Why Christians should not be Libertarians

This will outrage many good folks in Arizona, and a lot of Tea Partiers, but if you are a Christian, you should not vote for Rand Paul. You should not be a libertarian. Here's why:

Scratch a libertarian, and you'll see that s/he holds the Modern Liberal Myth of Individualism: "In the beginning was the Individual; who CONTRACTED with other individuals to form society." Libertarians hold that the ultimate good is AUTONOMY (auto, or "self" + nomos, or "law") That is why you see such an emphasis on the INDIVIDUAL in their explanation of their beliefs, at their website.

Government, by its very nature, always involves the limitation of individual autonomy. Thus, government can never be really good; it can only be bad or less bad. “Government's only role is to help individuals defend themselves from force and fraud,” Libertarians say. But that inevitably requires that someone’s freedom and personal responsibility will get stepped on. Their autonomy will be violated by the majority, and the majority is simply the collection of individuals who are able to force the minority to do what they want it to do. Thus, the same group that is supposed  to defend the minority from force is the group that is forcing the minority to do its will.

In fancy philosophical talk, Libertarians are metaphysical NOMINALISTS. Insofar as they talk about being “people-centered,” they mean they support SELF-interest, as their prime value-- so it would be more honest for them to say they are INDIVIDUALLY centered, rather than people-centered. (But that doesn't sound as "nice!") As nominalists, they think the only real things are discrete individuals. This is the philosophy of Ayn Rand is so congenial to libertarianism.

Christians affirm a different narrative: “In the beginning God, (Who is THREE persons in ONE substance—a community, not a collection) created the heavens and the earth, and finally human beings, in HIS IMAGE.” So from the very get go, RELATIONSHIP has been part of what it means to be a Person, and by extension, a human person. Christians don't believe that society/community was “contracted;” rather, they hold that it has been part of the fabric of reality from eternity because the Trinity is a community. Note, though, that the Christian doctrine of the Trinity does not do away with the idea of individuality. Instead, it properly defines it in terms of “personhood,” locating and balancing it IN RELATIONSHIP to community. That community is not an intellectual construct, but a real, existing, living reality.

In fancy philosophical talk, that means Christians are NOT metaphysical nominalists. Insofar as they claim to be, they are inconsistent in their beliefs. The Bible takes a very dim view of autonomy. It is the source of the fall—an individuals thinking they can do what they want, not what God has ordered. As Isaiah 53:6 says, "We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all." Christians are exhorted to be altruistic and other-centered, rather than self-interested. Judges 21:25 gives an acidic estimation of autonomy, and in 1 Cor. 6:19-20, Paul explodes the notion, saying “You are NOT your own; you were bought at a price.” This is why orthodox Christians cannot consistently embrace Ayn Rand’s teachings.

SO: if one is a Christian, libertarianism isn’t an option. Of course, many people are not Christians, so the tenets of libertarianism do not cause them any conflict. ISTM that Christians who embrace libertarianism need to think more deeply about their commitments because they are inconsistent spiritually and politically. Libertarianism espouses centrifugal forces; communism  and facscim espouse centripetal forces; but Christianity preserves and balances both, in a universal Te Deum that circles the One God who is

Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Maranatha!

I was the little girl Steve spoke about in his sermon the week before last. I am the one who always reads the end of books; and my favorite ending of all is Revelation 22.

1 Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb 2 down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. 3 No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him. 4 They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads. 5 There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever.

The first and only time I ever heard Paul Manz' "E'en So Lord Jesus Quickly Come" was nearly forty years ago, sung by the Notre Dame Choir at mass one Sunday. I have never forgotten this music, a sublime union of word and melody. Tonight I was thrilled to discover it sung perfectly, by '09-'10 Augustana Choir, conducted by Dr. Jon Hurty. The choir performed at St. Paul Lutheran Church in Davenport, IA. According to this source,  "The text was written when Paul Manz's child was near death, during a night of worry and prayer. It is one of the few Christian hymns and anthems that manages to capture the powerful combination of lament and trust at the same time."

Paul Manz was 90 when he died, on October 28, 2009. The Free Republic reports that he was surrounded by family and that they sang "E'en So, Lord Jesus, Quickly Come" as he departed. I can think of no better way to be ushered from this life into Christ's presence, and  I hope this piece will be able to be sung or played for my funeral service.

Peace be to you and grace from Him
Who freed us from our sins;
Who loved us all and shed his blood
That we might saved be.


Sing Holy, Holy to our Lord,
THe Lord Almighty God,
Who was and is and is to come;
Sing Holy, Holy Lord!


Rejoice in Heaven, all ye that dwell therein,
Rejoice on earth ye saints below,
For Christ is coming, is coming soon,
For Christ is coming soon!


E'en so Lord, Jesus quickly come,
And night shall be no more;
They need no light, nor lamp nor sun
For Christ will be their All!

Seven of my Favorite Sites for Bible Study and Devotions

1) http://www.youversion.com/about/reading-plans

This is from Life Church and offers 50 different plans, including whole Bible, partial Bible, topical and devotional plans.

2) http://d365.org/todaysdevotion/

"pause, listen, think and pray"

3) http://explorefaith.org/prayer/fixed/

Phyllis Tickle's "The Divine Hours"

4) http://www.mountcarmelministries.com/grow-in-the-word/daily-texts/

a short, easily memorizable verse from OT and NT each day, and brief prayer

5) http://www.artsci.villanova.edu/dsteelman/tradition/

a "florilegium" of Christian texts for meditation

6) http://www.taize.fr/en

Taize: choose "Prayer and Song," and/or "Bible and Faith"

7) http://www.missionstclare.com/english/index.html

The Online Daily Office; if you hit "calendar, you will get morning and evening prayer, plus readings about Orthodox, Coptic, and Catholic saints

QUOTE: On Grace

"A theology that ...speak[s] in a monotone about grace--always as pardon, but not also as power--gives no guidance or direction to the serious Christian." --Gilbert Meilaender, in First Things, No. 210, Feb. 2011.

Faith, Hope and Reason

http://blog.punjabilokvirsa.com/2009/06/faith-reason-hope/


Monday, my Fundamentals of Philosophy class will be considering the relationship of faith and reason. I found this, and thought it might be a good way to start the discussion. : p

Languages Christians Speak, and how it affects Christ's mission

Ala. Governor Apologizes to Muslims, Hindus, Jews 
Posted on 01/20/2011 by Juan

Gov. Robert Bentley, the new governor of Alabama, created a firestorm of controversy on Monday when he said that if you are not a Christian he does not consider you his brother or his sister.

