Everyone – or almost everyone – enjoys a good story. An exciting plot, relatable characters, frightening dilemmas - when confronted with these elements, weaved into a compelling narrative, we almost can't help but be drawn in to the story. We are built to be curious about what happens next and to empathize with those we encounter. Good fiction, whatever the medium, draws us in through both avenues. Because it is often used simply as a source of amusement or diversion, fiction may sometimes be dismissed as a genre as entirely unprofitable, or, at the other extreme, accepted regardless of its content. Both positions are flawed - the truth, as usual, lies somewhere between.
The answer is more than leaving our brains on when we encounter fiction, although that is part of it. We should seek out worthwhile fiction, which leaves enough of the real world in place to make a profitable thought experiment (or at least not to detract from our existing understanding of the world). That’s not as simple as it sounds, though: this is, after all, fiction. By definition, it’s a fabrication – it can’t be expected to comport with reality in every respect. The simplest answer is that good fiction must not tamper with the foundation of epistemology (the study of knowledge – what we believe to be true about what’s right and wrong and what is, and how we know it to be true). This is simply another way of saying that fiction should actually be, and not just appear to be, internally consistent. It must allow us to have knowledge about the story, but in order to do that it must assume a worldview which makes knowledge possible. The only such worldview is the Christian worldview, yet many authors assume enough of it to make their fictional world exist, but not the entire worldview – enough to allow knowledge about physical things, but not enough to allow knowledge about morality. Such a dichotomy is not supportable logically, and creates an inconsistent world. It is this inconsistency which, when glossed over by the story, leads to an incorrect understanding of how the world works. Fiction, in order to be worthwhile, must maintain a consistent epistemological foundation, rather than picking and choosing from competing, mutually exclusive worldviews.
There are many ways to go about adhering to the Christian worldview in fiction. The writings of C.S. Lewis alone demonstrate at least two methods, and many more are possible: it would be arrogant to select only one way and insist that it was the only way. Further, is it not necessarily justified to argue that all fiction a Christian reads be grounded in a Christian worldview, although it is wise to try to seek out the most worthwhile fiction, which will always be based in a Christian worldview. The most important response, though, is simply to know that fiction is not neutral ground. It is an implicit argument for the author’s worldview, and must be treated as such. If we do read fiction based in an inconsistent worldview, we are entering enemy territory, and need to think every aspect through critically (actually, even when we’re reading fiction written from a Christian worldview, the author might be mistaken, so we still need to think). We are at war, and there is no neutral ground.
Labels: Christianity
It is sometimes puzzling which topics become controversial among Christians. In some areas, it is easy to see how two earnest Christians could disagree, with both sincerely believing their position to be the Biblically correct. Such disagreements are possible even on relatively major areas of doctrine and practice, although not in matters required for salvation. Other areas, however, are less ambiguous, and some are so clear it is mind-boggling that any earnest Christian could be confused. Nevertheless, debate sometimes arises on such points, and it is worth addressing the conversation, if for nothing less than as an intellectual exercise in advancing logically in the face of unadulterated nonsense.
Particularly at issue today is the assertion that "true" Christians do not call homosexual behavior sin. This view has been put forward from a variety of sources, but most recently by Wilson Cruz, head of GLAAD, in response to comments from 'Duck Dynasty' star Phil Robertson's that homosexual behavior was sin. Cruz's response is the most recent and notable example, but it is hardly isolated. Homosexual groups seem particularly concerned with establishing that homosexual behavior and Christianity are compatible. Their efforts impart a certain amount of irony to the situation, however: God took special care to establish that they are positively not compatible. There are gray areas in Christianity, but this is not one of them.
We'll start in the Old Testament. Many would like to simply disregard every teaching of the Old Testament, but here they are in error. The same God gave both the Old and New Testaments - times may have changed, and applications may have changed, but God's principles are unchanging. The challenge is to discern the universal principle and separate it from the specific application. In many cases, this is difficult. Fortunately, that is not the case here. The Old Testament verses which address the matter make it quite clear that they are establishing a universal principles. The first can be found in Leviticus 18:22:
You shall not lie with a male as with a female; it is an abomination.And again, in Leviticus 20:13, where God establishes the civil penalty for such behavior for the nation of Israel:
If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.To be perfectly honest, we could probably stop there. The Author is using "lie with" as a euphemism for sexual relations, and doesn't just forbid them, He calls them an abomination. Few behaviors in the Bible are met with such strong condemnation - murder, for example, while straightly forbidden, isn't even called an abomination. Those who believe that the Bible does not condemn homosexual behavior really have little to say in response to this verse. The most common response is to point out that the Old Testament also prohibits many other things, which we now do. This is true, but not particularly relevant. When God forbade, for example, eating pork, it was clear that He did so not because of something about eating pork (although it was probably wiser to refrain from pork, given the state of sanitation at the time), but in order to make His people separate. He made no statement about the intrinsic nature of eating pork. In contrast, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 make a very strong statement about the intrinsic nature of homosexual behavior. If we set aside the specific applications of the law, as the New Testament implies, but retain the principles, we are still left with the universal principle that homosexual behavior is an abomination.
If the reader remains unconvinced that the Mosaic Law reveals unchanging principles, he need only look at the topic of the next verse. Theoretical discussions about the divide between specific applications and unchanging principles aside, we are left with the very practical consideration that the Mosaic Law is the only part of the Bible that says anything about bestiality. If we are to pretend the Mosaic Law reveals nothing about what is right or wrong, we must allow that bestiality is perfectly acceptable. This example shows quite effectively that God is revealing more than instructions for the historical nation of Israel, He is revealing unchanging truths. All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.
Lengthy as that was, we've only just started. Clear as the Old Testament is, the New Testament is even clearer. Romans 1:26-27, for example, is quite direct:
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.We could also stop there (but as you might have guessed by now, we won't). This passage also includes women, lest the previous passage was unclear on that point. Beyond that, however, it states that homosexuality is a punishment from God for "suppressing the truth in unrighteousness" (v. 18). Because they ignored the truth of God that is evident within them, God gave them over to "degrading passions" (v. 26).
Now, those who claim that Christianity and homosexuality are compatible do have a response to this. The passage, they claim, refers to those with heterosexual urges who suppress those to engage in homosexuality. The real message of the passage is thus that we should not deny our own nature. This, although perhaps appealing to those who would like to reconcile Christianity with homosexuality, is not particularly cogent. It's primary flaw lies in the fact that it is completely without support from the text. It isn't just that the support is disputable, it isn't there. Nothing in the text suggests that the people he's talking about are heterosexual - read in context, he's talking about those who do not believe, and nothing narrows that scope. Indeed, they engage in homosexuality because they give themselves over to the lusts of their own hearts and their own degrading passions - one hardly sees a contradiction between their desires and their actions here. The passage incontrovertibly states that, because those who do not believe have denied what was evident, God has given them over to utter depravity, no longer protecting them from their own base urges.
