If you've never read the book, "The Richest Man in Babylon", you owe it to yourself to do so. I've bought and given away several copies of this book over the years. It was while reading that book that I first encountered the idea of generating income from capital as opposed to labor.
A little over two years ago the thought struck me that there are not really three economic classes in our country. There also aren't more than three as some would suggest by offering labels like upper-middle, lower-middle, etc. No, there are really only two classes in this country and the delineation is growing sharper with each passing fiscal quarter. What used to be a nation of some wealthy, many self-employed, and some laborers, has devolved into those that are paid money for their work and those that earn income from their invested capital.
Such distinctions may seem arbitrary at first but I submit that careful examination of the way these two classes are treated is proof enough of their existence. For example, the tax rate on money earned from work tops out at over 30%, while the tax rate on income earned from investments tops out at 15% for dividends and 20% for long-term capital gains. Money earned from a job is taxed before you can even buy your groceries. Money earned from investing is taxed only after all expenses on earning it have been paid. Could you work without paying for food? Is not your nourishment a cost of your labor? But, I digress.
If we continue to look we will find more indicators that the true class distinction is not between lawyers and doctors on the one hand and maids and waiters on the other, but on those that give their time and effort in return for pay and those that lend out their capital for income.
Now, this may all sound very obvious to you, but for a financially naive physics major like me it was quite the revelation. Post financial enlightenment I have endeavored to learn more about the workings of finance in the hopes of shifting my reliance on work to investing for income.
My first goal was to begin to save some capital to invest for income. I decided on a goal of 1% of annual income from investment as opposed to labor (so labor pay would only make up 99%). This goal seemed easily achievable. While it was achievable and simple in theory the practice required some pain. We all grow accustomed to certain creature comforts. Saving more money nearly always requires some sacrfices. So it was in our home.
Keep in mind I am not talking about retirement savings, 401(k)'s, IRA's, Thrift Plans, or any of the other tax preferred retirement vehicles. No, I am talking about saving money and trying to generate a real income from it with the eventual goal of parity with work-earned pay.
Imagine 20 years from now having twice your annual income with half of that money coming in every month whether you work or not!
"20 years? But I want that money now!"
Sorry, unless you were born lucky or can pick 6 random numbers in advance of their drawing by public officials, you are in the same boat as most of us and need to accumulate capital the old-fashioned way, saving it.
I am going to post Musings from time to time on this site, but periodically I will continue this theme of investing for income and the great class divide. All questions regarding saving, investing, etc. are welcome.
You can move your family from the stress of the labor class to the relative comfort of the investor class. It takes work, patience, and emotional fortitude, but it is the way to continue what your ancestors started when they came here to make a better life for themselves and their descendents.
Good luck and post a comment!
Joe
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Casey vs. Santorum Debate
Well, I just finished watching the Casey vs. Santorum debate. I hate to admit it, but Santorum clobbered an empty suit. I can't in good conscience vote for Casey. He is so obviously unprepared for the job that it would be like voting for a democratic version of Bush. He simply isn't fit to represent the Commonwealth. When will the Democrats learn to nominate qualified candidates instead of simply endorsing the best name?
Sunday, September 17, 2006
Reason and Faith?
The entire text of Pope Benedict's recent speech that so infuriated Muslims around the world is given below. I think that you will find it an interesting read if you have ever considered the question of faith and reason. Can you know the nature of things by reason and scientific method or must you approach them only through the authoritarian structures of religion?
Not surprisingly Pope Benedict hedges his bets in the speech below. He seems comfortable throwing stones at a world religion which eschews all reason in deference to the revealed word, but he remains unwilling to put to much trust in the system of science he credits for the improved lot of mankind.
If you read the text carefully, I think you will find a scholarly mind at work, but you may also note the absence of the compassion informed by grace present in so many of his predecessors comments.
Someone asked me the other night why the world seemed to be teetering on the brink of crisis. I said that I think the world is always poised thus and that what we are witnessing is not particularly difficult times but an unusual confluence of incompetence in world leadership. These men with their strong convictions and unyielding egos are dangerous both by way of their positions and their closed minds.
As we go forward our nation must renew itself by demanding greater competence from our leaders. Whether it is greater stewardship of the church or a deeper commitment to democratic principles from our leaders of state, we must expect and demand more.
Not surprisingly Pope Benedict hedges his bets in the speech below. He seems comfortable throwing stones at a world religion which eschews all reason in deference to the revealed word, but he remains unwilling to put to much trust in the system of science he credits for the improved lot of mankind.
If you read the text carefully, I think you will find a scholarly mind at work, but you may also note the absence of the compassion informed by grace present in so many of his predecessors comments.
Someone asked me the other night why the world seemed to be teetering on the brink of crisis. I said that I think the world is always poised thus and that what we are witnessing is not particularly difficult times but an unusual confluence of incompetence in world leadership. These men with their strong convictions and unyielding egos are dangerous both by way of their positions and their closed minds.
As we go forward our nation must renew itself by demanding greater competence from our leaders. Whether it is greater stewardship of the church or a deeper commitment to democratic principles from our leaders of state, we must expect and demand more.
Text of Pope Benedict's Speech
Faith, reason and the university: memories and reflections
Following is the speech given by Pope Benedict XVI at the University of Regensburg in Germany on September 12
Your Eminences, Your Magnificences, Your Excellencies, Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen
It is a moving experience for me to be back again in the university and to be able once again to give a lecture at this podium.
I think back to those years when, after a pleasant period at the Freisinger Hochschule, I began teaching at the University of Bonn.
That was in 1959, in the days of the old university made up of ordinary professors. The various chairs had neither assistants nor secretaries, but in recompense there was much direct contact with students and in particular among the professors themselves.
We would meet before and after lessons in the rooms of the teaching staff. There was a lively exchange with historians, philosophers, philologists and, naturally, between the two theological faculties.
Once a semester there was a dies academicus, when professors from every faculty appeared before the students of the entire university, making possible a genuine experience of universitas - something that you too, Magnificent Rector, just mentioned - the experience, in other words, of the fact that despite our specializations which at times make it difficult to communicate with each other, we made up a whole, working in everything on the basis of a single rationality with its various aspects and sharing responsibility for the right use of reason - this reality became a lived experience.
The university was also very proud of its two theological faculties. It was clear that, by inquiring about the reasonableness of faith, they too carried out a work which is necessarily part of the "whole" of the universitas scientiarum, even if not everyone could share the faith which theologians seek to correlate with reason as a whole.
This profound sense of coherence within the universe of reason was not troubled, even when it was once reported that a colleague had said there was something odd about our university: it had two faculties devoted to something that did not exist: God.
