Unnamed poem

One day, there was a man named Jon,
who worked at the BSU.

Some people liked him,
but he thought himself too cool.

He forgot he was a white guy,
w/ his Christian rap & hip iPod.

So they made him look in a mirror,
& he saw himself for what he was - rather odd.


by Noelle Ott '08

Relativism? Give me a break already!

There's so much more to say. I hate to even post this because it seems so shallow, so uncritical. It ignores important arguments to draw light to certain issues, and I hate that, but what can I do. I'd write a book, but within the context of this issue, there's not much to be said. It just needs said louder...

Moral relativism is a concept I've been wrestling with since I was in high school, over 20 years ago. And I'm just dumbfounded that it still exists. "True for you, but not for me," should've died out a long time ago. Given it's porous philosophical underpinnings, I can only attribute it's longevity and current popularity to the desire of man to ignore God and justify sin. Its impressive failure as a viable worldview should've sent it the way of dinosaurs and 8-track tapes, but it clings tenaciously on, as hip as ever, even if it does have the intellectual appeal of the emperor's new clothes. Its like the bacteria of the philosophical world; ubiquitous, often annoying, and unevolved.

What explains this unexpected stamina? I think it must be the sin nature of man. Because man is basically selfish, or evil, he desires above all else to serve himself. Anyone who's ever watched a baby sleep might argue, but everyone who's ever had a child knows this to be true. Babies are pre-programmed to get what they want, and they usually do. Nothing against children here, after all, I have three of my own whom I adore, but they are all undeniably selfish at heart. They have to be taught to share, serve and be considerate of others. It doesn't come naturally.

Altruism, which undeniably exists in human culture is an issue of conscience. C.S. Lewis called it the voice of God. But conscience dictates what we ought to do, not what we actually do. In this sense, conscience represents an understanding of Truth that exists apart from ourselves. Adam Smith called it an "impartial spectator." Whatever we might call it, it is the driving force behind that truth we each call 'morality.' Now, morality might be different from person to person and culture to culture, but it exists universally in the human condition. We are ALL moral people, even if those morals might put us at odds with one another. Some people might be immoral, but no one is amoral.

oops, I digress...

My point is that relativism, which is just, philosophically speaking, pooh, bunk, brain plaque that survives because we are all pre-programmed to fulfill our own desires (regardless of conscience) and relativism gives us the framework to do that. It makes it okay for me to do whatever I want because whatever I want is right for me. Relativism says that its okay for me to cheat on my wife because if that's what I feel is right, then it is right. Never mind the messy painful (for her)divorce, the psychological damage to the children, the awkward uncomfortable plight of friends. If I want to have an affair, its okay because its what I want. Relativism is the supreme elevation of the I within the philosophical moral framework. You are ultimately irrelevant. So if, for instance, I want to start bashing gays, or promote slavery, or forsake preserving the planet for future generations, you shouldn't have a problem with it. After all, as a moral relativist, you can't in good conscience impose your beliefs on me.

"But what about tolerance?!" you might cry. Tolerance is only a virtue if it exists outside the relativist framework. For that matter, the same can be said of diversity. The moment you start blathering on about tolerance, you refute your relativist position, you forsake your own moral high ground, hoping to have it back when non-relativist truth is imposed. But rationally you've lost. Like a spaghetti strainer, your worldview holds no water. Sorry.

The Truth is that relativism is a shallow excuse for people who want to thoughtlessly pursue their own selfish agenda without consequence. It is the philosophical low road. That university professors or their students embrace such claptrap remains unconscionable, not even worthy of the oft misabused title of Dogma.

Deep thoughts, with Jon Smith.

I recently came across this quote that in my own experience as a student at a secular school in the Northwest during the 1990's, and as one who works closely with many students who attend a secular school in the Midwest today, rings quite true:

"Indeed, parents who send their children to college should recognize that as professors 'we are going to to right on trying to discredit you in the eyes of your children, trying to strip your fundamentalist religious community of dignity, trying to make your views seem silly rather than discussable.'"