We have, so far, that homosexuality is an abomination, and that God allows it as a punishment. It doesn't stop there, though. In 1 Timothy 1:8-11 we find a condemnation of homosexual behavior almost as clear as the previous two mentioned.
But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers [which is also translated "slave traders"] and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.Here we see that homosexual behavior is included in a list of things which are "contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God." While the passage seems quite clear, some have attempted to challenge the translation. Arsenokoitai, the word translated "homosexual," is ambiguous, according to these people, but certainly shouldn't be translated "homosexual" - perhaps "exploitative pedophiles" or "male prostitutes" would be more in order. In general, it is dangerous to claim that every translator made a mistake. At first blush, it smacks of arrogance and ignorance and necessarily posits a far-reaching conspiracy, incredible idiocy, or a remarkable coincidence, but to avoid any ambiguity the claim should be examined.
The heart of the argument is that Paul coined the word arsenokoitai himself, and thus its meaning is unclear. While it is debatable how convincing this line of argument would be - arsenokoitai is simply a combination of arseno, the word for "man" used in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament Paul would have been using, and koitai, the word for "lie with" used in the Septuagint - it isn't even true. According to Moulton and Milligan (1997), the word was first used by poets during the Imperial Period (the period of Roman civilization following the demise of the Roman Republic). Paul didn't invent the word himself, but on top of that, its meaning is quite clear: it was used by Greek authors to refer to all homosexual behavior (Kirk 1978). Liberal scholars contend that Greek doesn't include a word for homosexuality; however, it does, and Paul used it. Further, even those liberal scholars admit that Greek does contain words for the other activities described - had Paul intended one of those, he could simply have used one of those words. There is no doubt that this passage is referring to homosexuals, and that it makes clear that homosexual behavior is sin.
We've looked at three passages, and we've seen that homosexuality is an abomination, a punishment from God, and a violation of the Gospel on par with murder and slave trading. We aren't done yet, though. Perhaps the most well-known passage condemning homosexuality is 1 Corinthians 6:9-11
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.Once again, homosexual behavior is included among a list of sinful behaviors which mark those who are not Christians. Here, two words are used to refer to homosexuality: malakos, translated "effeminate," and the now familiar arsenokoitai, translated "homosexuals." Like arsenokoitai, malakos is used to refer to all homosexual behavior in Greek literature (although in this case the two words appear to be used to reference two different possible roles in homosexual behavior). Obviously, like the passage in 1 Timothy, the passage is referring to homosexuality. Not only is homosexual behavior sin, it is sin which will never mark the life of a believer.
One could go on. Verses from Jude and Judges appear to condemn homosexual behavior, and Jesus made it clear that marriage was to be between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, while the rest of the Bible establishes that intercourse is to be reserved for married couples. It would be unnecessary to go on, though. We've already seen five passages condemning homosexuality (for reference, the Bible contains six passages directly condemning murder). God is neither silent nor ambiguous when it comes to homosexual behavior. The Bible leaves no doubt that homosexual behavior is not just sin, but particularly heinous sin. Those who would reconcile the Bible with homosexual behavior have set out to do the impossible. One can choose homosexuality or Christianity, but not both.
We should not have been surprised by efforts to claim that homosexuality is not sin. Recall that 1 Corinthians 6:9 warns us not to be deceived. God is omniscient; He knows precisely which phrases He needed to include and which He did not. What can we conclude but that an effort will be made to deceive us? It is our duty, then, to hold particularly close to the truth on the topic. We've been told what's coming, and we've been told where to hold the line. Do not be deceived.
Labels: Christianity, Theology
In 2002, John Cornyn, a former Texas Supreme Court justice and Attorney General, replaced the retiring Phil Gramm and became the junior senator from Texas. In a costly campaign, he defeated his Democrat challenger, joining Kay Bailey Hutchison in Texas’s delegation to the US Senate. Next to Hutchison, a liberal Republican, Cornyn was a rock of conservatism. Texans weren’t particularly thrilled with him - generally speaking, very little about John Cornyn is thrilling - but Hutchison presented a more pressing target for conservatives who were dissatisfied with one of the Texas senators. In 2012, however, Hutchison retired, and, after a heated primary, a new senator, Ted Cruz, took office. While Cornyn seemed quite adequate next to Hutchison, next to Cruz, who quickly garnered a 92/2 favorability/unfavorability rating among conservative Texans, Cornyn hardly seemed impressive. The final straw came when Cruz, together with Mike Lee, Rand Paul, and a handful of Senate conservatives, devised a plan to force the defunding of Obamacare, and Cornyn opposed them. Several primary challenges materialized shortly thereafter, but the most serious didn’t come until the last day to file in the election, when Steve Stockman, a US representative from the Houston area, announced his candidacy. He attacked Cornyn for being a liberal, and for trying to make the Senate more liberal - puzzling, since Cornyn’s voting record is, according to one measure, the second most conservative in the Senate, and according to others the eighteenth or twentieth. What could Stockman be referring to? Is he simply fabricating his claims? Sadly, no - he’s right. Rankings systems can’t tell the whole story, and the whole story when it comes to John Cornyn is far from pretty.
Cornyn’s campaign pitch hinges on his claim to be a solid conservative. Is he, though? The toughest recent test of conservatives came during Bush’s presidency, when the pull to go along with a president who was a moderate at best, despite his rhetoric, led many Republicans - even conservatives - to go along with programs they would otherwise have shunned. Cornyn was no exception. In 2008, just before Bush left office, Cornyn voted for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), which appropriated $700 billion in taxpayer funds to bail out the big banks on Wall Street whose reckless lending policies had provoked a recession. Many other Republican senators voted for the bill, but most of those now recognize that they were wrong to do so. Cornyn stands out because he stubbornly refuses to admit that forcing private citizens to pay for the idiocy of a handful of rich bankers was foolish. In fact, he even claims to be “proud” of his vote, a statement which raises serious questions about his claimed conservative credentials (Withrow 2013).
In 2003, again under Bush, the Medicare Modernization Act passed, under somewhat dubious circumstances (at least one Republican congressman reported that the Republican leadership had offered campaign funds for his sons congressional campaign in return for a “yea” vote). The primary purpose of the bill was to introduce an entitlement program for prescription drugs, Medicare Part D, at that time the largest expansion of the welfare state since Medicare was first introduced. The original projected net cost was $400 billion, although the Bush administration deliberately suppressed estimates that it might cost more than $500 billion in a rather transparent attempt to buy votes from the elderly. In 2013 alone Medicare Part D cost close to $60 billion dollars; by 2021 spending for Medicare Part D is expected to rise to just under $120 billion dollars. Then-freshman senator John Cornyn voted for the program, called by former Comptroller General David Walker “the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s.” His support could be written off as a freshman senator succumbing to pressure, but in 2007, after five years in the Senate, he reaffirmed his support for the failed program, calling the program “widely successful” despite the $40 billion price tag that year alone (Bartlett 2013; Gillespie 2010; Klein 2013).