That even in the face of such radical scepticism it is still necessary and reasonable to raise the question of God through the use of reason, and to do so in the context of the tradition of the Christian faith: this, within the university as a whole, was accepted without question.
I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both.
It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor.
The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur'an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between - as they were called - three "Laws" or "rules of life": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur'an.
It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point - itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole - which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason", I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.
In the seventh conversation [text unclear] edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion".
According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war.
Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached".
The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably ... is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...".
The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident.
But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry.
At this point, as far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we are faced with an unavoidable dilemma. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true?
I believe that here we can see the profound harmony between what is Greek in the best sense of the word and the biblical understanding of faith in God. Modifying the first verse of the Book of Genesis, the first verse of the whole Bible, John began the prologue of his Gospel with the words: "In the beginning was the Word".
This is the very word used by the emperor: God acts, [text unclear] with logos. Logos means both reason and word - a reason which is creative and capable of self-communication, precisely as reason. John thus spoke the final word on the biblical concept of God, and in this word all the often toilsome and tortuous threads of biblical faith find their culmination and synthesis.
In the beginning was the logos, and the logos is God, says the Evangelist. The encounter between the Biblical message and Greek thought did not happen by chance. The vision of Saint Paul, who saw the roads to Asia barred and in a dream saw a Macedonian man plead with him: "Come over to Macedonia and help us!" (cf. Acts 16:6-10) - this vision can be interpreted as a "distillation" of the intrinsic necessity of a rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek inquiry.
In point of fact, this rapprochement had been going on for some time. The mysterious name of God, revealed from the burning bush, a name which separates this God from all other divinities with their many names and simply declares "I am", already presents a challenge to the notion of myth, to which Socrates' attempt to vanquish and transcend myth stands in close analogy.
Within the Old Testament, the process which started at the burning bush came to new maturity at the time of the Exile, when the God of Israel, an Israel now deprived of its land and worship, was proclaimed as the God of heaven and earth and described in a simple formula which echoes the words uttered at the burning bush: "I am".
This new understanding of God is accompanied by a kind of enlightenment, which finds stark expression in the mockery of gods who are merely the work of human hands (cf. Ps 115). Thus, despite the bitter conflict with those Hellenistic rulers who sought to accommodate it forcibly to the customs and idolatrous cult of the Greeks, biblical faith, in the Hellenistic period, encountered the best of Greek thought at a deep level, resulting in a mutual enrichment evident especially in the later wisdom literature.
Today we know that the Greek translation of the Old Testament produced at Alexandria - the Septuagint - is more than a simple (and in that sense really less than satisfactory) translation of the Hebrew text: it is an independent textual witness and a distinct and important step in the history of revelation, one which brought about this encounter in a way that was decisive for the birth and spread of Christianity.
A profound encounter of faith and reason is taking place here, an encounter between genuine enlightenment and religion. From the very heart of Christian faith and, at the same time, the heart of Greek thought now joined to faith, Manuel II was able to say: Not to act "with logos" is contrary to God's nature.
In all honesty, one must observe that in the late Middle Ages we find trends in theology which would sunder this synthesis between the Greek spirit and the Christian spirit. In contrast with the so-called intellectualism of Augustine and Thomas, there arose with Duns Scotus a voluntarism which, in its later developments, led to the claim that we can only know God's voluntas ordinata. Beyond this is the realm of God's freedom, in virtue of which he could have done the opposite of everything he has actually done.
This gives rise to positions which clearly approach those of Ibn Hazn and might even lead to the image of a capricious God, who is not even bound to truth and goodness. God's transcendence and otherness are so exalted that our reason, our sense of the true and good, are no longer an authentic mirror of God, whose deepest possibilities remain eternally unattainable and hidden behind his actual decisions.
As opposed to this, the faith of the Church has always insisted that between God and us, between his eternal Creator Spirit and our created reason there exists a real analogy, in which - as the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 stated - unlikeness remains infinitely greater than likeness, yet not to the point of abolishing analogy and its language.
God does not become more divine when we push him away from us in a sheer, impenetrable voluntarism; rather, the truly divine God is the God who has revealed himself as logos and, as logos, has acted and continues to act lovingly on our behalf. Certainly, love, as Saint Paul says, "transcends" knowledge and is thereby capable of perceiving more than thought alone (cf. Eph 3:19); nonetheless it continues to be love of the God who is Logos. Consequently, Christian worship is, again to quote Paul [text unclear] worship in harmony with the eternal Word and with our reason (cf. Rom 12:1).
This inner rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek philosophical inquiry was an event of decisive importance not only from the standpoint of the history of religions, but also from that of world history - it is an event which concerns us even today. Given this convergence, it is not surprising that Christianity, despite its origins and some significant developments in the East, finally took on its historically decisive character in Europe. We can also express this the other way around: this convergence, with the subsequent addition of the Roman heritage, created Europe and remains the foundation of what can rightly be called Europe.
The thesis that the critically purified Greek heritage forms an integral part of Christian faith has been countered by the call for a dehellenization of Christianity - a call which has more and more dominated theological discussions since the beginning of the modern age. Viewed more closely, three stages can be observed in the programme of dehellenization: although interconnected, they are clearly distinct from one another in their motivations and objectives.
Dehellenization first emerges in connection with the postulates of the Reformation in the sixteenth century. Looking at the tradition of scholastic theology, the Reformers thought they were confronted with a faith system totally conditioned by philosophy, that is to say an articulation of the faith based on an alien system of thought. As a result, faith no longer appeared as a living historical Word but as one element of an overarching philosophical system.
The principle of sola scriptura, on the other hand, sought faith in its pure, primordial form, as originally found in the biblical Word. Metaphysics appeared as a premise derived from another source, from which faith had to be liberated in order to become once more fully itself. When Kant stated that he needed to set thinking aside in order to make room for faith, he carried this programme forward with a radicalism that the Reformers could never have foreseen. He thus anchored faith exclusively in practical reason, denying it access to reality as a whole.
The liberal theology of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries ushered in a second stage in the process of dehellenization, with Adolf von Harnack as its outstanding representative. When I was a student, and in the early years of my teaching, this programme was highly influential in Catholic theology too. It took as its point of departure Pascal's distinction between the God of the philosophers and the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
In my inaugural lecture at Bonn in 1959, I tried to address the issue, and I do not intend to repeat here what I said on that occasion, but I would like to describe at least briefly what was new about this second stage of dehellenization.
Harnack's central idea was to return simply to the man Jesus and to his simple message, underneath the accretions of theology and indeed of hellenization: this simple message was seen as the culmination of the religious development of humanity. Jesus was said to have put an end to worship in favour of morality. In the end he was presented as the father of a humanitarian moral message.