He added, “… so anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their saviour, I’m telling you, you’re not my brother and you’re not my sister…” Ironically, he was speaking for Martin Luther King Day at an African-American church, and was probably attempting to stress religious commonalities as a way of stressing that he opposes racial prejudice. Unfortunately for him, not all Alabamans are Christians.

Jews, Muslims and Hindus in Alabama were upset and contacted Bentley with their concerns.

Rabbi Jonathan Miller of Temple Emanu-El in Birmingham, Alabama, among other members of religious minorities in that state, let Gov. Bentley know that he felt that the remarks were ‘disenfranchising.’

Bentley apologized on Wednesday. His spokesperson issued a statement saying, “The Governor had intended no offense by his remarks. He is the governor of all the people, Christians, non-Christians alike…”

The controversy arose because Bentley did not understand American civil religion, which requires that in the public sphere, sectarian differences be put aside.

Sociologist Robert Bellah defined it this way:

‘ “an institutionalized collection of sacred beliefs about the American nation,” which he sees symbolically expressed in America’s founding documents and presidential inaugural addresses. It includes a belief in the existence of a transcendent being called “God,” an idea that the American nation is subject to God’s laws, and an assurance that God will guide and protect the United States.’

Civil religion discourse is the way that various kinds of Protestants, and eventually Catholics and Jews, participated in the American public sphere. It is a way of sidestepping sectarian commitments for the purpose of doing the business of the Republic. (Obviously, it somewhat disadvantages non-believers, now 14% of the population, but most of those are not atheists but agnostics and so far have not mounted a concerted challenge to this tradition of discourse).

Bentley, and new governor, tried to go on speaking his own evangelical language of difference, which is all right in the private sphere. But as a public person, he has new responsibilities, of speaking in a way that unifies.

Since 1965 in particular, large numbers of immigrants have come in from Africa and Asia who practice religions beyond the classic ‘Protestant-Catholic-Jew’ trinity. Thus, the Hindu American Foundation and the Muslims were among those who protested, along with Jews. There are about one million Hindus in the US, 2 million Buddhists, and about 5-6 million Muslims if you count children. They are clearly as committed to a public civil religion discourse as are Catholics and Jews.

It seems to me that the groups that protested Bentley’s statement have some international responsibilities. Would the governor chief minister of Gujarat in India be willing to say that Muslims are his ‘brothers and sisters’? Would Avigdor Lieberman in Israel accept Palestinian-Israelis as his ‘brothers and sisters?’ How many Pakistani Muslim politicians would speak of brotherhood and sisterhood with the country’s 3 million Hindu citizens? Maybe some letter-writing to those figures is in order, too.

It isn’t just in Alabama that there is a problem.

Bentley is simply a good Protestant nominalist. "Bentley, and new governor, tried to go on speaking his own evangelical language of DIFFERENCE, which is all right in the private sphere. But as a public person, he has new responsibilities, of speaking in a way that unifies."

The question is, should the language Christians speak be one exclusively of "difference?" (That is, the language of "either/or.") Can Christians engage in the unity language of "civil religion," (the language of "neither/nor") or do we have a responsiblity to speak the language of BOTH unity AND difference? If the latter, under what circumstances do we we use which vocabulary? ISTM Bentley's semantics and pragmatics "missed the mark." Mercifully, he was open to correction and apologized. Unfortunately, to people like professor Juan Cole, the belief that evangelicals only speak "either/or" is still intact.





  .

Rush Limbaugh Plays the Fool from Proverbs 1 and 15

Rush Limbaugh proves the truth of the scripture below as he as he TWICE mocks Chinese President Hu Jintao in nonsense, ersatz Chinese on his Wednesday show.

(Prov. 1:22) "How long will you simple ones love your simple ways? How long will mockers delight in mockery and fools hate knowledge?


(Proverbs 15:2) "The tongue of the wise adorns knowledge, but the mouth of the fool gushes folly."

QUOTE: On singing and one's spirit

"Music is truth, singing  'in tune' helps you to be 'in tune.' "
--hymnistic, commenting on a performance of Tallis' "If Ye Love Me," on Youtube

Spiritual Workers and Their Soils

via Brad

 A Perspective on the Parable of the Soils

by Neil Cole
Posted on November 23rd, 2010

One might find this parable (found in Mark 4) discouraging, as only one of the four soils actually bears fruit. I find it encouraging and life-affirming, because it reflects my true experience. I have now come to expect two-thirds of those who accept the message of the Kingdom to fizzle out and not bear fruit. This has given me hope. Why? Because I no longer feel responsible for the fruit, or lack thereof, in the lives of disciples.

If ten people accept the Gospel and only two bear fruit, I no longer babysit the unfruitful eight. Instead, I invest my life in the two. These two will be much fruit.

I am convinced that we have made a serious mistake by accommodating bad soil in our churches. When we see people come to Christ and then slip away, we assume a responsibility that is not ours. We would not take it on if we truly listened to this parable. We assume that we must be doing something wrong if so many people fall away from following Christ. We then doubt our ministry efforts and search for other ways to keep people. The results are often devastating to the local church.

Because we think that the number of people is a sure sign of fruitfulness and success, we do everything we can to keep people. We try to woo people to come and keep coming. What we end up with is an audience of consumers shopping for the best "services." We cater to this sort of thinking by trying to compete with other churches with a better show.

We compromise the life of the church if we keep bad soil in our membership. We make church a show that requires the audience to make little or no effort. If someone is willing to come to our service once a week for a little more than an hour and sit passively watching others do the work, then they are considered members in good standing, no matter what the rest of their week is like. One can be totally uncommitted to the Kingdom, distracted by the deceitfulness of riches and the desire for other things, and still be a member....

....Our churches are full of bad, unfruitful soil. A common refrain of pastors is that 80 percent of the work in church is done by 20 percent of the people. Reread this parable and you will understand why....

....We must invest everything in the few who will bear fruit. Life is too short and the potential yields are too great to spend our lives babysitting fruitless people.

This paradigm shift will change the way you do ministry. We must regain the lost art of wiping the dust (bad soil) off our feet. We might consider such a thing unloving, but this is what Jesus did. Perhaps it is indeed the most loving thing we can do. People must be confronted by the consequences of their choices if they are to get to the heart of their need for Christ. To do otherwise is not more loving; it is cruel, selfish, and counterproductive.

Jesus is the Good Shepherd who lays His life down for the sheep. He will leave the ninety-nine in search of the one lamb who is lost. Nevertheless, He would never force himself upon those who are not interested, nor cater His message and ministry to trying to hold on to those who are more interested in other things. Although most churches today would be enamored if a young and wealthy leader came seeking salvation, Jesus was not (Mark 10:17-31). He gave the man some things to chew on and sent him on his way dejected. The Scripture points out specifically that Jesus really loved the man. In other words, this was the most loving thing he could offer the man (Mark 10:21-22)....