One could easily allow a certain amount of leeway on TARP and Medicare Part D. As destructive and wrong-headed as the programs were, Republican senators were faced with an unbelievably difficult situation when voters elected a Republican president who was not dedicated to conservatism and who was willing to apply pressure to fellow Republicans in support of liberal programs. Even if we write off Cornyn’s votes on TARP and Medicare Part D, however, his “conservative” record is far from stellar. In 2013, Cornyn expressed support for a proposal by the “Gang of Eight,” a group of eight Republican and Democrat senators pushing for amnesty, which would provide a preferential path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. Cornyn indicated his willingness to vote for the bill if his amendment, a vaguely-worded voluminous piece of legalese that required nothing the DHS couldn’t weasel out of, was attached to it. The heart of the Gang of Eight’s proposal, as Marco Rubio, a member of the Gang of Eight, has stated, is that “first comes the legalization. Then comes the measure to secure the border.” Granting amnesty, then securing the borders, the approach Cornyn and the Gang of Eight would like us to take, has been tried before, in 1986. That proposal, intended to provide amnesty only when strict conditions had been met - like the Gang of Eight’s proposal - only accelerated the influx of illegal immigrants across the border and effectively turned California blue. Rather than learning from history, Cornyn and the Gang of Eight insist on attempting to implement the same liberal policies that have failed every time they’ve been tried.
Cornyn’s record of collapsing in important votes has not been a few isolated incidents, either. In 2005, and again in 2007, Cornyn voted with the Democrat majority to increase the minimum wage. The proposed increase would increase the minimum wage gradually, eventually reaching $7.25 in 2009. Conservatives, who opposed the legislation, argued that it would result in economic stagnation and increased unemployment, as it did, although other factors obscured the decline - 2009, the year the minimum wage reached $7.25, was also the year the housing bubble collapsed, making attributing the subsequent rapid decline in employment and economic growth difficult. Nonetheless, Cornyn once again stood in opposition to conservatives and sound economic principles by voting with the Democrats.
Nor did Cornyn limit himself to hamstringing the current economy. Eight times since taking office he has voted to continue our reckless deficit spending by raising the debt ceiling. Since Cornyn took office in 2002, the national debt has increased by $10 trillion dollars (TreasuryDirect 2013a) and the interest on the debt has increased by $83 billion dollars (TreasuryDirect 2013b). Further, the increase in interest in the debt would be much higher, except the Fed has artificially depressed interest rates, a situation that is untenable in the long term. Eventually, interest rates must rise again, or the economy will begin to stagnate. When that happens, the rise in interest payments will begin to parallel the increase in the debt. Since 2002, revenue has increased by only $63 billion - in other words, revenue has increased by $6.3 billion per year, while interest on the debt is set to increase by $50 billion per year. If both debt and revenue continue increasing at current rates - certainly not a precise prediction, but a reasonable approximation nonetheless - in forty years, annual interest payments on the debt will exceed annual revenue. Granted, that is only an estimate, and whether it will happen in precisely forty years or not is certainly debatable, but what is certain is that it will happen, and when it does the US will be forced to erase the debt - somehow - within the next few years. Whether by defaulting or inflating the currency, any such action would be catastrophic economically. Continuing to accumulate debt at current rates is simply untenable, yet John Cornyn wants to continue building the debt, keeping the country on a trajectory for disaster.
He could still resort to the standard argument given by those in favor of raising the debt limit, though: he was simply funding the programs already agreed on. How could he be blamed for simply setting aside funds for programs Congress had already decided? Unfortunately, Cornyn voted for and supported those programs, too. Mike Lee proposed a budget for FY 2013 which would have balanced the budget - theoretically, but probably not in reality - in five years. Cornyn voted against it. Rand Paul proposed budgets for FY 2012 and FY 2013 which would also balance the budget in five years. Cornyn voted against them. Cornyn instead chose budget plans that either did nothing to balance the budget, in most cases, or remained perfectly vague on how, exactly, the budget as to be balanced. He has shown himself willing not only to allow any amount of borrowing to facilitate reckless spending, but also to actively advance reckless spending.
In 2007, and again in 2012, Cornyn voted for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments Act - first to authorize it, then to reauthorize it when it was set to expire. The act provided immunity from prosecution for telecommunications that had assisted in warrantless - illegal - wiretapping. FISA provided the lynchpin for the NSA’s extensive illegal data collection program - by voting to authorize and reauthorize FISA, Cornyn helped provide the NSA with the ability to collect data on millions of US citizens.
As head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), Cornyn consistently backed liberals over conservatives. Cornyn was head of the NRSC from 2007 to 2012, and during that time oversaw elections in 2008, 2010, and 2012, seeing significant losses in all three of those years. In the past, the NRSC had not supported candidates in primaries, choosing to wait and support the Republican nominee. That precedent was rarely broken, but when Cornyn did choose to break it, it was for liberal incumbents over more conservative challengers. In the 2010 election, when outrage over government overreach was in the process of sweeping Republicans to nearly unprecedented gains, Cornyn repeatedly acted to hamstring the conservative surge.
Cornyn began benignly enough. He appeared to pledge to continue the NRSC tradition of staying out of primaries, with the caveat that the NRSC would be used to support incumbents. Just days after that pledge, however, Cornyn hosted a fundraiser for Gilbert Baker, a candidate for Senate in Arkansas who faced six Republican challengers, including Tom Cox, the leader of the Arkansas Tea Party. In response to criticism that he had broken his word, Cornyn pointed out that he had said that the NRSC wouldn’t spend money, not that they wouldn’t endorse candidates or help candidates raise money. Far from being a continuation of the NRSC tradition, Cornyn’s pledge was a bit of Cornyn-esque doublespeak all-too-familiar to those who know him.
He didn’t stop there, either. In Pennsylvania, Arlen Specter, a former and future Democrat who even during his time as a Republican was virulently pro-abortion and pro-spending, was in a tough primary battle against his more conservative opponent from 2004, Pat Toomey. Cornyn sent funds to Specter through the NRSC and personally endorsed him, claiming that he was the “best bet to keep this Senate seat in the GOP column.” He was wrong, as it turns out, since Specter switched his affiliation to Democrat when it became apparent that, despite the best efforts of Cornyn and Mitch McConnell, Pat Toomey was on track to win handily. Cornyn quickly reversed his position - evidently the same positions next to a (D) were unacceptable - and backed Toomey in the general election, where Toomey defeated Democrat Pat Sestak after Specter failed to win the Democrat primary.