The quote is from Dinesh D'Souza's book, What's So Great About Christianity, and illustrates how religion in general and Christianity in specific is viewed in the majority of the academic community. What D'Souza (a devout and very conservative Catholic) points out is that there is an organized movement afoot to discredit faith as an option in the public square. College students are taught not that their beliefs are debatable, but that they are laughable. Unable to win a fair fight with religion in the academic arena, atheists (humanists/materialists/etc.) have deemed it prudent to instead attempt to marginalize believers of all faiths by terming their views silly, antiquated and ignorant. Incapable of winning the debate on religion these "brights" (a term they invented for themselves, but now try to avoid, realizing belatedly that arrogance doesn't sell) use the bully pulpit of the college classroom to teach their students that faith is not worth discussing because only a fool would engage in such an exercise. They want desperately to convince the world that, "The Cosmos is all there is or ever was or ever will be." (Carl Sagan)

Why am I posting about this? I post it as a warning in the hope that maybe, just maybe, a light will come on and someone will realize that they are being systematically manipulated by people who want nothing more than to eliminate religion from the world stage. More than anything these 'brights' long for the day when students are too afraid or too ashamed to speak of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and they are happy to use their position as educators to accomplish the task. And the sad fact is that all too often students are willing to comply. Willing because the humanities professor has a Ph. D. and they don't. (Maybe now would be a good time to point out that there are plenty of Ph. D.'s on the other side as well. They just don't tend to get hired by liberal state schools.) Willing because their grade is somewhat dependent on their ability to appease their prof. Willing because they are scared of losing an argument, or being embarrassed or getting labelled by their peers. I remember being afraid to speak up because if I did, and I was somehow beaten, it would be like failing God. Better just to keep quiet...

But, the dirty secret is that Daniel Dennet, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and their sycophants are desperate. They are desperate because they are losing. Losing to truth, losing to logic, losing to common sense, and losing to reality. They're like the emperor who's new clothes are a bit drafty. They need to deny the reality of their intellectual nudity in order to save face. And the louder they wail and moan, the more obvious it becomes that they have nothing truly threatening to say. Their best arguments are tired and beaten. All they can really hope is that the students they want to influence are too ignorant or lazy to fight back.

Politcs. I hate politics.

You know, I was going to write something about the war in Iraq, or maybe politics, or how amazing it is that most people believe they have half a clue about either when, in fact, they don't, but I think now that I won't. I mean, just because you watch a little CNN or read a few newspaper articles, trolled the internet or caught some professorial tirade in a humanities class, or if you've done all of the above, it doesn't mean you know what you're talking about. And I know I'm in that category, so why bother expressing an opinion tainted by ignorance (free of the burden of knowledge, untainted by intelligence)? I mean, after all, whether you're a Republican or a Democrat or a Greenie, is pretty irrelevant to the war in Iraq. Only a dolt would believe that anyone really supports the war anymore. I mean, we ALL "support the troops," and we all want them to come home, so we agree on that. And I'm pretty sure that everyone with an I.Q. higher than your average fence post understands that we can't just pull everyone out and expect a better world, so we all pretty much agree on that. All we're really arguing about is what the criteria are for a stable Iraq. I mean, no one with an ounce of intelligence is going to pull troops until that objective is reached. The annoying thing is that you never really hear people talking about what a stable Iraq looks like... Shame on us all for ignoring the one issue we really ought to be discussing.

