along [our] pilgrimage [in the disciplines] we will enter what St. John of the Cross vividly describes as “the dark night of the soul.” The “dark night” to which he calls us is not something bad or destructive. On the contrary, it is an experience to be welcomed much as a sick person might welcome a surgery that promises health and well-being. The purpose of the darkness is not to punish or to afflict us. It is to set us free. It is a divine appointment, a privileged opportunity to draw close to the divine Center.

[…]

What does the dark night of the soul involve? We may have a sense of dryness, aloneness, even lostness. Any overdependence of the emotional life is stripped away. The notion, often heard today, that such experiences should be avoided and that we always should live in peace and comfort, joy, and celebration only betrays the fact that much contemporary experience is surface slush. The dark night is one of the ways God brings us into a hush, a stillness so that he may work an inner transformation upon the soul.

How is this dark night expressed in daily life? When solitude is seriously pursued, there is usually a flush of initial success and then an inevitable letdown – and with it a desire to abandon the pursuit altogether. Feelings leave and there is the sense that we are not getting through to God….

[…]

During such a time Bible reading, sermons, intellectual debate—all fail to move or excite us.

When God lovingly draws us into a dark night of the soul, there is often a temptation to seek release from it and to blame everyone and everything for our inner dullness. The preacher is such a bore. The hymn singing is too weak. The worship service is so dull. We may begin to look around for another church or a new experience to give us “spiritual goose bumps.” This is a serous mistake. Recognize the dark night for what it is. Be grateful that God is livingly drawing you away from every distraction so that you can see him clearly. Rather than chafing and fighting, become still and wait.

CAVEAT LECTOR: I imagine many Christians, because they experience boring sermons, weak hymn singing, and dull worship services, think they have been blessed with a visitation of the dark night. Most likely it is the sort of life most Christians live Sunday afternoon to Saturday night that is the real problem. I mean lives full of noise and frantic activity. If we are not driving hither, thither and yon, we have a radio on, or a dvd playing, or (good heavens) a video game being played – on top of work, or school (or both), children, spouses—you get the point.

And then, let’s face it, there’s the fact that most of us “show up” for church thinking that, like everything else we do, there should be something in it for us. Never mind that worship is something we are to give (i.e., to God, in case you were wondering). If we do get anything from it is his gift to us that we do. (So if you think worship is dull, perhaps there is Someone more disappointed in it than you are!)

Against the backdrop of such a life it ought to be no wonder if sermons are boring, hymn singing weak, and worship dull. Most of us live on a non-stop adrenaline rush all week long. And the adrenaline is still pumping madly on Sunday morning. That would make just about anything boring. And no wonder churches are trying to be more entertaining: it’s tough to compete with adrenaline.

So don’t flatter yourself: you probably are not going through your own dark night of the soul if you are finding sermons boring, hymn singing weak, and worship dull.

You don’t need a new church, or a new pastor, or different music, or a more energetic worship service…probably. You probably just need to re-evaluate your life.