In Alaska, incumbent Senator Lisa Murkowski faced a challenge from Joe Miller, a Tea Party-backed conservative. Murkowski first entered the Senate after being appointed by her father, Frank Murkowski, to his unexpired term when he was elected governor. She handily won a challenge in 2004 by promising Alaskans that she would bring home more pork for them, and went into 2010 the heavy favorite. However, conservatives in Alaska had begun to grow tired of her consistently liberal voting record, and Miller, an unknown candidate, quickly began to gather steam. Despite NRSC endorsement of Murkowski, the primary results were originally too close to call, and a recount effort commenced. Cornyn promptly sent funds and experts to Alaska to attempt to swing the recount in Murkowski’s favor. Cornyn’s efforts failed, and Miller received the Republican nomination, but, like Specter, Murkowski had far less allegiance to the Republican Party than Cornyn, and ran - and won - as an independent.
Both Pennsylvania and Alaska could be dismissed as an attempt to maintain Republican incumbents. That would be understandable, if still a bit unprincipled. In Florida, though, Cornyn went beyond simple party loyalty. In May 2009 Marco Rubio, the conservative speaker of the Florida House, and Charlie Crist, the liberal governor of Florida, both announced their campaigns for governor. As governor, Crist had been pro-abortion, repeatedly vetoing pro-life bills, (although he was briefly “pro-life” while running for Senate as a Republican), anti-offshore drilling, pro-expanded government subsidies, and generally took every opportunity to spit in the face of the Republican base. As in Alaska and Pennsylvania, a conservative faced off against a confirmed liberal. In this case, though, no incumbent’s seat was in danger, yet Cornyn still jumped into the race, endorsing - and funding - Crist. The people of Florida had had more than enough of Crist as governor, however, and a year after entering the race Crist, realizing that he had no chance of defeating Rubio, dropped out to run as an independent. Rubio soundly defeated Crist and the Democrat nominee, Kendrick Meek, in the general election. Since then, Crist has gone on to change his party affiliation to Democrat and announce a run for governor against Republican Rick Scott.
While his most visible perfidy came in 2010, Cornyn was never exactly a bastion of conservatism as head of the NRSC. As liberal as Cornyn had been with NRSC funds in 2010, showing himself more than willing to hamstring conservatives by supporting moderates in primaries, in 2012 he became much stingier, at least when it came to conservative nominees. When the otherwise solid Missouri Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin planted his foot squarely in his mouth by claiming that women do not become pregnant from “legitimate rape,” Cornyn first tried to force Akin from the still-winnable race (even immediately after the comment, McCaskill only led by ten points, and that lead declined steadily until McCaskill’s funding advantage began to wear Akin down), then, when Akin continued running, cut off all NRSC funds to Akin, allowing McCaskill to outspend Akin by almost six-to-one and virtually guaranteeing a Democrat victory in the race.
Throughout his time as head of the NRSC, Cornyn seemed to have a knack for finding the Republican candidates and senators most likely to switch their affiliation to Democrat and funding them. In Alaska Murkowski might as well have; in Pennsylvania Specter did; and in Florida Crist also did. While much of Cornyn’s actions as head of the NRSC can be attributed to an attempt to position himself for a run for Senate Minority Whip, some of his decisions cast serious doubt on his commitment to conservatism.
Cornyn didn’t limit himself to acting through the NRSC when making endorsements and passing out funds, though. Through his leadership PAC, Alamo PAC, Cornyn sent funds to eight Republican senators who were up for reelection, including Olympia Snowe, the third most liberal of the forty-six Republican senators, Dick Lugar, the ninth most liberal Republican senator, Scott Brown, the second most liberal Republican senator, and, perhaps surprisingly given Cornyn’s record, Orrin Hatch, the twenty-fourth most liberal Republican senator. In addition, Cornyn sent funds to several Republican senators who were not up for reelection - Kelly Ayotte, the twentieth most liberal Republican senator, Susan Collins, the most liberal Republican senator, Lisa Murkowski, the fifth most liberal Republican senator, and Lamar Alexander, the sixth most liberal Republican senator (Wagner 2012; FreedomWorks 2013).
For context, Cornyn donated to all but four of the ten most liberal Republican senators. Of the four who did not see funds from Cornyn, John Hoeven won his last election with 76% of the vote and won’t face another until 2016, Thad Cochran was a senior senator from a solidly red state who wouldn’t be up for election for two years, Kay Bailey Hutchison intended to retire, and Roy Blunt had won handily in 2010 and wouldn’t see another election until 2016. All of the most liberal Republican senators who had any use for funds got them from John Cornyn, and, with the exception of Ayotte and Hatch, who have amassed a decent voting record but tend to collapse on important points, all of the senators Cornyn sent funds to in 2012 were among the most liberal Republicans in the Senate.
As in the case of the NRSC, Cornyn’s decisions may have been driven by a desire to drum up support for his run for Senate Minority Whip, rather than a desire to make the Senate more liberal. Still, his selections must at the very least raise questions about his ideology, not to mention the viability of a senator who uses Senate seats as bargaining chips to gain power. Senate politics seems to be a game John Cornyn plays a bit too well.
That brings us to the issue that finally prompted a primary challenge (for a more detailed version of this account, see this post). Cornyn had shown himself unfaithful before, but it wasn’t until the stakes were much higher and the stage much larger that the full extent of his treachery became apparent. It all began when Texas Senator Ted Cruz, the latest addition to the Texas delegation to the Senate, devised a clever - nearly diabolical, actually, from a Democrat's perspective - plan to force Democrats to vote to defund their president's most visible program. It hinged on the fact that the Senate cannot originate a spending bill, and therefore must rely on amending House bills, combined with the fact that Senate Democrats did not have the votes they needed - sixty - to amend the bill. Democrats would be forced to choose between voting to defund Obamacare and voting to defund all of government. In the first case, they would be hamstringing their president's legacy; in the second, they would take all the blame for shutting down the government (the blame Republicans actually wound up taking). Ideally - and it's not far-fetched - a few Democrats from red states would choose not to face waves of negative public opinion over an extremely unpopular program, and would vote to defund. Had Cruz's plan worked, there would have been no shutdown, and Obamacare would not have been funded.
It didn't work, though, partially because of Harry Reid's skill, but partially because Senate Republicans betrayed their base. By filing for cloture on the bill, Reid could effectively lower the number of votes needed to amend the House bill to fund Obamacare from sixty to fifty-one, allowing the bill to be amended. Of course, cloture still requires sixty votes, but Reid banked on betrayal from enough Republican senators to win the cloture vote. By allowing Republican senators to vote for cloture, ensuring that they would lose the vote to amend the bill to fund Obamacare, but then technically vote against funding Obamacare, he gave them the cover they needed to sell out their constituents. Cruz responded with his now-famous pseudo-filibuster, calling attention to the fact that Republican senators were considering voting for cloture on the bill, thus guaranteeing that Obamacare would be funded. Ultimately, enough Republican senators decided that their constituents either didn't care or would forget how they voted, and chose to derail Cruz's plan to defund Obamacare, leaving Republicans fighting without their best weapon, set up to fail and to take the blame for the shutdown.