Fundamentally, Harnack's goal was to bring Christianity back into harmony with modern reason, liberating it, that is to say, from seemingly philosophical and theological elements, such as faith in Christ's divinity and the triune God. In this sense, historical-critical exegesis of the New Testament, as he saw it, restored to theology its place within the university: theology, for Harnack, is something essentially historical and therefore strictly scientific.
What it is able to say critically about Jesus is, so to speak, an expression of practical reason and consequently it can take its rightful place within the university. Behind this thinking lies the modern self-limitation of reason, classically expressed in Kant's "Critiques", but in the meantime further radicalized by the impact of the natural sciences.
This modern concept of reason is based, to put it briefly, on a synthesis between Platonism (Cartesianism) and empiricism, a synthesis confirmed by the success of technology.
On the one hand it presupposes the mathematical structure of matter, its intrinsic rationality, which makes it possible to understand how matter works and use it efficiently: this basic premise is, so to speak, the Platonic element in the modern understanding of nature.
On the other hand, there is nature's capacity to be exploited for our purposes, and here only the possibility of verification or falsification through experimentation can yield ultimate certainty. The weight between the two poles can, depending on the circumstances, shift from one side to the other. As strongly positivistic a thinker as J Monod has declared himself a convinced Platonist/Cartesian.
This gives rise to two principles which are crucial for the issue we have raised. First, only the kind of certainty resulting from the interplay of mathematical and empirical elements can be considered scientific. Anything that would claim to be science must be measured against this criterion. Hence the human sciences, such as history, psychology, sociology and philosophy, attempt to conform themselves to this canon of scientificity.
A second point, which is important for our reflections, is that by its very nature this method excludes the question of God, making it appear an unscientific or pre-scientific question. Consequently, we are faced with a reduction of the radius of science and reason, one which needs to be questioned.
I will return to this problem later. In the meantime, it must be observed that from this standpoint any attempt to maintain theology's claim to be "scientific" would end up reducing Christianity to a mere fragment of its former self.
But we must say more: if science as a whole is this and this alone, then it is man himself who ends up being reduced, for the specifically human questions about our origin and destiny, the questions raised by religion and ethics, then have no place within the purview of collective reason as defined by "science", so understood, and must thus be relegated to the realm of the subjective. The subject then decides, on the basis of his experiences, what he considers tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective "conscience" becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical.
In this way, though, ethics and religion lose their power to create a community and become a completely personal matter. This is a dangerous state of affairs for humanity, as we see from the disturbing pathologies of religion and reason which necessarily erupt when reason is so reduced that questions of religion and ethics no longer concern it. Attempts to construct an ethic from the rules of evolution or from psychology and sociology, end up being simply inadequate.
Before I draw the conclusions to which all this has been leading, I must briefly refer to the third stage of dehellenization, which is now in progress. In the light of our experience with cultural pluralism, it is often said nowadays that the synthesis with Hellenism achieved in the early Church was a preliminary inculturation which ought not to be binding on other cultures.
The latter are said to have the right to return to the simple message of the New Testament prior to that inculturation, in order to inculturate it anew in their own particular milieux. This thesis is not only false; it is coarse and lacking in precision. The New Testament was written in Greek and bears the imprint of the Greek spirit, which had already come to maturity as the Old Testament developed. True, there are elements in the evolution of the early Church which do not have to be integrated into all cultures. Nonetheless, the fundamental decisions made about the relationship between faith and the use of human reason are part of the faith itself; they are developments consonant with the nature of faith itself.
And so I come to my conclusion. This attempt, painted with broad strokes, at a critique of modern reason from within has nothing to do with putting the clock back to the time before the Enlightenment and rejecting the insights of the modern age.
The positive aspects of modernity are to be acknowledged unreservedly: we are all grateful for the marvellous possibilities that it has opened up for mankind and for the progress in humanity that has been granted to us.
The scientific ethos, moreover, is - as you yourself mentioned, Magnificent Rector - the will to be obedient to the truth, and, as such, it embodies an attitude which belongs to the essential decisions of the Christian spirit.
The intention here is not one of retrenchment or negative criticism, but of broadening our concept of reason and its application. While we rejoice in the new possibilities open to humanity, we also see the dangers arising from these possibilities and we must ask ourselves how we can overcome them. We will succeed in doing so only if reason and faith come together in a new way, if we overcome the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically verifiable, and if we once more disclose its vast horizons.
In this sense theology rightly belongs in the university and within the wide-ranging dialogue of sciences, not merely as a historical discipline and one of the human sciences, but precisely as theology, as inquiry into the rationality of faith.
Only thus do we become capable of that genuine dialogue of cultures and religions so urgently needed today. In the Western world it is widely held that only positivistic reason and the forms of philosophy based on it are universally valid. Yet the world's profoundly religious cultures see this exclusion of the divine from the universality of reason as an attack on their most profound convictions.
A reason which is deaf to the divine and which relegates religion into the realm of subcultures is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures. At the same time, as I have attempted to show, modern scientific reason with its intrinsically Platonic element bears within itself a question which points beyond itself and beyond the possibilities of its methodology.
Modern scientific reason quite simply has to accept the rational structure of matter and the correspondence between our spirit and the prevailing rational structures of nature as a given, on which its methodology has to be based. Yet the question why this has to be so is a real question, and one which has to be remanded by the natural sciences to other modes and planes of thought - to philosophy and theology.
For philosophy and, albeit in a different way, for theology, listening to the great experiences and insights of the religious traditions of humanity, and those of the Christian faith in particular, is a source of knowledge, and to ignore it would be an unacceptable restriction of our listening and responding. Here I am reminded of something Socrates said to Phaedo.
In their earlier conversations, many false philosophical opinions had been raised, and so Socrates says: "It would be easily understandable if someone became so annoyed at all these false notions that for the rest of his life he despised and mocked all talk about being - but in this way he would be deprived of the truth of existence and would suffer a great loss".
The West has long been endangered by this aversion to the questions which underlie its rationality, and can only suffer great harm thereby. The courage to engage the whole breadth of reason, and not the denial of its grandeur - this is the programme with which a theology grounded in Biblical faith enters into the debates of our time. "Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos, is contrary to the nature of God", said Manuel II, according to his Christian understanding of God, in response to his Persian interlocutor.
It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. To rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university.
Following is the speech given by Pope Benedict XVI at the University of Regensburg in Germany on September 12
Your Eminences, Your Magnificences, Your Excellencies, Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen
It is a moving experience for me to be back again in the university and to be able once again to give a lecture at this podium.
I think back to those years when, after a pleasant period at the Freisinger Hochschule, I began teaching at the University of Bonn.
That was in 1959, in the days of the old university made up of ordinary professors. The various chairs had neither assistants nor secretaries, but in recompense there was much direct contact with students and in particular among the professors themselves.