....I have always been amazed at what can happen when we simply plant the good seed of God's Word in the good soil of broken people. We have an expression in our movement: bad people make good soil-there's a lot of fertilizer in their lives."


(Excerpted from Organic Church in the section on "Good Soil" pages 68-72.
Preview chapter from Organic Church)

It sounds harsh, but maybe Neil Cole has a word of tough love for those of us in ministry: Jesus wants disciples, not spiritual workers who fuss over bad soil.

Josef Pieper wrote eloquently about work and "leisure," (that is, stillness, or contemplation)  in his brief, brilliant work, Leisure, the Basis of Culture. Pieper argued that human beings are more than just workers: that they are beings whose ultimate purpose is to enter into the "leisure" of the beatific vision, the life of God. He was worried that if the 19th century tried to reduce human beings to "proletariats" --people busy producing material things-- the 20th century was trying to broaden that definition, taking people to also be "intellectual workers," people busy producing ideas. Were he with us now, I wonder if Pieper might not decry the way we have also allowed ourselves to become "spiritual workers," rather than disciples.

And yet, Christians today have not resisted that transformation, we have embraced it. In trying to increase spiritual market share and grow our consumer base, we are forced to become spiritual workers. We think if only we have the correct techniques, programs, marketing--the right fertilizer-- we will be able to grow the Kingdom, no matter what the soil.  But this is not what Jesus intended. Christ calls us to be disciples, not spiritual workers.  Spiritual fruit is not the product of merely supplying the right things, or just passively receiving the right things, but of being in a relationship with Christ (and by extension, his Body.)  Relationships are both-and affairs: both doing and being.

In a culture that demands that human beings identify themselves as "workers" and "consumers," (flip sides of the same coin,) it is especially necessary for the church to offer the good news that Christ offers us an identity that transcends the workaday and the world.  Neither workers nor consumers   spend time loving and serving that which they produce or consume. Instead, workers making products focus on achieving certain quotas and quality standards. They do not have time to contemplate and enjoy their work.  Consumers purchasing  products focus on getting the best deal, and using their product for their own ends.  

But the Jesus cannot be "sold," and He refuses to be a means to an end. He is the Alpha and the Omega: the Beginning, and the End. Jesus calls us to become His disciples, those who spend time with, learn from, and imitate Him. In order to do that, we must focus on Him. In return, He gives us a new identity: we become His friends, His own beloved children. We know and are known.

Postscript:  Look here for the website of the Spiritual Workers Association: "Our ultimate aim is to offer the public a credible organisation that gives them a list of members to choose from who they know will not set out to defraud them. In other words, spiritual workers they can trust. We also hope that one day the law can be changed to better work with the spiritual industry....The term ‘Spiritual Worker’ as far as the SWA is concearned applies to all persons who in any capacity, whether professionally or voluntarily, offer any kind of mediumistic, psychic, holistic, spiritual, therapeutic, complementary or esoteric services to the public"

Brad Boydston and Jacques Maritain on "Who is Responsible?"

Some of the best sermons are not preached from behind pulpits. Below, Brad Boydston, pastor of MasterPiece Church, in Laveen (Phoenix), AZ, gives his thoughts on Who is Responsible?

"Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them -- not collectively with all the citizens of the state..." ~ Sarah Palin


Biblically speaking Sarah Palin is mistaken. Her's is an over-individualized understanding of sin. Indeed the person who is primarily responsible is the actor. But we also see in scripture a vibrant group understanding.

Notice that the Lord's Prayer is all collective language. It is not "My Father in heaven...." or "Forgive me my sins..."

          Our Father in heaven,
          may your name be kept holy.
          May your Kingdom come soon.
          May your will be done on earth,
          as it is in heaven.
          Give us today the food we need,
          and forgive us our sins,
          as we have forgiven those who sin against us.
         And don’t let us yield to temptation,
         but rescue us from the evil one. ~ Matthew 6:9-13 (NLT)

The collective nature of responsibility is seen quite clearly in the Old Testament, too, where there are whole societies condemned because of community participation in evil. Occasionally the prophets condenm individuals for their sins -- usually rulers. But more often judgment (and forgiveness) is declared toward the people as a whole -- the group

For example, Hosea 14:1-4 (TNIV) --

         Return, Israel, to the LORD your God.
         Your sins have been your downfall!
         Take words with you
         and return to the LORD.
         Say to him:
         “Forgive all our sins
         and receive us graciously,
         that we may offer the fruit of our lips.
         Assyria cannot save us;
         we will not mount warhorses.
         We will never again say ‘Our gods’
         to what our own hands have made,
         for in you the fatherless find compassion.”
        “I will heal their waywardness
         and love them freely,
         for my anger has turned away from them.

Note the collective language -- them, their, your, our, us.

In other words, we're in it together. When one person acts monstrously we together as a society share in some of the responsibility. We have failed in our collective responsibility toward that person and his victims.

This in no way shifts blame from the individual but acknowledges that responsibility cannot be that of an individual alone (contrary to anti-Christian Enlightenment thinking). Collectively we have failed Jared Loughner and his victims.

Perhaps more scandalous than the inexplicable national debt, we have created a society where an individual can act alone. To save a few dollars and make life easier for us, the wealthier individuals in society, we systematically dismantled a government-supported mental health system which 30 years ago would have more quickly intervened -- preemptively. We placed rights in front of responsibility when it came to gun access. We put the school system in a position where they could not share their concerns with family and other agencies because of a student's right to privacy. And we have embraced a kind of political rhetoric which publicly dehumanizes the opposition through baleful bantering. Together we have allowed this to happen. And together we share the responsibility.

So, what do we do about it? How can we shift the course and improve the situation for future generations?

We have to consciously reject the over-individualized thinking that came to us through the so-called Enlightenment. Descartes was misleading. We need to be quick to embrace responsibility for the problems around us. If there are issues in the neighborhood we can't just blame an individual or a group. It is too easy for cocooned individuals to gripe and to expect their words to magically fix things.
We can start to use an old African response to the question, "How are you?" The answer is, "I'm well -- if you are well."
We can memorize the great commandment (which Scot McKnight calls the Jesus Creed) --

Jesus replied, “The most important one is Israel, listen! Our God is the one Lord, and you must love the Lord your God with your whole heart, with all your being, with your whole mind, and with all your strength. The second is this, You will love your neighbor as yourself. No other commandment is greater than these. ~ Mark 12:29-31 (CEB)

We can reintroduce the collective confession of sin into worship.