That's where Cornyn comes in. He talked a good enough fight, claiming that he only differed with Cruz on tactics, not strategy. He wanted to defund Obamacare, so that's why he was going to vote to advance the House bill. "Big John" was standing up for Texas, and voting to pass the House bill defunding Obamacare. Texans should be proud! The trouble is, it was all a lie. Cornyn claimed that voting for cloture as voting to advance the House bill: it wasn't. Cloture is only needed to advance a bill if someone threatens to halt that bill through extended debate, and no one had threatened to do that (even Cruz's pseudo-filibuster had been carefully timed to avoid delaying the bill). In this case, all cloture on the bill did was allow Democrats to amend the bill, removing the House's provision that Obamacare not be funded. Despite his rhetoric, Cornyn's vote when he voted for cloture on the bill was a vote for funding Obamacare, and a vote to scrap the most important elements of the House bill.
Cornyn didn't just vote to fund Obamacare and hand Republicans a loss in the shutdown fight, he wasn't even man enough to own up to it. He continued spouting the same drivel about advancing the House bill, even after the nonsensical nature of his reasoning was thoroughly explained. He took the cover Harry Reid handed him to betray Texas and conservatives across the nation (if he at least had the decency to admit to what he did he still wouldn't deserve to be a senator, but at least he could have made Texans proud of his courage). When it really mattered, when Republicans had a chance to accomplish something significant against the odds, he folded.
And that’s John Cornyn. That’s always been John Cornyn. He is the epitome of the slick lawyer, carefully crafting his public image to appear to be something he is not, more than willing to take a stand whenever the fight’s somewhere else.
Already, we’ve seen that his record as a fiscal conservative is questionable, and that his record on other issues that matter to conservatives is second-rate. In addition, we’ve seen that he’s happy to do whatever it takes to pack the Senate with liberals, without fail choosing to endorse the liberal in every primary battle and happy to send financial support to the most liberal Republicans in the Senate, while carefully excluding conservatives from his largess. Although it may have been less obvious, we’ve also seen why the ratings systems have failed to identify Cornyn for what he is: he cheats. On unimportant votes he runs up the score, voting a hard conservative line when it doesn’t matter, and reserving his perfidy for important votes, where he could make a difference. At the same time, he lies about what he’s voting for - think about it: if Ted Cruz hadn’t called attention to it, Cornyn’s vote for cloture, ensuring funding for Obamcare, would have been ignored, and his vote against the amendment funding Obamacare would have gone down as a valiant last stand against overwhelming odds. Once we know, though, we know that when it mattered Cornyn caved; when it didn’t, he talked tough.
Cornyn can talk a good game, no one denies that. The trouble is, when it comes right down to it, he’s not a conservative. He’s been “hired,” if you will, by conservatives, so he has to pay his dues every once in a while, but he’s nothing more than a hireling. When he has a chance to make a difference, he doesn’t. That might be enough for other states, and even for Texas in the past, but that isn’t good enough for Texas today. If we can’t get a solid pair of senators, who will? The country needs Texas to be Texas; they’re relying on us. It’s time for Texas to step up, and send John Cornyn home.
References:
Not all references are cited here. Many facts which are readily available and fairly widely known are not referenced; this partial list exists only to provide support for the more salient and disputable facts.
Bartlett, Bruce. 2013. “Medicare Part D: Republican Budget-Busting.” New York Times, November.
19, 2013. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/19/medicare-part-d-republican-budget-busting/
Carafano, James. 2013. “Senator Cornyn’s Border Security Amendment Doesn’t Cut It.” June 17,
2013. http://blog.heritage.org/2013/06/17/senator-cornyns-border-security-amendment-doesnt-cut-it/
Erickson, Erik. 2013. “The Sad Joke from John Cornyn’s Office.” RedState.com. Accessed
12/12/2013. http://www.redstate.com/2013/07/28/the-sad-joke-from-john-cornyns-office/
FreedomWorks. 2013. “Scorecards.” Accessed 12/12/2013 from http://congress.freedomworks.org/
Accessed 12/12/2013. http://reason.com/blog/2010/11/19/happy-birthday-medicare-part-d
Klein, Phillip. 2013. “Bush’s Costly Medicare Legacy.” Washington Examiner, April 24, 2013.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/bushs-costly-medicare-legacy/article/2528070
TreasuryDirect. 2013a. “Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2012.” Accessed 12/13/13.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
TreasuryDirect. 2013b. “Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding.” Accessed 12/13/13.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm
Wagner, Samantha. 2012. “John Cornyn Shells out Cash to aid his GOP Colleagues.” Houston
Chronicle.
Withrow, Joshua. 2013. “John Cornyn’s Top Ten Worst Votes.” FreedomWorks. Accessed 12/12/2013.
http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/jwithrow/senator-john-cornyns-top-ten-bad-votes
Labels: Election 2014, Politics
Steve Stockman, the third most conservative member of Texas's congressional delegation, according the Heritage Foundation, has filed to challenge Texas Senator John Cornyn for his seat. It is high time Cornyn moved on to somewhere - anywhere, really - besides the Senate, and Steve Stockman might just be the man to do it.
Cornyn has been able to rack up a very conservative voting record. Unfortunately, behind the scenes and when it really counts, he betrays Texans. A far more comprehensive list of his more serious shortcomings could be compiled, but a short history of his role in the government shutdown fight earlier this year epitomizes exactly what "Big Bad John" Cornyn does when we send him to Washington.
It all began when Texas Senator Ted Cruz, the latest addition to the Texas delegation to the Senate, devised a clever - nearly diabolical, actually, from a Democrat's perspective - plan to force Democrats to vote to defund their president's most visible program. It hinged on the fact that the Senate cannot originate a spending bill, and therefore must rely on amending House bills, combined with the fact that Senate Democrats did not have the votes they needed - sixty - to amend the bill. Democrats would be forced to choose between voting to defund Obamacare and voting to defund all of government. In the first case, they would be hamstringing their president's legacy; in the second, they would take all the blame for shutting down the government (the blame Republicans actually wound up taking). Ideally - and it's not far-fetched - a few Democrats from red states would choose not to face waves of negative public opinion over an extremely unpopular program, and would vote to defund. Had Cruz's plan worked, there would have been no shutdown, and Obamacare would not have been funded.
It didn't work, though, partially because of Harry Reid's skill, but partially because Senate Republicans betrayed their base. By filing for cloture on the bill, Reid could effectively lower the number of votes needed to amend the House bill to fund Obamacare from sixty to fifty-one, allowing the bill to be amended. Of course, cloture still requires sixty votes, but Reid banked on betrayal from enough Republican senators to win the cloture vote. By allowing Republican senators to vote for cloture, ensuring that they would lose the vote to amend the bill to fund Obamacare, but then technically vote against funding Obamacare, he gave them the cover they needed to sell out their constituents. Cruz responded with his now-famous pseudo-filibuster, calling attention to the fact that Republican senators were considering voting for cloture on the bill, thus guaranteeing that Obamacare would be funded. Ultimately, enough Republican senators decided that their constituents either didn't care or would forget how they voted, and chose to derail Cruz's plan to defund Obamacare, leaving Republicans fighting without their best weapon, set up to fail and to take the blame for the shutdown.