We would meet before and after lessons in the rooms of the teaching staff. There was a lively exchange with historians, philosophers, philologists and, naturally, between the two theological faculties.
Once a semester there was a dies academicus, when professors from every faculty appeared before the students of the entire university, making possible a genuine experience of universitas - something that you too, Magnificent Rector, just mentioned - the experience, in other words, of the fact that despite our specializations which at times make it difficult to communicate with each other, we made up a whole, working in everything on the basis of a single rationality with its various aspects and sharing responsibility for the right use of reason - this reality became a lived experience.
The university was also very proud of its two theological faculties. It was clear that, by inquiring about the reasonableness of faith, they too carried out a work which is necessarily part of the "whole" of the universitas scientiarum, even if not everyone could share the faith which theologians seek to correlate with reason as a whole.
This profound sense of coherence within the universe of reason was not troubled, even when it was once reported that a colleague had said there was something odd about our university: it had two faculties devoted to something that did not exist: God.
That even in the face of such radical scepticism it is still necessary and reasonable to raise the question of God through the use of reason, and to do so in the context of the tradition of the Christian faith: this, within the university as a whole, was accepted without question.
I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both.
It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor.
The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur'an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between - as they were called - three "Laws" or "rules of life": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur'an.
It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point - itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole - which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason", I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.
In the seventh conversation [text unclear] edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion".
According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war.
Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached".
The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably ... is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...".
The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident.
But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry.
At this point, as far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we are faced with an unavoidable dilemma. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true?
I believe that here we can see the profound harmony between what is Greek in the best sense of the word and the biblical understanding of faith in God. Modifying the first verse of the Book of Genesis, the first verse of the whole Bible, John began the prologue of his Gospel with the words: "In the beginning was the Word".
This is the very word used by the emperor: God acts, [text unclear] with logos. Logos means both reason and word - a reason which is creative and capable of self-communication, precisely as reason. John thus spoke the final word on the biblical concept of God, and in this word all the often toilsome and tortuous threads of biblical faith find their culmination and synthesis.
In the beginning was the logos, and the logos is God, says the Evangelist. The encounter between the Biblical message and Greek thought did not happen by chance. The vision of Saint Paul, who saw the roads to Asia barred and in a dream saw a Macedonian man plead with him: "Come over to Macedonia and help us!" (cf. Acts 16:6-10) - this vision can be interpreted as a "distillation" of the intrinsic necessity of a rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek inquiry.
In point of fact, this rapprochement had been going on for some time. The mysterious name of God, revealed from the burning bush, a name which separates this God from all other divinities with their many names and simply declares "I am", already presents a challenge to the notion of myth, to which Socrates' attempt to vanquish and transcend myth stands in close analogy.
Within the Old Testament, the process which started at the burning bush came to new maturity at the time of the Exile, when the God of Israel, an Israel now deprived of its land and worship, was proclaimed as the God of heaven and earth and described in a simple formula which echoes the words uttered at the burning bush: "I am".
This new understanding of God is accompanied by a kind of enlightenment, which finds stark expression in the mockery of gods who are merely the work of human hands (cf. Ps 115). Thus, despite the bitter conflict with those Hellenistic rulers who sought to accommodate it forcibly to the customs and idolatrous cult of the Greeks, biblical faith, in the Hellenistic period, encountered the best of Greek thought at a deep level, resulting in a mutual enrichment evident especially in the later wisdom literature.
Today we know that the Greek translation of the Old Testament produced at Alexandria - the Septuagint - is more than a simple (and in that sense really less than satisfactory) translation of the Hebrew text: it is an independent textual witness and a distinct and important step in the history of revelation, one which brought about this encounter in a way that was decisive for the birth and spread of Christianity.
A profound encounter of faith and reason is taking place here, an encounter between genuine enlightenment and religion. From the very heart of Christian faith and, at the same time, the heart of Greek thought now joined to faith, Manuel II was able to say: Not to act "with logos" is contrary to God's nature.
In all honesty, one must observe that in the late Middle Ages we find trends in theology which would sunder this synthesis between the Greek spirit and the Christian spirit. In contrast with the so-called intellectualism of Augustine and Thomas, there arose with Duns Scotus a voluntarism which, in its later developments, led to the claim that we can only know God's voluntas ordinata. Beyond this is the realm of God's freedom, in virtue of which he could have done the opposite of everything he has actually done.
This gives rise to positions which clearly approach those of Ibn Hazn and might even lead to the image of a capricious God, who is not even bound to truth and goodness. God's transcendence and otherness are so exalted that our reason, our sense of the true and good, are no longer an authentic mirror of God, whose deepest possibilities remain eternally unattainable and hidden behind his actual decisions.
As opposed to this, the faith of the Church has always insisted that between God and us, between his eternal Creator Spirit and our created reason there exists a real analogy, in which - as the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 stated - unlikeness remains infinitely greater than likeness, yet not to the point of abolishing analogy and its language.
God does not become more divine when we push him away from us in a sheer, impenetrable voluntarism; rather, the truly divine God is the God who has revealed himself as logos and, as logos, has acted and continues to act lovingly on our behalf. Certainly, love, as Saint Paul says, "transcends" knowledge and is thereby capable of perceiving more than thought alone (cf. Eph 3:19); nonetheless it continues to be love of the God who is Logos. Consequently, Christian worship is, again to quote Paul [text unclear] worship in harmony with the eternal Word and with our reason (cf. Rom 12:1).
This inner rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek philosophical inquiry was an event of decisive importance not only from the standpoint of the history of religions, but also from that of world history - it is an event which concerns us even today. Given this convergence, it is not surprising that Christianity, despite its origins and some significant developments in the East, finally took on its historically decisive character in Europe. We can also express this the other way around: this convergence, with the subsequent addition of the Roman heritage, created Europe and remains the foundation of what can rightly be called Europe.
The thesis that the critically purified Greek heritage forms an integral part of Christian faith has been countered by the call for a dehellenization of Christianity - a call which has more and more dominated theological discussions since the beginning of the modern age. Viewed more closely, three stages can be observed in the programme of dehellenization: although interconnected, they are clearly distinct from one another in their motivations and objectives.
Dehellenization first emerges in connection with the postulates of the Reformation in the sixteenth century. Looking at the tradition of scholastic theology, the Reformers thought they were confronted with a faith system totally conditioned by philosophy, that is to say an articulation of the faith based on an alien system of thought. As a result, faith no longer appeared as a living historical Word but as one element of an overarching philosophical system.