Almighty God, creator of all,
you marvelously made us in your image;
but we have corrupted ourselves
and damaged your likeness
by rejecting your love and hurting our neighbors.
We have done wrong and neglected to do right.
We are sincerely sorry and heartily repent of our sins.
Cleanse us and forgive us by the sacrifice of your Son;
remake us and lead us by your Spirit, the Comforter.
We ask this through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
~ Our Modern Services, Anglican Church of Kenya, p. 78  

We can and must start to take responsibility not only for ourselves but for those around us.

Brad has pinpointed the problem here in very accessible language. Elsewhere, I have put it philosophically: will we be nominalists, or realists? Our biblical hermeneutic, our politics, our ethics, and our understanding of ourselves all fall out of whether we take individuals (atomic units, monads) or persons (substances, things with natures) to be the prime/sole reality. What we have here is the classic clash of premodern and modern/postmodern metaphyics. Obama, by stressing the universals that unite us, clearly telegraphs his opposition to nominalism. Palin, by emphasizing difference and individualism, has signaled that she is a nominalist.

In the early part of the sixth century A.D.,  Boethius defined the person as “an individual substance of rational nature” (rationalis naturae individua substantia). This is a "both-and" definition, one in which relationship is essential: an individual substance instantiating or participating in something universal. In 1947,  Jacques Maritain wrote a little book, The Person and the Common Good.  In the introduction he asks, "Does society exist for each one of us, or does each one of us exist for society? He goes one to discuss the two metaphysical aspects of the human being: individuality and personality. Individuality (grounded in the material) is the source of our uniqueness, difference and autonomy; personality (grounded in  participation in the universal) is the means of our relationship to that which is beyond us. For Boethius, Thomas Aquinas, and Maritain,  to be human is to be both an individual and a person.

At time Maritain was writing, he was threatened by communist totalitarianism (arguably a type of nominalism, for communism can only envision the collective  individual material things, not individual substances participating in universals.)  Maritain worried that human beings would lose their uniqueness and their relationship to things (and Beings) which transcend political society.  I wonder if today he might not write a similar book, worrying that human beings are losing their ability simply to relate to one another in political society. And so the pendulum swings.  Either/or, or both-and?  That is the question. Tell me how you answer it, and I'll tell you your political sympathies.

The Corporate Takeover: Lester and Charlie Interview Mr. Inc

"The Supreme court got past this notion that we are --embodied people--are somehow endowed by a creator with inalienable rights. They recognized it for what it was, which is, superstition." --Mr. Inc.
Brilliant and scathing graphics at 1:55-2:03 and  3:18-3:22

The Prometheus Tree: A Study in Anguish

"Where, even when we mean to mend her
we end her
Aftercomers cannot guess the beauty been."
                ---Gerard Manley Hopkins, Binsey Poplars

Driving home from our Bible study group tonight, I caught a repeat broadcast of Radiolab entitled "Oops," originally broadcast June 28, 2010. I came in at the middle of the story of the man who killed the oldest living non-clonal organism, a Great Basin Bristlecone Pine. Locals called the  tree "Prometheus." 

In 1964, Don Curry, a graduate student, was studying climate dynamics using dendrochronological techniques. He was working on Prometheus (or, as he and later scientists called it, WPN-114)  when his Swedish boring tool got stuck and broke. Without the sample, he risked losing funding for his study, so the Forest Service cut the tree down for him. When he got back to his lab, and started counting rings, he had the shock of his life. WPN-114 was at least 4862 years old. (Later calculations put it closer to 5,000 years old. )


To help put this in perspective, Prometheus would have been around to witness:

3000 BC:     The beginning of the Minoan civilization
2655 BC:     The Great Pyramid at Giza is completed
1185 BC      Trojan War
1000 BC      Chinese develop gunpowder
  559 BC      Cyrus becomes king of Persia; builds an empire
  433 BC      Parthenon completed
  323 BC      Alexander the Great dies
 5BC-6 AD  Birth of Jesus
  250 AD      Beginning of Mayan Classic Period
  410 AD      Rome sacked by Visigoths
  632 AD      Muhammad dies
1066 AD      Battle of Hastings
1206 AD      Genghis Khan
1455 AD      Gutenberg invents the printing press
1517 AD      Luther presents his 95 Theses
1776 AD      American colonies successfully rebel
1804 AD      Napoleon crowned emperor
1848 AD      The Communist Manifesto
1903 AD      Orville and Wilbur Wright
1928 AD      Fleming discovers antibiotics
1957 AD      Sputnik, the first man-made satellite
1963 AD     "the Green Revolution"

Imagine what it must have been like for Curry, to simultaneously be the discoverer and executioner of the oldest living organism on earth. The RadioLab announcers pointed out that after this episode, he turned his attention to the salt flats of Lake Bonneville, where there are no trees or any other vegetation. He became a successful and respected academic. However, Curry refused to talk about Prometheus for years afterward.  The pain must have been too great.

Express Scripts: Check your Meds Upon Receipt!

Do you use Express Scripts for your drugs? If so, count your pills and watch to see that they are whole immediately when you receive them. I've gotten down to my last 10, and half of them are cracked and broken. Since the prescription was filled over 45 days ago, they will not replace them.  Apparently I was supposed to notice this when I received the bottle full of 90 pills. So in their eyes, it's my fault, and I'm stuck. Check out  Complaints Board.com for more stories. Apparently I've gotten off easy.

Why I am critical of "the right" (and "the left")

Recently I had a Facebook exchange with a former student who wondered why I was critical of "the right" and "never" criticized the moral and political failures of "the left." Here is my response:

Dear Student,

You have been in my classes and know that I am PRO LIFE: which means I am against abortion, euthanasia, and (in order to be consistently  prolife) war and the death penalty. (Though I admit I still struggle with those last two.) You know that I am a passionate supporter of virtue ethics. Therefore, I think you mistake my criticisms of "the right" as support for "the left." I haven't written anything about human trafficking, or stem cells or gluttony or divorce or genital mutilation or the EMX route on West 11th. By your logic, because I haven't written about them I must not be concerned about those issues, but that is a mistake!

The reason you might seem to see concern about the "evils of the right" is because that group, which I have long identified with, has so dissapointed me. We are most hurt by those we love. The group which I had thought was more closely aligned with Kingdom values now seems to be no better than any other. IMO we have moved backwards, rather than forward, since 1994. Not only are abortion and euthanasia still legal, thousands have died in Iraq and Afghanistan, the unemployment rate is 9.3%, the U.S. National debt is over $14 trillion, the U.S. Gini index is almost 50, health insurance costs are rising faster than wages or inflation, and medical causes were cited by about half of bankruptcy filers in the United States.

