They did what!?

Apparently our monetary problems are a big deal for the GOP.  Recently the GOP House Judiciary Committee (which is tasked with upholding justice in the federal court system) voted to place the motto "In God we trust" on 9000 federal buildings.  I'm not even sure the cost of this expected project (it can't be cheap), or if it will actually happen, but the fact that this body of government, dominated by "fiscally responsible" representatives would consider it and then vote on it shows how hypocritical and undeserving of our support they really our.  I'm truly embarrassed to be a Republican today.  I'm so sick of this crap.  They get elected, promise they are going to change this country, rail against the opposition party for unnecessarily spending money on their projects, and then go and do something like this.  EVERY STINKING TIME!  Republicans, be ashamed, of your representatives today.

Was America Founded as a Christian Nation? pt 1.

Well folks its finally time!  My first blog post on Was America Founded as a Christian Nation, is finally here!  I've been waiting a long time for this book, and so far it hasn't disappointed me.  This first blog post is intended as an introduction to the main ideas of the book and give you a taste of the overall tone of the book.

In the book's preface, author John Fea introduces the question "Was America founded as a Christian Nation?" He shares his experiences in dealing with this question in his academic career by illuminating a very important problem that our culture has.  We live in a culture that would rather have 30 second sound bites than sit and listen to the full story.  We look to "experts" who can grab a handful of facts and spit them at us, and we graciously and eagerly swallow them up and use them as ammunition in our next volley in the culture wars.  Dr. Fea lets his readers know that this situation only leads to more problems than solutions in our quest for truth.  Dr. Fea then highlights a very important point one needs to consider while dealing with this problem.  A key piece of this origin problem lies in our failure to define our terms.  Dr. Fea shows the complexity of this point by listing three definitions for the word "Christian."  In our search, are we to think of the word Christian as orthodox doctrine?  He writes, "Such an approach would require us to examine either the nation's founding documents or the religious beliefs of the founders to see if those beliefs measure up to the standards of Christian orthodoxy as found in ancient formulations of faiths such as the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene Creed."  Or should we look at Christian through the lens of orthopraxy?  Should we look at the behavior and practices of the founders to see if they lined up with Christian values and teachings found in the Bible.  How about a third option? When looking at the question of a Christian Nation, should we examine the character and devotion of the people who make up that nation?  Do you see where the problems arise?  With just one word in our question, we are presented with three more questions.  Dr. Fea looks at some of the other words next.  When we say founded what do we mean?  Are we talking about the year 1776 when the Declaration of Independence was drafted and signed?  Or how about 1787, when the Constitutional Convention drafted the Constitution?  At what point did we become a nation?  All of these questions that Dr. Fea poses to his readers hopefully sheds some light on the complexity of this question, Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?  I'll leave you guys with an excerpt from the book that shows Dr. Fea's intentions in writing this fascinating book.

One of my goals in writing [this book] is to get Christians to see the danger of cherry-picking from the past as a means of promoting a political or cultural agenda in the present... Over the past five years I have given several talks about Christianity and the American founding to all kinds of audiences -- both secular and Christian.  What I have found is that most ordinary people come to a talk on this topic with their minds already made up.

Stay tuned for part 2!
 

Ron Paul and his monetary theories come in from the cold in Congress

With the new members of both the House and the Senate being sworn in today, I thought it appropriate to post a news article from Monday December 13th found in the St. Paul Pioneer Press.  It appears that some are finally warming up to the views of Rep. Ron Paul.  Enjoy!

WASHINGTON -- As virtually all of Washington was declaring WikiLeaks' disclosures of secret diplomatic cables an act of treason, Rep. Ron Paul was applauding the organization for exposing the United States' "delusional foreign policy."  For this, the conservative blog RedState dubbed him 'al-Qaeda's favorite member of Congress."  It was hardly the first time that Paul had marched to his own beat.  During his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, he was best remembered for declaring in a debate that the 9/11 attacks were the Muslim world's response to U.S. military intervention around the globe.  A fellow candidate, former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani of New York, demanded that he take back the words -- a request Paul refused.  During his 20 years in Congress, Paul has staked out the lonely end of the 434-1 votes against legislation he considers unconstitutional, even on issues as ceremonial as granting Mother Teresa a Congressional Gold Medal.  His colleagues have dubbed him "Dr. No," but his wife will insist that they have the spelling wrong: He is really Dr. Know.  Now it appears others are beginning to credit him with some wisdom -- or at least to acknowledge his following.  After years of blocking him from a leadership position, Paul's fellow Republicans have named him chairman of the House subcommittee on domestic monetary policy, which oversees the Federal Reserve as well as the valuation of the dollar.  Paul has written a book called "End the Fed"; he embraces Austrian economic thought, which holds that the government has no role in regulating the economy.  He wants to return to the gold standard.  Many of the new Republicans in the next congress campaigned on precisely the issues Paul has been talking about for 40 years: forbidding Congress from any action not explicitly authorized in the Constitution, eliminating entire federal departments as unconstitutional and checking the power of the Fed.  He has been called the "intellectual grandfather of the Tea Party," but he also is the real father of the "tea party" movement's most high-profile winner, Sen. -elect Rand Paul of Kentucky. (The two will be roommates in Ron Paul's Virginia condominium, "I told him as long as he didn't expect me to cook," the elder Paul said.  "I'm not going to take care of him the way his mother did.")  Republicans had blocked Paul from leading the monetary policy panel once before, and banking executives had reportedly urged them to do so again.  But Republicans on Capitol Hill increasingly recognize that Paul has a following -- among his supporters from 2008 and within the Tea Party, which helped the Republicans recapture the House majority by picking up Paul's longstanding and highly vocal opposition to the federal debt. Television interviewers now use words like "vindicated" to describe him -- a term that Paul, a 75-year-old obstetrician with the manner of a country doctor, brushes off.  If there is vindication, Paul says, it is for Austrian economic theory -- an anti-Keynesian model that many economists dismiss as magical thinking.  [Austrian Theory] argues that markets operate properly only when they are unfettered by government regulation.  It holds that the government should not have a central bank or dictate economic or monetary policy.  Once the government begins any economic planning, such thinking goes, it ends up making all the economic decisions for its citizens, essentially enslaving them. [end article].