The principle of sola scriptura, on the other hand, sought faith in its pure, primordial form, as originally found in the biblical Word. Metaphysics appeared as a premise derived from another source, from which faith had to be liberated in order to become once more fully itself. When Kant stated that he needed to set thinking aside in order to make room for faith, he carried this programme forward with a radicalism that the Reformers could never have foreseen. He thus anchored faith exclusively in practical reason, denying it access to reality as a whole.
The liberal theology of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries ushered in a second stage in the process of dehellenization, with Adolf von Harnack as its outstanding representative. When I was a student, and in the early years of my teaching, this programme was highly influential in Catholic theology too. It took as its point of departure Pascal's distinction between the God of the philosophers and the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
In my inaugural lecture at Bonn in 1959, I tried to address the issue, and I do not intend to repeat here what I said on that occasion, but I would like to describe at least briefly what was new about this second stage of dehellenization.
Harnack's central idea was to return simply to the man Jesus and to his simple message, underneath the accretions of theology and indeed of hellenization: this simple message was seen as the culmination of the religious development of humanity. Jesus was said to have put an end to worship in favour of morality. In the end he was presented as the father of a humanitarian moral message.
Fundamentally, Harnack's goal was to bring Christianity back into harmony with modern reason, liberating it, that is to say, from seemingly philosophical and theological elements, such as faith in Christ's divinity and the triune God. In this sense, historical-critical exegesis of the New Testament, as he saw it, restored to theology its place within the university: theology, for Harnack, is something essentially historical and therefore strictly scientific.
What it is able to say critically about Jesus is, so to speak, an expression of practical reason and consequently it can take its rightful place within the university. Behind this thinking lies the modern self-limitation of reason, classically expressed in Kant's "Critiques", but in the meantime further radicalized by the impact of the natural sciences.
This modern concept of reason is based, to put it briefly, on a synthesis between Platonism (Cartesianism) and empiricism, a synthesis confirmed by the success of technology.
On the one hand it presupposes the mathematical structure of matter, its intrinsic rationality, which makes it possible to understand how matter works and use it efficiently: this basic premise is, so to speak, the Platonic element in the modern understanding of nature.
On the other hand, there is nature's capacity to be exploited for our purposes, and here only the possibility of verification or falsification through experimentation can yield ultimate certainty. The weight between the two poles can, depending on the circumstances, shift from one side to the other. As strongly positivistic a thinker as J Monod has declared himself a convinced Platonist/Cartesian.
This gives rise to two principles which are crucial for the issue we have raised. First, only the kind of certainty resulting from the interplay of mathematical and empirical elements can be considered scientific. Anything that would claim to be science must be measured against this criterion. Hence the human sciences, such as history, psychology, sociology and philosophy, attempt to conform themselves to this canon of scientificity.
A second point, which is important for our reflections, is that by its very nature this method excludes the question of God, making it appear an unscientific or pre-scientific question. Consequently, we are faced with a reduction of the radius of science and reason, one which needs to be questioned.
I will return to this problem later. In the meantime, it must be observed that from this standpoint any attempt to maintain theology's claim to be "scientific" would end up reducing Christianity to a mere fragment of its former self.
But we must say more: if science as a whole is this and this alone, then it is man himself who ends up being reduced, for the specifically human questions about our origin and destiny, the questions raised by religion and ethics, then have no place within the purview of collective reason as defined by "science", so understood, and must thus be relegated to the realm of the subjective. The subject then decides, on the basis of his experiences, what he considers tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective "conscience" becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical.
In this way, though, ethics and religion lose their power to create a community and become a completely personal matter. This is a dangerous state of affairs for humanity, as we see from the disturbing pathologies of religion and reason which necessarily erupt when reason is so reduced that questions of religion and ethics no longer concern it. Attempts to construct an ethic from the rules of evolution or from psychology and sociology, end up being simply inadequate.
Before I draw the conclusions to which all this has been leading, I must briefly refer to the third stage of dehellenization, which is now in progress. In the light of our experience with cultural pluralism, it is often said nowadays that the synthesis with Hellenism achieved in the early Church was a preliminary inculturation which ought not to be binding on other cultures.
The latter are said to have the right to return to the simple message of the New Testament prior to that inculturation, in order to inculturate it anew in their own particular milieux. This thesis is not only false; it is coarse and lacking in precision. The New Testament was written in Greek and bears the imprint of the Greek spirit, which had already come to maturity as the Old Testament developed. True, there are elements in the evolution of the early Church which do not have to be integrated into all cultures. Nonetheless, the fundamental decisions made about the relationship between faith and the use of human reason are part of the faith itself; they are developments consonant with the nature of faith itself.
And so I come to my conclusion. This attempt, painted with broad strokes, at a critique of modern reason from within has nothing to do with putting the clock back to the time before the Enlightenment and rejecting the insights of the modern age.
The positive aspects of modernity are to be acknowledged unreservedly: we are all grateful for the marvellous possibilities that it has opened up for mankind and for the progress in humanity that has been granted to us.
The scientific ethos, moreover, is - as you yourself mentioned, Magnificent Rector - the will to be obedient to the truth, and, as such, it embodies an attitude which belongs to the essential decisions of the Christian spirit.
The intention here is not one of retrenchment or negative criticism, but of broadening our concept of reason and its application. While we rejoice in the new possibilities open to humanity, we also see the dangers arising from these possibilities and we must ask ourselves how we can overcome them. We will succeed in doing so only if reason and faith come together in a new way, if we overcome the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically verifiable, and if we once more disclose its vast horizons.
In this sense theology rightly belongs in the university and within the wide-ranging dialogue of sciences, not merely as a historical discipline and one of the human sciences, but precisely as theology, as inquiry into the rationality of faith.
Only thus do we become capable of that genuine dialogue of cultures and religions so urgently needed today. In the Western world it is widely held that only positivistic reason and the forms of philosophy based on it are universally valid. Yet the world's profoundly religious cultures see this exclusion of the divine from the universality of reason as an attack on their most profound convictions.
A reason which is deaf to the divine and which relegates religion into the realm of subcultures is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures. At the same time, as I have attempted to show, modern scientific reason with its intrinsically Platonic element bears within itself a question which points beyond itself and beyond the possibilities of its methodology.
Modern scientific reason quite simply has to accept the rational structure of matter and the correspondence between our spirit and the prevailing rational structures of nature as a given, on which its methodology has to be based. Yet the question why this has to be so is a real question, and one which has to be remanded by the natural sciences to other modes and planes of thought - to philosophy and theology.
For philosophy and, albeit in a different way, for theology, listening to the great experiences and insights of the religious traditions of humanity, and those of the Christian faith in particular, is a source of knowledge, and to ignore it would be an unacceptable restriction of our listening and responding. Here I am reminded of something Socrates said to Phaedo.