The thread that runs through all my posts is a preoccupation with truth and justice, (justice understood as the right ordering of human beings in themselves, with each other, and with God-- "shalom"--which inevitably involves consideration of the Good, and the common good.) This is why I have been writing about health care, the economy and war, because they have been the places where the biggest disputes about justice have been recently occurring. If there had been a Facebook back in 1994, I'd have been posting about Oregon's "Death with Dignity" act. In fact, if you read my blog (which I started in 2005) you can find plenty disagreement with "the left;" but don't expect to see me support nominalist platforms.

In particular, the only way I think America can be prolife is if it has a strong understanding of persons-in-community (aka, a realist metaphysic) as opposed to individuals-on-their-own. It grieves me to see how "the right" has, over the past few years, moved increasingly toward a nominalist metaphysic, because I fear the resulting emphasis on individuals and their absolute freedom will in effect cause the prolife cause to backfire. IMO what ground we still have is in jeopardy, and we need to hold on to it. Libertarianism is the threat, because it ultimately denies there is such a thing as the common good. Remember C. S. Lewis' analogy of the ships? (See The Three Parts of MOrality, in Mere Christianity, here. If there isn't a port that we are sailing toward, what's the point of worrying about the seaworthiness of each ship? Or what formation they are travelling in?

So, in presenting the quote above, my intention was to focus on things that affect our national character. Those who take it as "dissing the right" are probably those who are uncomfortable with the notion of a common good: those who, having fallen under the spell of modernist individualism, resent any discussion of virtues which might limit individual autonomy.

The Constitution is not a Sacred Text

We are witnessing a serious conflict among evangelicals. Forty years ago people fought "the battle of the Bible." Now it seems they are fighting "the battle of the Constitution."

Dennis Prager, writes in the Patriot Post,

we must to treat the Constitution as sacred text. Because the bottom line is this: If it is not regarded as sacred, it is nothing more than what anyone believes about any social issue. Which is precisely what the left wants it to be -- providing, of course, that the "anyone" is a liberal.

Though many might claim so, I do not believe the Constitution is a sacred text. It is an important text, perhaps even a timeless text, but it is not God-breathed. It is not able to make anyone wise for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. (2 Tim. 3:15-17)  It is not eternal. (John 1:1-5)

Moreover, God's word doesn't need anything additional:

"Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you." Deuteronomy 4:2

"See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it." Deuteronomy 12:32

"....As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse! " Galatians 1:9

(Paul, chewing out the Corinthians) "For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you may well put up with it!" 2 Corinthians 11:4
"Every word of God is flawless;
   he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.
  Do not add to his words,    or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar."  Proverbs 30:5-6

"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If any one of you adds anything to them, God will add to you the plagues described in this scroll. ¹⁹ And if any one of you takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from you your share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll." Revelation 22:18-19

You can't have two sacred texts: the Bible and the Constitution. The Bible forbids it!  So choose this day which you will follow.  For me, the only sacred text is God's word as revealed in the Old and New Testaments.  Does that make me a "liberal" "leftist?" Of course, you're free to choose another sacred text(s)  or the Bible plus something else as your sacred texts. Just don't present  yourself as a faithful Jew or Christian.

On Heated Political Rhetoric: Wisdom from Proverbs

Proverbs 6
16 There are six things the LORD hates,
seven that are detestable to him:
17 haughty eyes,
a lying tongue,
hands that shed innocent blood,
18 a heart that devises wicked schemes,
feet that are quick to rush into evil,
19 a false witness who pours out lies
and a person who stirs up conflict in the community.

Proverbs 10:12
12 " Hatred stirs up conflict,
but love covers over all wrongs."

Proverbs 10:19
19 Sin is not ended by multiplying words,
but the prudent hold their tongues.

Proverbs 11
9 With their mouths the godless destroy their neighbors,
but through knowledge the righteous escape.
10 When the righteous prosper, the city rejoices;
when the wicked perish, there are shouts of joy.
11 Through the blessing of the upright a city is exalted,
but by the mouth of the wicked it is destroyed.
12 Whoever derides their neighbor has no sense,
but the one who has understanding holds their tongue.

Proverbs 12
18 The words of the reckless pierce like swords,
but the tongue of the wise brings healing.
23 The prudent keep their knowledge to themselves,
but a fool’s heart blurts out folly.

Proverbs 13
 2 From the fruit of their lips people enjoy good things,
but the unfaithful have an appetite for violence.
3 Those who guard their lips preserve their lives,
but those who speak rashly will come to ruin.
10 Where there is strife, there is pride,
17 A wicked messenger falls into trouble,
but a trustworthy envoy brings healing.

Proverbs 14
 3 A fool’s mouth lashes out with pride,
but the lips of the wise protect them.
16 The wise fear the LORD and shun evil,
but a fool is hotheaded and yet feels secure.

Proverbs 15
 1 A gentle answer turns away wrath,
but a harsh word stirs up anger.
2 The tongue of the wise adorns knowledge,
but the mouth of the fool gushes folly.
4 The soothing tongue is a tree of life,
but a perverse tongue crushes the spirit.
14 The discerning heart seeks knowledge,
but the mouth of a fool feeds on folly.

Proverbs 16
 1 To humans belong the plans of the heart,
but from the LORD comes the proper answer of the tongue.
2 All a person’s ways seem pure to them,
but motives are weighed by the LORD.
28 A perverse person stirs up conflict,
and a gossip separates close friends.

Proverbs 17
 4 A wicked person listens to deceitful lips;
a liar pays attention to a destructive tongue.
14 Starting a quarrel is like breaching a dam;
so drop the matter before a dispute breaks out.
19 Whoever loves a quarrel loves sin;
whoever builds a high gate invites destruction.
27 The one who has knowledge uses words with restraint,
and whoever has understanding is even-tempered.
28 Even fools are thought wise if they keep silent,
and discerning if they hold their tongues.

Proverbs 18
 1 An unfriendly person pursues selfish ends
and against all sound judgment starts quarrels.
2 Fools find no pleasure in understanding
but delight in airing their own opinions.
6 The lips of fools bring them strife,
and their mouths invite a beating.
7 The mouths of fools are their undoing,
and their lips are a snare to their very lives
20 From the fruit of their mouth a person’s stomach is filled;
with the harvest of their lips they are satisfied.
21 The tongue has the power of life and death,
and those who love it will eat its fruit.

Proverbs 20
 3 It is to one’s honor to avoid strife,
but every fool is quick to quarrel.
23 Those who guard their mouths and their tongues
keep themselves from calamity.
24 The proud and arrogant person—“Mocker” is his name—
behaves with insolent fury.
29 The wicked put up a bold front,
but the upright give thought to their ways.

Proverbs 22
 10 Drive out the mocker, and out goes strife;
quarrels and insults are ended.
24 Do not make friends with a hot-tempered person,
do not associate with one easily angered,
25 or you may learn their ways
and get yourself ensnared.