That's where Cornyn comes in. He talked a good enough fight, claiming that he only differed with Cruz on tactics, not strategy. He wanted to defund Obamacare, so that's why he was going to vote to advance the House bill. "Big John" was standing up for Texas, and voting to pass the House bill defunding Obamacare. Texans should be proud! The trouble is, it was all a lie. Cornyn claimed that voting for cloture as voting to advance the House bill: it wasn't. Cloture is only needed to advance a bill if someone threatens to halt that bill through extended debate, and no one had threatened to do that (even Cruz's pseudo-filibuster had been carefully timed to avoid delaying the bill). In this case, all cloture on the bill did was allow Democrats to amend the bill, removing the House's provision that Obamacare not be funded. Despite his rhetoric, Cornyn's vote when he voted for cloture on the bill was a vote for funding Obamacare, and a vote to scrap the most important elements of the House bill.
That's not all he did, though. He publicly lied about the state of affairs, claiming that Cruz was advocating voting "against" the House bill, directly reversing the true state of affairs, which was that Cruz was advocating for preserving the House bill. If that wasn't enough, he joined with Mitch McConnell in gathering votes for cloture - against Cruz and for funding Obamacare - by threatening and cajoling his fellow senators. Faced with the spectre of the two most powerful Republican senators opposing their committee appointments, at best, or their reelection, at worst, many caved. Cornyn and McConnell's plan was to isolate and destroy Cruz, Lee, and Paul, the next wave of the conservative movement, before they'd even gotten started.
With his actions, Cornyn not only ensured the Obamacare would be funded, he ensured that the blame for any shutdown would fall on Republicans, not Democrats. Democrats would be able to pass any spending bill they wanted, and could blame the Republicans in the House if they didn't pass the same bill - had Cornyn and the Republican Senate leadership not betrayed their constituents, the reverse would have been true.
Cornyn didn't just vote to fund Obamacare and hand Republicans a loss in the shutdown fight, he wasn't even man enough to own up to it. He continued spouting the same drivel about advancing the House bill, even after the nonsensical nature of his reasoning was thoroughly explained. He took the cover Harry Reid handed him to betray Texas and conservatives across the nation (if he at least had the decency to admit to what he did he still wouldn't deserve to be a senator, but at least he could have made Texans proud of his courage). When it really mattered, when Republicans had a chance to accomplish something significant, against the odds, he folded.
Sadly, this is classic John Cornyn. In public, when it doesn't count, he's "Big Bad John," talking a tough talk in a ten-gallon hat. In private, though, and when the chips are down, he's just another sniveling politician, threatening, conniving, and scheming to stay in power, driven by fear of losing his reputation in the Senate, his popularity, or, worst of all, his Senate seat. Underneath the carefully crafted exterior, the man is, to borrow an old Texas saying "all hat and no cattle" when it comes to fighting with anyone but his own side. The greatest state in the nation deserves better than a wheedling Washington lawyer, a hat and boots without a Texan between them.
Labels: Politics
A Brief Overview of the History and Implications of the Government Shutdown
0 comments Posted by Unknown at 3:14 PM Anyone who hasn't been living under a rock (and hasn't had to use USGS websites for research) has almost certainly heard about the government shutdown. Certain politicians have made very dire predictions about the effect it will have on the economy (as it has turned out, very little so far) or the massive swaths of government it has shut down (as it turns out, around seventeen percent). There has been a lot of fingerpointing, but very few people have set out to explain exactly what happened so that the reader will generall be able to decide for themselves who is to blame. This essay is intended to fill that void - although a conclusion is presented at the end, the facts are laid out such that the reader could reach a different conclusion if he held different starting presuppositions.
From House to Senate: the First Round
The episode really began when conservatives across the country pointed out the obvious: that Republican protestations against Obamacare were more than a little hollow if those same Republicans continued to vote to fund Obamacare. An incessant drumbeat from political activists on the right eventually began to have an effect on Republican representatives and senators. Several were sympathetic to the idea of defunding Obamacare, but it was Mark Meadows, a conservative representative from western North Carolina, who proposed the plan that was eventually accepted by the Republican caucus. He proposed passing a Continuing Resolution (CR) which funded all of government except Obamacare. By passing this CR immediately before the deadline for funding the next fiscal year, Democrats would be forced to choose between funding government and defunding Obamacare.
Republican leadership was originally unenthused by the plan. At first, it seemed unlikely that it would be adopted; however, the steady drumbeat of support for defunding Obamacare eventually swayed the Republican leadership. The House passed the CR funding all of government except Obamacare by a large bipartisan majority, and the CR passed on to the Senate.
Harry Reid is no idiot. He saw the Republican plan shaping up, and promptly acted to counteract it. He did so by filing a motion for cloture. Usually used to end debates, cloture sets limits on what amendments can be proposed and what debate can take place on a bill. More important in this context, it sets a new bar for amending bills: insteading of requiring sixty votes, amendments would now only need a simple majority, fifty-one votes, to pass. The Democrats had fifty-one votes; if cloture was invoked on the bill they could amend it essentially at will. Of course, cloture itself required sixty votes to pass, but Reid assumed that a significant number of Republican senators were in fact hypocrites, who spoke against Obamacare but didn’t actually want to take action to stop it. These senators, presented with cover to vote for Obamacare while voting against the amendment to fund it (confident that they would fail to defund it because of their earlier vote for cloture), would then vote for cloture, Obamacare would be funded, and the pressure would be placed on the House to vote for the Senate’s CR or be blamed for the shutdown (if one studies it long enough, one will realize that the entire episode was a massive game of “hot potato” with budget bills).
Of Compromise and Chaos
With Senate Republicans' capitulation, the CR returned to the House. There House Republicans, led by Speaker of the House John Boehner, proposed an amendment which, although less forceful than the original wording of the CR, delayed and reformed Obamacare. Now, so far, this has been business as usual in Washington, although the CR's passage through the Senate was a bit more exciting than usual. At this point, when the House and the Senate have passed different versions of a bill, the bill goes through a process called "reconciliation." Both houses pass compromise measures, trading the bill between them, until a solution is reached which, although imperfect, is at least amenable to both houses. Occasionally leadership in one house or the other will see fit to refuse to take part in the process, but that is rare. Unfortunately, that is also exactly what Harry Reid chose to do. Instead of following normal procedures and amending the bill with a compromise solution, Reid held a straight up or down vote on the new compromise CR. It was voted down along party lines. In response, the House passed a third version of the CR, which moved even closer to the Senate's position. Again the Senate voted it down on a party line vote, and again the Senate proposed no compromise measure. The House passed yet another compromise, and again the Senate voted it down along party lines. That was the afternoon of the last day nonessential functions of government were funded, and that night at midnight the government shut down. The next day Republicans passed still another compromise CR, with the same predictable results in the Senate. Democrats reiterated that they would not take part in negotiating or reconciling the House and Senate versions of the bill. In essence, they issued an ultimatum to the House: fund government as we decide you will, or fund none at all.