In their earlier conversations, many false philosophical opinions had been raised, and so Socrates says: "It would be easily understandable if someone became so annoyed at all these false notions that for the rest of his life he despised and mocked all talk about being - but in this way he would be deprived of the truth of existence and would suffer a great loss".
The West has long been endangered by this aversion to the questions which underlie its rationality, and can only suffer great harm thereby. The courage to engage the whole breadth of reason, and not the denial of its grandeur - this is the programme with which a theology grounded in Biblical faith enters into the debates of our time. "Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos, is contrary to the nature of God", said Manuel II, according to his Christian understanding of God, in response to his Persian interlocutor.
It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. To rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
"The Worldly Philosophers", Robert L. Heilbroner
There are times when I feel wholly inadequate to the task of considering any issue of import. Instead of a bedrock of historical lessons from Livy or a paragon from Cicero, I find myself forced to draw on less carefully considered narratives from the genre of popular fiction.
Such was the nourishment of my tepid liberal arts education. My high school years were spent studying such important works as McGraw Hill - Physics, or McGraw Hill - English Reader, or substitute any other poorly organized and uninspiring text. When we weren't being bored to death by the Reader's Digest versions of science or literature we were reading novels.
Now, in my thirties I find myself wanting to know so much more about history as understood by Machiavelli or economics as considered by Smith, Marx, and Keynes. I wish we had been required to read Darwin instead of listening to a teacher read a biology text. We should have been reading Hitler and dissecting his flawed vision for Germany under the tutelage of Marcus Aurelius, Plato, and Augustine, not only looking at pictures and learning how awful it is to attempt genocide.
If like me you long for a firmer grasp on the "classics" or worse, if you feel like there is no reason to study history for anything more than entertainment, that the lessons have all been learned, then I encourage you to read, "The Worldly Philosophers" by Heilbroner. It will assault your notion that humanity has found lasting solutions to the problems of government and production. You will find yourself in the company of careful thinkers who dared to look beyond the paradigms programmed into their beings by common consensus. You will most likely be exposed and stand naked in front of human history bereft of the comfortable armor of self-satisfied ignorance. I am.
It is a rare treat to be challenged by a book, to renew our intellectual curiosity and question those convictions we hold so deeply that we don't realize they actually possess us. I hope this book offers you such an opportunity.
Such was the nourishment of my tepid liberal arts education. My high school years were spent studying such important works as McGraw Hill - Physics, or McGraw Hill - English Reader, or substitute any other poorly organized and uninspiring text. When we weren't being bored to death by the Reader's Digest versions of science or literature we were reading novels.
Now, in my thirties I find myself wanting to know so much more about history as understood by Machiavelli or economics as considered by Smith, Marx, and Keynes. I wish we had been required to read Darwin instead of listening to a teacher read a biology text. We should have been reading Hitler and dissecting his flawed vision for Germany under the tutelage of Marcus Aurelius, Plato, and Augustine, not only looking at pictures and learning how awful it is to attempt genocide.
If like me you long for a firmer grasp on the "classics" or worse, if you feel like there is no reason to study history for anything more than entertainment, that the lessons have all been learned, then I encourage you to read, "The Worldly Philosophers" by Heilbroner. It will assault your notion that humanity has found lasting solutions to the problems of government and production. You will find yourself in the company of careful thinkers who dared to look beyond the paradigms programmed into their beings by common consensus. You will most likely be exposed and stand naked in front of human history bereft of the comfortable armor of self-satisfied ignorance. I am.
It is a rare treat to be challenged by a book, to renew our intellectual curiosity and question those convictions we hold so deeply that we don't realize they actually possess us. I hope this book offers you such an opportunity.
Monday, September 04, 2006
Santorum Clobbers Casey
It will surprise absolutely no one that knows me that I am not a big Santorum fan. I think he represents some of the worst inclinations of partisan politics and that he is a poor representative of this commonwealth's pragmatic, centrist tradition. So, I was quite dismayed to watch Santorum handily defeat Casey in the debate on Meet the Press. If it comes down to deciding who you would rather have working for you in the Senate, the answer is clearly Santorum.
Casey made some major mistakes in the debate including apparently choosing decaf that morning. He allowed the debate to center on foreign policy and war. He was unable to articulate a coherent plan on Social Security or fiscal policy in general even though he is the State Treasurer. His chief argument should have been that the Republicans have had control of the White House and the Congress for 5 years and still we have no border security, out of control spending, and a huge crisis with Social Security and Medicare looming as the boomers prepare to retire. 5 years, 3 massive issues, and nothing accomplished. Senator Santorum is at the heart of the leadership of the party that has gotten nothing of substance done in 5 years. He should be fired. They all should be fired.
So he missed his footing, but Casey also lacked vigor and passion and used obviously rehearsed, smug retorts to counter his opponent's arguments. I could forgive him his phlagmatic performance if I sensed a thoughtful and deliberate mind working behind the veil. But, I fear that like too many democrats he is uninformed about the real workings of our society.
So, I am left to chose between a man I think is competent at politics as it is practiced today and will bring dollars back to PA but with whom I disagree with on major issues or a man that but for his last name would not have been on the show.
I may go into more detail later, but for now I must rage against the choice we voters are left with this November.
Casey made some major mistakes in the debate including apparently choosing decaf that morning. He allowed the debate to center on foreign policy and war. He was unable to articulate a coherent plan on Social Security or fiscal policy in general even though he is the State Treasurer. His chief argument should have been that the Republicans have had control of the White House and the Congress for 5 years and still we have no border security, out of control spending, and a huge crisis with Social Security and Medicare looming as the boomers prepare to retire. 5 years, 3 massive issues, and nothing accomplished. Senator Santorum is at the heart of the leadership of the party that has gotten nothing of substance done in 5 years. He should be fired. They all should be fired.
So he missed his footing, but Casey also lacked vigor and passion and used obviously rehearsed, smug retorts to counter his opponent's arguments. I could forgive him his phlagmatic performance if I sensed a thoughtful and deliberate mind working behind the veil. But, I fear that like too many democrats he is uninformed about the real workings of our society.
So, I am left to chose between a man I think is competent at politics as it is practiced today and will bring dollars back to PA but with whom I disagree with on major issues or a man that but for his last name would not have been on the show.
I may go into more detail later, but for now I must rage against the choice we voters are left with this November.
Labor Day
Below is my off the cuff response to the article, "It's Labor Day, Let's Celebrate" posted on Fast Company. I hope it gets some people thinking.