Proverbs 24
1 Do not envy the wicked,
do not desire their company;
2 for their hearts plot violence,
and their lips talk about making trouble.

Proverbs 26
 4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
or you yourself will be just like him.
5 Answer a fool according to his folly,
or he will be wise in his own eyes.
21 As charcoal to embers and as wood to fire,
so is a quarrelsome person for kindling strife

Proverbs 28
 2 When a country is rebellious, it has many rulers,
but a ruler with discernment and knowledge maintains order.

Proverbs 29
 10 The bloodthirsty hate a person of integrity
and seek to kill the upright.
20 Do you see someone who speaks in haste?
There is more hope for a fool than for them.
22 An angry person stirs up conflict,
and a hot-tempered person commits many sins

Proverbs 30
 32 “If you play the fool and exalt yourself,
or if you plan evil,
clap your hand over your mouth!
33 For as churning cream produces butter,
and as twisting the nose produces blood,
so stirring up anger produces strife.”

Fiesta Bowl Carol, 2011

(To be sung to the tune, "O Little Town of Bethlehem")
by Beth Bilynskyj, Jan. 10. 2011

O little town of Eugene how still we see thee lie!
Above thy buttes and EMX routes the grey rain clouds go by.
Yet in thy dark streets shineth a flickering of light;
The hopes and fears of all the years are on TV tonight.

How thunderously, how thundrously the Ducks ovations are giv’n;
So Knight imparts to Oregon hearts the blessings for which they’ve striven.
No ear escapes their coming, but in this land of sports,
Where meek souls will avoid them still, the Ducks headline reports.

Alumnis pure and happy pray that their dear team will win,
What misery! Can’t wait to see the Fiesta bowl begin!
Bookies are calculating and bars hold wide their doors,
The dark night wakes, the glory breaks, as Darron Thomas scores.

O Victory in Phoenix descend to us, we pray;
Cast on that ball, delight us all; defeat Auburn today!
We hear the Christmas angels their great glad tidings tell;
What’s all that fuss? What’s that to us? GO DUCKS! we’d rather yell.

One can only hope...and cringe; but mark my words

MartyJayBell tweets: "Palin can't run for office now. Too easy to make tv spot with map and 'Reload.' She may be only one who doesn't realize this."

Bloomberg news reports that the Tucson shooting "is also likely to hurt the image of former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, said Ross Baker, a congressional scholar at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey."

On the other hand, The Alaska Dispatch presents Rebecca Mansour's attempt to spin the story:

A Palin staffer, Rebecca Mansour told a radio talk show host Saturday that doing so is "obscene" and "appalling." In fact, she said that the "target list" was not intended to allude to guns.

"We never ever, ever intended it to be gun sights," she said.

"It's surveyor's symbols," the interviewer Tammy Bruce suggested. Bruce, a Palin supporter, describes herself as "a gay, pro-choice, gun owning, pro-death penalty, Tea Party Independent Conservative. " Her show is promoted as a "chick with a gun and a microphone."

Mansour agreed. She said that the graphic was contracted out to a professional. They approved it quickly without thinking about it. "We never imagined, it never occurred to us that anybody would consider it violent," she said. Rather, she said, that it was simply "crosshairs that you would see on a map."

There is "nothing irresponsible about our graphic," she said.

She did not, however, mention the "don't retreat, instead- RELOAD!" Palin tweet that went out shortly after the graphic was posted on both her Facebook page and SarahPac's website, directing them to the graphic. The tweet turned quickly into a Palin mantra. Many, even then, urged her to stop using such violent rhetoric. If she heard them, she did not retreat.

The graphic remains on Palin's Facebook page but was removed this morning on SarahPac's website. Mansour said that removing it did not constitute a "scrub" of Palin's site, as some had been alleging. She said that someone from SarahPac contacted her this morning, and was wondering if it should be taken down given the circumstances. She said that because the midterm elections had passed, it shouldn't have been there anyway.

But mark my words. It won't be long now until we hear claims that Jared Loughner was really a 1) leftist instrument and/or 2) agent for Obama,  who purposely conspired to massacre these people in order to fan public opinion against the Tea Party and Sarah Palin.

Of Crosshairs, Cultures, and Consequences

"Our democracy is a light--a beacon, really, around the world--because we effect change at the ballot box, and not because of these, you know, outbursts of violence in certain cases...and the yelling...You know, change is important, it's a part of our process; but it's really important that we focus on the fact that we have a democratic process...People really need to realize that the rhetoric and firing people up and--you know, even things for example we're on Sarah Palin's targeted list, but thing is that the way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district--but when people do that they've got to realize there's consequences to that action." --Gabrielle Gifford, March 25, 2010

A foretaste of things to come?  Yet another reminder that words, like ideas, have consequences.



  "You're familiar with the command to the ancients, 'Do not murder.' I'm telling you that anyone who is so much as angry with a brother or sister is guilty of murder. Carelessly call a brother 'idiot!' and you just might find yourself hauled into court. Thoughtlessly yell 'stupid!' at a sister and you are on the brink of hellfire. The simple moral fact is that words kill. Matt. 5:21-22, The Message

A Turning Point in the Discourse, but in Which Direction?

By MATT BAI
Published: January 8, 2011

WASHINGTON — Within minutes of the first reports Saturday that Representative Gabrielle Giffords, an Arizona Democrat, and a score of people with her had been shot in Tucson, pages began disappearing from the Web. One was Sarah Palin’s infamous “cross hairs” map from last year, which showed a series of contested Congressional districts, including Ms. Giffords’s, with gun targets trained on them. Another was from Daily Kos, the liberal blog, where one of the congresswoman’s apparently liberal constituents declared her “dead to me” after Ms. Giffords voted against Nancy Pelosi in House leadership elections last week.

Odds are pretty good that neither of these — nor any other isolated bit of imagery — had much to do with the shooting in Tucson. But scrubbing them from the Internet couldn’t erase all evidence of the rhetorical recklessness that permeates our political moment. The question is whether Saturday’s shooting marks the logical end point of such a moment — or rather the beginning of a terrifying new one.

Modern America has endured such moments before. The intense ideological clashes of the 1960s, which centered on Communism and civil rights and Vietnam, were marked by a series of assassinations that changed the course of American history, carried out against a televised backdrop of urban riots and self-immolating war protesters. During the culture wars of the 1990s, fought over issues like gun rights and abortion, right-wing extremists killed 168 people in Oklahoma City and terrorized hundreds of others in Atlanta’s Centennial Olympic Park and at abortion clinics in the South.

What’s different about this moment is the emergence of a political culture — on blogs and Twitter and cable television — that so loudly and readily reinforces the dark visions of political extremists, often for profit or political gain. It wasn’t clear Saturday whether the alleged shooter in Tucson was motivated by any real political philosophy or by voices in his head, or perhaps by both. But it’s hard not to think he was at least partly influenced by a debate that often seems to conflate philosophical disagreement with some kind of political Armageddon.