The House rejected the ultimatum. House Republicans, grounded in a firm understanding of the history of funding fights in British and American politics (a history which begins in the 1600s and which was the catalyst which eventually led to rule by the people, not by a king), refused to back down. Instead, they offered to set aside the debate over funding Obamacare for the moment and pass smaller CRs which funded individual parts of government. Once government was funded and the shutdown ended, the Democrats could, if they wished, try to pass a CR to fund Obamacare. Of course, Democrats recognized that the no CR to fund Obamacare alone could ever pass both houses (one could argue that it would have a bit of difficulty passing just the Senate, if things broke the wrong way for Democrats). Ending the shutdown and then resuming the debate over funding Obamacare was not an option for Democrats. They set out to block every CR House Republicans proposed, blocking CRs funding, variously: disability payments for veterans, pay for the National Guard, funds for national parks and monuments, the National Institutes of Health (a debate which led to Reid's infamous "why would we want to do that?" comment in response to a question about saving a child's life by funding the NIH), FEMA, and assorted other programs.
None of this, however, has stopped Democrats from blaming Republicans for the shutdown. Despite Republican protestations and despite the fact that it was Democrats who first deviated from the normal process of passing legislation by refusing to negotiate, the public appears to agree with them (at least that portion of the public which does not pay attention to politics - more on that below). The Obama administration, taking advantage of the fact that Republicans are currently blamed for the shutdown by a plurality of Americans, instructed National Park Service employees, as well as other government employees, to make the shutdown as painful as possible. Open-air monuments, which had never previously been closed in a shutdown, were shut down, to the point where attempts were made to block views to Mount Rushmore. Government websites considered nonessential, such as the USGS seismic map site, were shut down, despite the fact that shutting them down actually required more time and effort than leaving them up. Throughout the shutdown, both parties remain obviously, painfully conscious of the fact that the American people will be voting in 2014.
To 2014 and Beyond: what about the Elections?
Speaking of the elections in 2014, it is worth considering what will happen in 2014. Democrats have, of course, as part of their strategy been claiming that it will lead to a certain repeat of the Republican disaster following the last government shutdown, in 1996. Republicans would far rather it paralleled the 2010 elections. With that in mind, we will compare the outcome of both the '96 and the '10 elections, and reach a conclusion about what might happen in 2014 (bearing in mind that it is dangerous to make predictions, especially about the future).
In 1996, at the top of the ticket, Bob Dole faced off against Bill Clinton. Clinton was at the height of his power: smooth, suave, and, as always, the consummate politician. Dole was none of those things, and that's putting it nicely. With or without the shutdown, Dole never had a chance. That raises the interesting problem for Republicans that a party that loses to an incumbent president tends to do very badly in the House and Senate as well. Ignoring the shutdown, Republicans would be doing well just to hold their own in the House and Senate. Surprisingly, given what most current media reports imply, Republicans did just that, and better. In the House, Republicans went from holding 230 seats to only 227, while Democrats went from 204 to 206 seats. A net loss overall, but Republicans maintained their majority. In the Senate, where each seat is more valuable because there are fewer of them, Republicans gained two seats to not only maintain their majority but make it a little bit safer.
In 2010, the election which was most nearly a referendum on Obamacare, the outcome was much different. In the Senate, Republicans held every seat, took four seats held by retiring Democrats, and defeated two Democrat incumbents. The Senate went from fifty-seven Democrats, two Democrat-leaning independents (notably, Democrats could usually command three-fifths of the Senate, giving them almost unchecked power), and forty Republicans to fifty-one Democrats, two Democrat-leaning independents, and forty-seven Republicans. This was the largest Republican gain in the Senate since 1994 (and probably would have led to Republican control of the Senate in 2012 if the Republicans hadn't run a Bob Dole impersonator for president). In the House, before the election Democrats had a majority with 256 seats, while Republicans only had 179 seats. After the election, Republicans held the majority with 242 seats, and Democrats were reduced to 193 seats - the largest loss by any party since 1938.
In other words, considering only the effects of the shutdown, the worst case scenario for Republicans is holding steady in the House and Senate, and the best case scenario is controlling both houses. Of course, such an analysis must be woefully incomplete without considering other factors, but since speculation is rampant about the effect the shutdown will have on the 2014 elections (including a very poorly worded poll, which essentially states that Republicans are completely responsible for the shutdown and then asks how people would vote - one could readily imagine how such a poll could be more than a little biased), it is worth mentioning.
In contrast to what is often reported, the actual facts of the matter show conclusively that the shutdown is a result of action taken by the Democrats in refusing to participate in the normal process of governing. Republicans in the House, acting within the authority given them by the Constitution and the mandate given them by their constituents (the largest gain by any party since 1938 in the 2010 elections was largely fueled by opposition to Obamacare), proposed a spending plan which did not fund Obamacare. Democrats responded by acting as if Republicans had done something completely unheard of, and refused to vote to fund government if Obamacare was not funded. Not content with simply shutting down government, Democrats also set out to misinform the public about the reason for the shutdown. Fortunately for those who value truth, history shows that Republicans will likely achieve significant gains in the 2014 election, and may even take control of both houses of Congress. Much more could - and should - be said about the shutdown, but hopefully this essay has covered the basic concepts.
Labels: Politics
As Christianity and its influence have declined in western culture, it has become necessary to replace the system of ethics it provided with something else. Because of their necessarily subjective nature, these lack the power of Christian ethics - they take the form of preferences, although they are couched as sets of principles - yet it is on these that a secular humanist is forced to base his behavior. One of the more successful of these attempts - in large part because it was, as originally formulated, not yet entirely divorced from Christian ethics - is Kantianism.
Before continuing, it should be noted that this is a critique of Kantian ethics as commonly applied today, not a critique of Immanuel Kant himself or his ideas. The former would be unwise, as Kant had many very good ideas (although imperfect, his ideas on God are, for example, more complete and more reasonable than many of his contemporaries); the later would take the discussion beyond the scope of the author's knowledge and the intended length of the post. Kant's actual system of ethics was in the main internally consistent. It garnered its power from Kant's belief in the existence of God, an authority to whom the individual is responsible for his precise application (or lack thereof) of the categorical imperative to his behavior. It is only the modern philosophers, who divorce Kant's ethics from Kant's God, who render the system useless as a guide to ethical behavior.