In many ways we are better off than our parents. More of us are college educated. More of us own our homes. Our productivity is higher as well. The major difference is that capital and labor have changed their respective ratios in American life. As wealthy as we are, there is actually less capital per laborer if you include the populations of nations to whom we now outsource. The result of this change is that labor is less expensive than it was and capital is dearer (when compared to the number of potential investments, not in raw numbers). So, wage earners in the US will continue to watch their earning power decrease while capitalists or investors should continue to see their profits increase."What should be done?"Each of us has a responsibility to look out at the world and recognize the reality of our times. The reality now is that you must begin to derive more of your income from investments and over the course of your life rely less and less on wages."How?"Don't buy a new car. Don't buy a house beyond your reach. Don't go out to dinner as often. Cut back on luxury spending. Accumualate capital and then select good opportunities to invest in for income."But I don't want to cut back."Too bad. Our world is changing and the standard of living purchased with labor is dropping. The standard of living purchased with investing is improving. Which side of the change do you want your family to experience?If you keep relying on labor as your sole source of income, your family will soon be poor.
In many ways we are better off than our parents. More of us are college educated. More of us own our homes. Our productivity is higher as well. The major difference is that capital and labor have changed their respective ratios in American life. As wealthy as we are, there is actually less capital per laborer if you include the populations of nations to whom we now outsource. The result of this change is that labor is less expensive than it was and capital is dearer (when compared to the number of potential investments, not in raw numbers). So, wage earners in the US will continue to watch their earning power decrease while capitalists or investors should continue to see their profits increase."What should be done?"Each of us has a responsibility to look out at the world and recognize the reality of our times. The reality now is that you must begin to derive more of your income from investments and over the course of your life rely less and less on wages."How?"Don't buy a new car. Don't buy a house beyond your reach. Don't go out to dinner as often. Cut back on luxury spending. Accumualate capital and then select good opportunities to invest in for income."But I don't want to cut back."Too bad. Our world is changing and the standard of living purchased with labor is dropping. The standard of living purchased with investing is improving. Which side of the change do you want your family to experience?If you keep relying on labor as your sole source of income, your family will soon be poor.
Monday, August 14, 2006
The Return of the Muse
Weekly Musings – “The Return of the Muse”
J. Sweeney
August 14, 2006
“We have been away attending other matters. Now, we have returned.” – R. Captain
The slow wheel turns and summer will soon give way to the glories of the fall. So passes one season to the next, so passes the torch of civilization from empire to empire.
I left my Musings three years ago to focus on other matters. During that time I have been thinking of you and our society. I’ve been examining the fabric of things man made and of nature. No one knows what moves the heart to sing or the mind to churn, but I call her Muse and trust she shall return.
Some things moving from the back burner:
War on Movements
War as a Culture
The American Flaw of Individuality
An Economic Study of Sid Myers Civilization III
The Fractal Nature of Reality
Time: Discrete or Continuous
Measuring Performance: How do we know when our politicians are serving us?
Robotics, Intelligence, and the Big Change
Two Classes: Investors and Workers in a Global Market
DRIP Strategies for Creating Income Streams
Fundamental Constants and the Problem of Irrational Numbers
Information Value in Daily Items
Pervasive Connectivity: The Many Becoming One
The Byzantines, Machiavelli, and Life-Long Learning
Those are a few of the recent topics competing for processing time, and of course editing time. I’d love to hear your preferences. Drop a comment below or email me at josephsweeney@rcn.com and let me know what you’d like to think about together.
Good to be with you again,
Joe
J. Sweeney
August 14, 2006
“We have been away attending other matters. Now, we have returned.” – R. Captain
The slow wheel turns and summer will soon give way to the glories of the fall. So passes one season to the next, so passes the torch of civilization from empire to empire.
I left my Musings three years ago to focus on other matters. During that time I have been thinking of you and our society. I’ve been examining the fabric of things man made and of nature. No one knows what moves the heart to sing or the mind to churn, but I call her Muse and trust she shall return.
Some things moving from the back burner:
War on Movements
War as a Culture
The American Flaw of Individuality
An Economic Study of Sid Myers Civilization III
The Fractal Nature of Reality
Time: Discrete or Continuous
Measuring Performance: How do we know when our politicians are serving us?
Robotics, Intelligence, and the Big Change
Two Classes: Investors and Workers in a Global Market
DRIP Strategies for Creating Income Streams
Fundamental Constants and the Problem of Irrational Numbers
Information Value in Daily Items
Pervasive Connectivity: The Many Becoming One
The Byzantines, Machiavelli, and Life-Long Learning
Those are a few of the recent topics competing for processing time, and of course editing time. I’d love to hear your preferences. Drop a comment below or email me at josephsweeney@rcn.com and let me know what you’d like to think about together.
Good to be with you again,
Joe
Saturday, July 15, 2006
July 15 2006
Weekly Musings – While the US Sleeps
J. Sweeney
7/15/06
There is no question that Israel is choosing to attack rather than be attacked. But what remains open for question is whether the citizens of the United States are going to allow our nation to be pulled into a global conflict by Israel.
Israel is looking at a future with more enemy regimes in possession of advanced weapons technology. Pakistan is already a growing nuclear power. Iran is rapidly developing delivery systems including underwater missile technology designed to push out the perimeter of allied aircraft coverage. Combined with angry rhetoric, continued support of Islamic terrorists, and an aggressive nuclear program, Iran is quickly becoming a regional power that poses a grave and gathering threat to Israel.
Now, Israel’s staunchest ally, the United States of America, is struggling through domestic political positioning to decide when our troops will leave the region. We are contemplating pulling out just as their future becomes less secure.
So, now is the time for Israel to act. It must pull the regional powers into a conflict that will accomplish the following goals.
First the immediate downgrade of terrorist networks and their military infrastructures. Second Israel must significantly degrade any WMD program sponsored by opposing regimes, particularly those of Iran and Syria. Third and most importantly for readers of this Musing, Israel must keep a significant United States presence in the region.
Israel now has a vested interest in keeping our fellow citizens in the region as allied combatants. We are an extremely effective second army for Israel and they cannot afford to let us leave before they have marginally diminished the opposing forces.
Israel’s strategy is understandable and perhaps even necessary given their position and likely future challenges. It is known to our national security and intelligence communities yet somehow the American people are not being informed of the strategy.
It is time to consider whether you are willing to fight for the survival of Israel.
Because, we’re about to…
J. Sweeney
7/15/06
There is no question that Israel is choosing to attack rather than be attacked. But what remains open for question is whether the citizens of the United States are going to allow our nation to be pulled into a global conflict by Israel.
Israel is looking at a future with more enemy regimes in possession of advanced weapons technology. Pakistan is already a growing nuclear power. Iran is rapidly developing delivery systems including underwater missile technology designed to push out the perimeter of allied aircraft coverage. Combined with angry rhetoric, continued support of Islamic terrorists, and an aggressive nuclear program, Iran is quickly becoming a regional power that poses a grave and gathering threat to Israel.