The problem here doesn’t lie with the activists like most of those who populate the Tea Parties, ordinary citizens who are doing what citizens are supposed to do — engaging in a conversation about the direction of the country. Rather, the problem would seem to rest with the political leaders who pander to the margins of the margins, employing whatever words seem likely to win them contributions or TV time, with little regard for the consequences.

Consider the comments of Sharron Angle, the Tea Party favorite who unsuccessfully ran against Harry Reid for the Senate in Nevada last year. She talked about “domestic enemies” in the Congress and said, “I hope we’re not getting to Second Amendment remedies.” Then there’s Rick Barber, a Republican who lost his primary in a Congressional race in Alabama, but not before airing an ad in which someone dressed as George Washington listened to an attack on the Obama agenda and gravely proclaimed, “Gather your armies.”

In fact, much of the message among Republicans last year, as they sought to exploit the Tea Party phenomenon, centered — like the Tea Party moniker itself — on this imagery of armed revolution. Popular spokespeople like Ms. Palin routinely drop words like “tyranny” and “socialism” when describing the president and his allies, as if blind to the idea that Americans legitimately faced with either enemy would almost certainly take up arms.

It’s not that such leaders are necessarily trying to incite violence or hysteria; in fact, they’re not. It’s more that they are so caught up in a culture of hyperbole, so amused with their own verbal flourishes and the ensuing applause, that — like the bloggers and TV hosts to which they cater — they seem to lose their hold on the power of words.

On Saturday, for instance, Michael Steele, the Republican Party chairman, was among the first to issue a statement saying he was “shocked and horrified” by the Arizona shooting, and no doubt he was. But it was Mr. Steele who, last March, said he hoped to send Speaker Nancy Pelosi to the “firing line.”

Mr. Steele didn’t mean this the way it sounded, of course; he was talking about “firing” in the pink slip sense of the word. But his carelessly constructed, made-for-television rhetoric reinforced the dominant imagery of the moment — a portrayal of 21st-century Washington as being like 18th-century Lexington and Concord, an occupied country on the verge of armed rebellion.

Contrast that with one of John McCain’s finer moments as a presidential candidate in 2008, when a woman at a Minnesota town hall meeting asserted that Mr. Obama was a closeted Arab. “No, ma’am, he’s not,” Mr. McCain quickly replied, taking back the microphone. “He’s a decent family man, citizen, that I just happen to have disagreements with.” Mr. McCain was harking back to a different moment in American politics, in which such disagreements could be intense without becoming existential clashes in which the freedom of the country was at stake.

None of this began last year, or even with Mr. Obama or with the Tea Party; there were constant intimations during George W. Bush’s presidency that he was a modern Hitler or the devious designer of an attack on the World Trade Center, a man whose very existence threatened the most cherished American ideals.

The more pressing question, though, is where this all ends — whether we will begin to re-evaluate the piercing pitch of our political debate in the wake of Saturday’s shooting, or whether we are hurtling unstoppably into a frightening period more like the late 1960s.

The country labors still to recover from the memories of Dealey Plaza and the Ambassador Hotel, of Memphis and Birmingham and Watts. Tucson will either be the tragedy that brought us back from the brink, or the first in a series of gruesome memories to come

"Job-killing?" or Rhetorical Subterfuge?

I am so tired of hearing the phrase, "job-killing!" Steven Pearlman has an excellent article taking Republicans to task for this rhetorical subterfuge.

Type "job killing" into Google and you'll get more than 1.2 million hits. On the Factiva news database, it comes up 11,115 times during 2009 and 2010, compared with 1,373 times during the previous two years. A Republican talking point, a Fox News broadcast or a Chamber of Commerce press release is now incomplete without it.

What's so curious is that it's hard to find almost any Republican concern about employment homicide during 2008, when George W. Bush was president and the economy was shedding 4.4 million jobs. Given the lag with which economic policy works, the biggest net job loss that could credibly be assigned to Obama during his two years in office would be less than a million....

...What's particularly noteworthy about this fixation with "job killing" is that it stands in such contrast to the complete lack of concern about policies that kill people rather than jobs....

I wonder how Republicans and their media posse would like it if Democrats started referring to "genocidal" deregulation or the "murderous" repeal of health-care reform. Or if Republican economic policies were likened to the infamous neutron bomb - they kill the workers but leave their jobs intact.

Unfair? No doubt. But no more so than portraying as "job-killing" every regulation, every tax and every dollar of government spending.

There is an unmistakable redbaiting quality to the "job-killing" rhetoric, a throwback to the McCarthy era. It reflects the sort of economic fundamentalism better suited to Afghan politics than American. Rather than contributing to the political dialogue, it is a substitute for serious discussion. And the fact that it continues unabated suggests that Republicans are not ready to compromise or to govern....

What I found when I couldn't find Lark News

The page cannot be found
Possible causes:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Baptist explanation: There must be sin in your life. Everyone else opened it fine.

Presbyterian explanation: It's not God's will for you to open this link.

Word of Faith explanation: You lack the faith to open this link. Your negative words have prevented you from realizing this link's fulfillment.

Charismatic explanation: Thou art loosed! Be commanded to OPEN!

Unitarian explanation: All links are equal, so if this link doesn't work for you, feel free to experiment with other links that might bring you joy and fulfillment.

Buddhist explanation: .........................

Episcopalian explanation: Are you saying you have something against homosexuals?

Christian Science explanation: There really is no link.

Atheist explanation: The only reason you think this link exists is because you needed to invent it.

Church counselor's explanation: And what did you feel when the link would not open?



HTTP 404 - File not found - Internet Explorer

My Response to Joel Salatin

"We don’t need a law against McDonalds or a law against slaughterhouse abuse--we ask for too much salvation by legislation. All we need to do is empower individuals with the right philosophy and the right information to opt out en masse" ~~Joel Salatin, "Christian-libertarian-environmentalist-capitalist-lunatic-Farmer"

My response to Joel Salatin:

The Greek/pagan/Modernist/Enlightenment crowd tends to elevate human reason and ignore/downplay/reject human sinfulness. For them, education is the way to overcome vice, because all vice is simply a matter of a person's ignorance of what is... good. Thus, "All we need to do is EMPOWER individuals with the RIGHT PHILOSOPHY and the RIGHT INFORMATION."

Long ago, St. Augustine exploded this idea by writing a little piece in his Confessions about stealing pears. The point here is that he KNEW it was wrong to steal and throw them; but he did it for the sheer ENJOYMENT of sinning. Philosophers call this the problem of akrasia, or "weakness of will."