The basic principle of Kantian ethics is the idea of the categorical imperative. Simply put, the categorical imperative is the idea that humans have an absolute duty to act in such a way that every other human in similar circumstances could act in the same way without ill effect. For example, one could not take as a maxim "kill those who I dislike," since if the entire human race did so we would very soon become extinct. Of course, several obvious problems arise with this concept, but most of these can be addressed by the existence of a God, which, although not explicitly stated as a foundation for Kant's metaphysics of morality, certainly played a role. For example, one might naturally inquire which outcomes we should consider desirable, and in answer to that Kant would most likely point to "intuitions," what might also be called - but not by Kant - the remnants of God's work on our hearts, as the guide to desirable outcomes. Although this strays far too close to the badly flawed concept that those things which feel right are right (the Bible tells us that there is a way which seems right unto a man, but the ends thereof are the ways of death), it is at least internally consistent.
Although Kant's philosophy holds together as a coherent whole, when later philosophers attempt to rip his ethics out of the framework in which it was housed and use it as a replacement for Biblical ethics, they do so at the expense of the cogency and even the coherency of Kant's ethical system. Not only is an objective standard required to determine which outcomes are actually desirable, some objective standard must also exist to establish that we ought to care which outcomes are desirable. If I can get away with it, why shouldn't I? Not everyone could do it, but then again, I'm not everyone, am I? Even if the Kantian ethicist could answer those questions satisfactorily - and if he does he will almost certainly have to resort to Kantianism's rival, Utilitarianism - he is still faced with the fact that, as Benjamin Franklin put it, "so convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable creature, since it enables one to find or make a reason for everything one has a mind to do." Given enough time, one could always find some peculiarity in one's situation which renders it distinct from others in its class, and allows one the opportunity to do some otherwise dastardly deed without compunction. This is not, in fact, so different from what most people do to justify bad behavior without any code of ethics to guide them. In order to apply the categorical imperative properly, one must first have a firm enough sense of honesty and decency to apply it without regard to the immediate well-being of oneself and others.
Therein lies Kantian ethics' problem: it is not in itself a complete code of ethics. It is rather a sort of "meta-ethics," which may appear as a viable supplement to, but not a replacement for, morality. Kantian ethics are in reality nothing more than a supplement to Biblical morality. Attempting to replace Biblical morality with Kantian ethics is not only a perversion of what Kant intended, it won't even produce the viable code of ethics modern secular humanists seek. Kantian ethics requires a prior ethical standard in order for it to be applied, and that prior standard cannot be explained using Kantian ethics, since it is of necessity the foundation of Kantian ethics. A little thought should be enough to establish that this is not a peculiar flaw of Kantian ethics. All man-made ethical systems will have the exact same flaw for the exact same reason: there must be some reason not to ignore them completely or stretch their application to allow any action one desires. Only God, who holds a prior claim, has the authority to state that one thought or action is right and another wrong simply because He says so. He needs no preexisting standard; He is the preexisting standard. Without God a coherent morality is impossible, and Kantianism, appealing as it may be, is no exception.
Labels: Christianity, Philosophy, Theology
In brief, the simplest case for theonomy is that civil government must be conducted according to some principles. Someone must determine what to punish and what to reward; if we are imperfect, why not look to God? The Old Testament is no longer binding for salvation, but what was wrong then has not become right with time. God did not change. If a particular activity was condemned in the moral or civil portions of the Mosaic Law, the only of example of a civil law given directly by God that we have, it does not seem unreasonable to condemn the same activity in our civil law. By the same token, if God established a specific penalty for a crime, it behooves us to, at the very least, model our penalties after His (here there is some disagreement among theonomists, as some contend that we ought to enact the same penalties, a group which would include Rushdoony himself, whereas others argue that the penalties, unlike morality, were specific to the time and serve as a model, not as a strict rule. Important as it may be, that issue is not the primary focus of this discussion).
The apostle extracts and applies the universal principle behind the law, which reaches beyond the specific application of the law. God, as the apostle points out, is concerned with more than oxen. This concept of a specific application combined with a universal principle, the former specific to a time, the later still binding, is not a new idea, it is simply the consistent application of 2 Timothy 3:16 to the entire Bible, not just the New Testament. The Old Testament remains relevant today, as it is still "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness."
For it is written in the Law of Moses, “you shall not muzzle an ox while he is threshing.” God is not concerned about oxen, is He? Or is He speaking altogether for our sake? Yes, for our sake it was written, because the plowman ought to plow in hope, and the thresher to thresh in hope of sharing the crops.
It should be obvious by now that theonomy is, at the very least, a viable option for government. That it is in reality the only option for civil government is less obvious, but equally true. Without some objective standard to tie laws to our laws must be arbitrary and often capricious. Consider our age of consent laws. As it stands now, the age of consent varies from state to state, and the laws themselves are open to mocking from a number of directions. For example, a difference of one day in the age of either party could make an act perfectly acceptable in the sight of the law or a felony. The fact is, age of consent laws are exactly what the law always will be without an objective standard: arbitrary and capricious. Recognizing this fact, many people are currently attempting to repeal, or at least de-claw, age of consent laws. Why, after all, should we respect a law which is obviously ridiculous? On the other hand, if we accept God's standard that intercourse is only ever acceptable between married partners, the discussion becomes mute, and we have no need to place any arbitrary limit on immoral behavior. In other words, because we have refused God's standard yet still must take a stand - I think the reader can readily imagine the sort of disgusting displays which would follow the repeal of age of consent laws - all that remains is to make a stand on indefensible ground, ground which will inevitably be lost. By abandoning the high ground we have conceded the entire battle.
Nor is this phenomenon limited to age of consent laws. Again and again, good people recognize that they must take a stand, but in the name of politics, or moderation, or sensitivity they reject the standard God set, choosing instead to stand on the slippery slope of human reason. They compromise, in laws, in political candidates, in their personal lives, and by doing so they lose before they even begin. God's standard is the only sure place to stand. The fact that God's standard when it comes to intercourse happened to be the only place where a logical defense could be made against creeping perversion is not a quirk, it is a reflection of a basic fact. That is, that we do not serve a capricious God and His laws are not arbitrary. If we abandon them we have abandoned the best option, both morally and logically, and when we do so we're not fighting to win anymore, we're fighting to surrender a little bit later.
Rather than compromising, as Christians our goal should be to stand as firmly as human frailty allows precisely on God's truth and nowhere else. As we have seen, our choice isn't between God's standard in civil government and some other standard, it is between God's standard and no standard at all. In reality, we can either be theonomists or the rearguard in a losing battle with anarchy; there is no other option. Our laws have only survived as long as they have because they were based on Biblical principles, as we forget those principles our laws fall, one by one. Unless and until we return to those Biblical principles - and not to some halfway point which is agreeable to those who despise the Bible or a comfortable stance based on the vestigial truths still traditionally accepted - our laws will continue to fall. Theonomy is not a model of just civil government, it is the only model for just civil government.
Labels: Christianity, Politics, Theology