Now, Israel’s staunchest ally, the United States of America, is struggling through domestic political positioning to decide when our troops will leave the region. We are contemplating pulling out just as their future becomes less secure.
So, now is the time for Israel to act. It must pull the regional powers into a conflict that will accomplish the following goals.
First the immediate downgrade of terrorist networks and their military infrastructures. Second Israel must significantly degrade any WMD program sponsored by opposing regimes, particularly those of Iran and Syria. Third and most importantly for readers of this Musing, Israel must keep a significant United States presence in the region.
Israel now has a vested interest in keeping our fellow citizens in the region as allied combatants. We are an extremely effective second army for Israel and they cannot afford to let us leave before they have marginally diminished the opposing forces.
Israel’s strategy is understandable and perhaps even necessary given their position and likely future challenges. It is known to our national security and intelligence communities yet somehow the American people are not being informed of the strategy.
It is time to consider whether you are willing to fight for the survival of Israel.
Because, we’re about to…
Friday, June 02, 2006
Letter to Senator Specter
Dear Senator Specter,
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is unfortunately correct when he reasons that a nation with nuclear weapons is safer from foreign military intervention than one without weapons. He needs only to examine our economic approach to North Korea as compared to our choice of war with Iraq. While it may be true that war with Iraq was conducted as a last resort, it is reasonable for someone not familiar with our internal workings to draw the alternative conclusion that the United States perceived a war with Iraq as preferable to drawn-out and less enforceable economic pressure. Given our recent shift in policy toward pre-emptive war and our branding of three particular nations as constituting an "axis of evil", would it be just for any leader of one of those nations to choose any path but that which seemed most likely to ensure the safety of their people from western agression?
We are a proud society with a history of several hundred years of self-determination. Is it possible that our success has blinded us to the pride and history of other nations? Is it possible that our policy of denying nuclear weapons as reasonable tools for the deterent power other sovreign nations seek is hypocritical given our singular history as the only country to deploy such awful weapons?
It is conceivable that we may yet coerce or force Iran to forego nuclear ambitions. It is also possible that our arrogant and even hypocritical posture in the world is the very cause of our national insecurity. We could choose to lead by promoting an international program of weapons maintenance and command and control safeguards. We could lead other nations to a greater sense of security and thereby difuse tensions that naturally build as we trade resources. I strongly encourage the Senate and you, our best representative in that august body, to deny the Administration the path of violence. Let us find a way to lead the people of the world toward self-determination by way of tolerant example. Let us find a voice of prudence and wisdom so that our time of leadership is remembered as a time of peace and prosperity.
One day we will not be the hyper-power. How our children and grandchildren are treated in those days to come is completely dependent on how well we serve and lead the nations of the world now in our time of power.
Thank you for your time and continued service,
Joe Sweeney
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is unfortunately correct when he reasons that a nation with nuclear weapons is safer from foreign military intervention than one without weapons. He needs only to examine our economic approach to North Korea as compared to our choice of war with Iraq. While it may be true that war with Iraq was conducted as a last resort, it is reasonable for someone not familiar with our internal workings to draw the alternative conclusion that the United States perceived a war with Iraq as preferable to drawn-out and less enforceable economic pressure. Given our recent shift in policy toward pre-emptive war and our branding of three particular nations as constituting an "axis of evil", would it be just for any leader of one of those nations to choose any path but that which seemed most likely to ensure the safety of their people from western agression?
We are a proud society with a history of several hundred years of self-determination. Is it possible that our success has blinded us to the pride and history of other nations? Is it possible that our policy of denying nuclear weapons as reasonable tools for the deterent power other sovreign nations seek is hypocritical given our singular history as the only country to deploy such awful weapons?
It is conceivable that we may yet coerce or force Iran to forego nuclear ambitions. It is also possible that our arrogant and even hypocritical posture in the world is the very cause of our national insecurity. We could choose to lead by promoting an international program of weapons maintenance and command and control safeguards. We could lead other nations to a greater sense of security and thereby difuse tensions that naturally build as we trade resources. I strongly encourage the Senate and you, our best representative in that august body, to deny the Administration the path of violence. Let us find a way to lead the people of the world toward self-determination by way of tolerant example. Let us find a voice of prudence and wisdom so that our time of leadership is remembered as a time of peace and prosperity.
One day we will not be the hyper-power. How our children and grandchildren are treated in those days to come is completely dependent on how well we serve and lead the nations of the world now in our time of power.
Thank you for your time and continued service,
Joe Sweeney
Thursday, April 06, 2006
DPR 100 - Create a Blog
Welcome to www.weeklymusings.blogspot.com or "WeeklyMusings" as I call it. Please feel free to browse the older essays on this page.
Tonight in class we will each be creating our very own Blog.
What is a blog? Great question. Usually described as a web log, they are often used for recording the daily activities of their authors. However, blogs can be used for more than simply online diaries.
You can create a blog for any kind of content. Maybe you'd like to keep your local community, church, or organization informed about upcoming events. Perhaps you'd like to publish a list of your favorite recipes and share them with others.
Do you have a hobby or a band? Do you want to share your experiences on a vacation or an extended stay in a foriegn country? You can create a blog and thereby a web presence of your own for any of these and so many more topics.
What's more, you can even earn a little money for writing what you want. Notice the advertisements on the left column. They are placed by Google with permission of this blog's author. Each time someone clicks on one of the ads, the blog's author makes a few cents. It doesn't sound like much when you only have a couple of readers, but imagine what could happen if your site became popular.
Tonight we will work together to publish your first article on your own blog. Your homework assignment is to publish two more articles on the same blog and send the link to the instructor.
Enjoy,
Joe
Tonight in class we will each be creating our very own Blog.
What is a blog? Great question. Usually described as a web log, they are often used for recording the daily activities of their authors. However, blogs can be used for more than simply online diaries.
You can create a blog for any kind of content. Maybe you'd like to keep your local community, church, or organization informed about upcoming events. Perhaps you'd like to publish a list of your favorite recipes and share them with others.
Do you have a hobby or a band? Do you want to share your experiences on a vacation or an extended stay in a foriegn country? You can create a blog and thereby a web presence of your own for any of these and so many more topics.
What's more, you can even earn a little money for writing what you want. Notice the advertisements on the left column. They are placed by Google with permission of this blog's author. Each time someone clicks on one of the ads, the blog's author makes a few cents. It doesn't sound like much when you only have a couple of readers, but imagine what could happen if your site became popular.
Tonight we will work together to publish your first article on your own blog. Your homework assignment is to publish two more articles on the same blog and send the link to the instructor.
Enjoy,
Joe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