Some philosophers, like Socrates, say that weakness of will is psychologically impossible. Other philosophers (often Christians) would say knowledge is a NECESSARY , but not SUFFICIENT cause for right/good behavior.

The trick here is the balancing of intellect and will, and the ideal government (Plato's "soul writ large") aims to achieve that. As a parent and teacher, I fully support the intellectual and spiritual formation of youth, but I have no illusions that they will not continue to sin, as youth and even more as adults. As a Christian, I affirm Romans 7:21-25, having experienced it for myself. As a citizen, I realize that it is possible to mistake government for God, and for government to mistake itself for God, but I am also constrained by
1 Peter 2:13-15, Titus 3:1, Romans 13:1.

Perhaps the reason government has to impose laws is because so many citizens have weak wills. The recent Wall Street debacle provides me with enough empirical evidence of what happens to a society when it when it ignores/downplays/rejects the effect of sin on the will.

Paulson admits deregulation has failed us all (Wall Street Journal)

Don't blame the New Deal for today's financial crisis (New York Times)

Sing This Song to Celebrate the First Anniversary of Citizen's United Case

NPR Story: "Philosophy Valued At One Community College"

Maybe there's hope! At the same time British schools are selling their birthright, one community college in New York is expanding its philosophy program. The story on NPR tonight made me want to shout for joy.

"If you build it, they will come."

Philosophy Valued At One Community College

by Margot Adler

January 4, 2011

 As state universities cut back on humanities programs in order to deal with budget shortfalls, LaGuardia Community College in Queens, N.Y., is going in the opposite direction. At LaGuardia, philosophy is king: Of the 17,000 matriculated students, 4,500 are taking philosophy. There are seven full-time professors, most of whom have been added in the past two years.

The school, which has a well-regarded nursing school and programs in engineering and veterinary technology, is overturning the stereotype that four-year colleges are for intellectuals and community colleges are for career training.

"People tell me the role of community colleges is narrow — to train students for tomorrow's jobs, says Peter Katopes, the interim president of LaGuardia. "But I ask them, 'What are these jobs?' " The real task, he says, is training students for what he calls "the entrepreneurship of the imagination."


"It is giving students the opportunity to really understand the context of their lives, and you do that through the humanities," Katopes says. "If you do even a cursory survey of successful CEOs, you will know that an unbelievable number of them did their undergraduate degrees in English or philosophy or history."

Asking Questions

All kinds of students are taking philosophy at LaGuardia. Liz Montesclaros, 29, had been in the military before enrolling.

The military "is not the best place for questioning," Montesclaros says. "It's very rigid, very structured. When I finally got out, that's when I decided I really wanted to explore the questions that matter to me: What are we doing here, why am I here in the first place, for what purpose?"

E.J. Lee, 22, started out as a business major.

"Growing up, my parents were 'make money, make money, make money,' so I figured business was what you do. But as a business major, I was required to take an ethics course, and as soon as I sat in that class, I knew that was what I wanted to do for the rest of my life," Lee says.

These are the kinds of attitudes you might find normal at a four-year liberal arts college. But the students here speak 120 different languages. And most of them were not born in the United States.

"We are all so different on the outside, and on the inside we are all searching, we are all seeking," says Gabriel Lockwood, who came to LaGuardia at 36. He wandered through Europe, knows a half-dozen languages, worked as a translator and took courses at various European universities, but he couldn't get credit for them in the United States. So at 36, he is starting again. He is full of questions, and philosophy, he says, has helped to answer some of them.

'The Heart Of Life'

The classes in philosophy are the usual: introduction to philosophy; ethics; religion and philosophy; political philosophy; logic; aesthetics; Eastern philosophy. But there are also new courses being developed in African philosophy and Latin philosophy.

John Chaffee, the chair of the department, says philosophy is a necessity, not a luxury.

"It's something that is at the heart of life. It addresses the foundational questions that we all wrestle with, and these are questions that [Holocaust survivor, psychiatrist and author] Viktor Frankl said 'burn under our fingernails,' " Chaffee says. "Philosophy is a discipline that gives us the tools to really understand ourselves, and the skills to answer the mysteries that are really at the heart of ourselves and at the heart of life."

Take a recent philosophy club meeting, where more than a dozen students and two professors sit in a circle and debate happiness.

The question: Suppose you lived a totally pleasurable life, but found out that you had been living in a virtual reality the whole time. You had really not done any of the things you thought you had, but you had all the experiences, all the pleasure, all the satisfaction, all the contentment. Would you say you were happy in those previous experiences?

"Even if this life is a dream, you can't take away the experience of that dream or what you thought you accomplished," student Arthur Rodriguez says.

Javier Velasco says it all depends on suffering. "If you had no suffering, you can't really recognize happiness or appreciation for something if it is always there," he says.

Minerva Ahumada, who teaches introduction to philosophy and Eastern philosophy at LaGuardia, says these students bring very different things to the mix."It is more personal here. It is more challenging here, but also, the results you get are way more surprising than what I got at other kinds of institutions," Ahumada says.

Professor Richard Brown says many of the students here have serious real-life issues, but "to suddenly see them become curious about the nature of forms or universals or what is the morally right thing to do — it is really a privilege. These people never envisioned that they would be studying these kinds of things, and also understanding it and having it influence their life."

Five years ago, there wasn't even a philosophy major at LaGuardia. Now 60 students are majoring, and several say they want to teach it in the future.

The president of LaGuardia Community College made philosophy a priority, the department chair built a department and hired faculty. Now this community college in New York City that's under many people's radar has more philosophy majors than many four-year colleges and universities. It's like that line in the film Field of Dreams: If you build it, they will come.

Temptation, Obedience and Justice

I've started the Essential 100 Challenge of the YouVersion Bible Reading Plan. ("YouVersion" seems oxymoronic to me, but despite its unfortunate name, it is a great resource. It has 50 different Bible reading plans to choose from, with a wide variety of ways to access and make the plan you choose fit into your lifestyle.)

Reading Genesis 3:6 tonight, "When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it"

I noticed that Eve was tempted three ways:

1) stomach ("good for food")
2) heart/emotions/imagination ("pleasing to the eye")
3) mind ("desirable for gaining wisdom")

In the Republic, Plato writes about the virtuous person: his appetites are moderate; his heart is courageous, his mind is wise, and all three work together in proper ordering, thanks to the virtue of justice. As I read this familiar Genesis passage, I wonder: What is the relationship between obedience to God and justice? Scripture seems to indicate that Eve's disobedience resulted in the disordering of her appetite, desire, and thought. Is it not the case that the only way for there to be justice--that is, the proper ordering of person and society that results in shalom--is if we follow the Designer's Instructions?