This turn around in Rep. Paul's portrayal in the media is not really surprising to me.  Republicans never accept an unpopular message like entitlement slashing, or military reduction, until they have lost their seat of power.  Then, when they have a common enemy to rally against, they all become liberty - minded, and anti - government, forgetting that their policies were just as conducive to the problem as those "darn liberals".  With the new congress sworn in today, I would dare to dream that this time it will be different, but frankly, I'm sick of disappointment.  

What's the point of a University?

Great blog from Insider Higher Ed was featured today.  Here is a little taste:

So then what is the point of a course in higher education? More generally, what is the purpose of higher education? Are we to educate or are we to socialize and sermonize? Do we build knowledge or provide practical, hard skills for students to use in work and play? I thought I knew. Now, I'm not so sure. At least, I am beginning to understand the disconnect I feel sometimes between myself and my students. We are here, in the university, for very, very different purposes.


Here is the full article if you are interested.


http://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/university_of_venus/what_is_a_course_in_higher_ed


Now that I have graduated from College, I find myself looking back at my education over the years.  What has it been about?  Have my educational endeavors crafted me into the sort of human that I want to be?  Has my pursuit of the Liberal Arts contributed to my understanding of what Aristotle terms "the good life"?  Was Northwestern College successful in instilling into me a greater appreciation of the humanities.  I believe so.  Now that it's over, I don't find myself relieved or looking forward to putting my major to use.  I know that sounds insane, but I look at it as proof that the University system did not fail me.  I haven't graduated with thousands of dollars of debt with only a skill set that will become obsolete within a few years without continued training.  Instead, I have graduated with a greater understanding of what it means to be human.  I am sad about leaving college.  For me, college was not boring classes with tests that did not matter.  College was about developing critical thinking skills, joining a conversation about ideas and beliefs that have guided humanity throughout the centuries, contributing to my understanding of the world in which I live.  Sure, I may not have a specific job that my major prepared me for, but if I wanted that, I would have gone to a tech school or some other type of schooling.  And that is the question the blog post from Inside Higher Ed raises, if the point of the University is not supposed to be about job training, what is it supposed to be about.  Fortunately, the author doesn't provide you an answer.  Instead the author requires you to think and engage with the question.  Are you up to the task?  Or has your 4+ years of undergraduate schooling rendered critical thinking a foreign concept?

Rich School, Party School

Inside Higher Ed hosts a number of great blogs each day, and unfortunately it has taken until now for me to discover them!  One post that I want to feature today was written by an author lamenting the state of Universities today.  In this post this English professor reviews a new book by Craig Brandon:  


The Five-Year Party: How Colleges Have Given Up On Educating Your Child and What You Can Do About It


This book sounds really interesting.  I probably won't be surprised with anything the author has to say, who among us doesn't know that a lot of schools are simply 5 years of bars, brawls, and babes. Oh alliteration, how I love thee.  Hopefully my readers attended a school where they learned something and know what alliteration is ;) 


This article just reinforces my disgust with American culture. The American university has become one giant party with minimal to no learning going on.  We'd rather engage in drunken frivolity and watch Jersey shore, instead of engage in a world that is desperate for competent and ethical leadership.  Here's my favorite quote from the article:


Rich people, as you learned when you read The Great Gatsby (unless you went to a party school and didn't read it), tend to be irresponsible.


Just to clarify, the author in the preceding sentence described the entire American culture as Rich.  So its not just the "rich" college students, it's also middle class and lower class who are partying all the time.  Rich kids just do it with better style.


Anyways if you want to read the whole post you can find it here:


http://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/university_diaries/party_on

I'm still here...

Guys I'm still here, a lot of changes are coming up. Promise. Please don't stop checking! I've got a lot of big ideas in my head, I just have to sit down and figure them out!

The right to dissent

The Star Tribune had an interesting and frankly enlightening op ed that they ran last Friday. Apparently a group of MN Catholic Bishops are mailing a DVD that outlines their opposition to same - sex marriage to 400,000 people. The fact that the Church is sending out this mailer isn't enlightening, but the response of the Star Tribunes editorial board caused my heart to soar.

The Tribune editors came out in opposition to the position of the Catholic Church. Instead of using their space to further denigrate an already wounded institution such as the Church, they wrote in support of the Church's right to mail out their DVDs. Citing free speech as a principle that this country cannot live without, The Tribune staff called upon those who advocate the Church should lose its tax - exempt status to re think their position. It brought me a moment of happiness to realize that some people still understand the wise saying:

"I may disagree with everything you say, but I will defend to the death, your right to say it".

Here is the link to the online article.

(warning - The online article is longer than the one in print, the article does go on to show how the church may be wrong on the issue)