Meanwhile, we've got this real doozy of a presidential election coming up and I'm so excited I just might not vote. On one hand you've got John McCain, one of the most left-leaning Republicans out there, and on the other hand the only two democrats in the country that could actually lose. Seriously, if you'd told me a year ago that the Democrats might lose the election, I'd have laughed in our ignorant face. Today, that ignorance looks a lot like prophesy. Hillary Clinton may be the most hated woman in America, and the most loved. But people will vote for anyone to keep her from the Whitehouse. And the thought of having Bill Clinton for First Husband... scary. But the other option, Barrack Hussein Obama, isn't any better. Yes, he's wildly popular with people who don't listen very carefully to what he's saying, but he's getting shredded by pundits even before he gets the party nomination, and the gloves haven't even come off yet. He calls himself Christian, but his version of Jesus is skewed far from what most evangelicals believe and his pastor has already offended pretty much all of America. He connects well with his message of hope, but has no actual ability to deliver on his promises. And he a black man with the middle name of Hussein. Don't think that will be ignored. (It should be ignored, but let's be honest, if everything Democrats say about America is true--we have problems with religion and racism--it won't be.) So we've got the three lamest ducks anyone's seen in a long time vying for the right to become the President of the United States of America. How did it come to this?

Cancer Sucks

So today I found out that my mother has breast cancer. We don't know exactly what that means yet, but everyone is trying to stay positive because it was caught very early. Inside, however, it is as if a sledgehammer just collide with my soul. I can't really even talk about it without choking up. Mandi asked me when I got home from work if I was doing okay. I told her that other than swallowing hard to avoid crying every thirty seconds, I'm fine. Yeah, it's scary. I mean, she's my mother. I love her as much as I love anyone. The idea that I might lose her to cancer is a crushing weight.

Still, there is hope. When I first heard the news I was reading my Bible. The next verse I read after the call: 1 Samuel 2:9, which starts out, "He will protect his godly ones..." It was as if the hammer of God had struck back. I nearly wept on the spot. What does it mean? Perhaps nothing. Perhaps everything. But I have a hard time considering it a coincidence. The more time I spend with the Lord, the more such coincidences line up.

If you happen to think of it, I'd appreciate it if you'd say a prayer for Jacquelyn Smith, one of His godly ones...

Transformation

10 Ways I am transforming the world:

1. I give money to good causes, of which the church is one.
2. I recycle aluminum.
3. I vote.
4. I boycott certain foods/businesses/industries.
5. I write letters to the editor of my local newspaper.
6. I pray to a God who can do ANYTHING.
7. I carpool, when I can.
8. I help organize community outreach programs, like blood drives.
9. I inform my government representatives of my opinions on key issues they can effect.
10. I treat other people with respect.

SO,
What are YOU doing?

Why churches suck at reaching students

It is no secret that one of the greatest challenges in campus ministry is getting students to connect with local churches. It is a never-ending battle that has become increasingly difficult as they witness the relentless infighting, back-biting, political wrangling and moral game-playing that takes place in every denomination and most churches. And although a big part of that is ignorance and immaturity on their part, part of it is also ignorance and immaturity on the part of the church. The sooner we own up to that fact, the sooner students are likely to embrace the church. Right or wrong, students sense that churches are in competition with one another, and too busy taking care of their own, in between doctrinal shouting matches, to reach out to the world. And since every student, given the opportunity, wants to change the world, we have a problem with connection. Frankly, one of the most attractive qualities in a local congregation is community outreach. Apart from that, don't expect to see many students on Sunday morning.

Movie Day

So yesterday was a 3 movie day. I am so ashamed. We watched Horton Hears a Who, Surf's Up, and I Am Legend. Of the three, Legend was the worst by far. It was disappointing on more levels than I can easily share, or care to. Horton Hears a Who, on the other hand was pretty good. Not only was it somewhat entertaining, it had some pretty decent theological implications that I was glad my kids got to hear. The whole thing revolves around the idea that Horton the Elephant is in contact with people he can't see because his ears are so big. Soon, the rest of the jungle shuns him, led by a vicious kangaroo who boldly (and errantly) claims that if you can't see it, hear it, or feel it, it doesn't exist. Horton is labeled a dissident and the fun begins. The kangaroo will go to any length to rid Horton of the clover on which his invisible friends rest, including violence.

How like our own society. How like the atheist movement. It was uplifting to know that my children were there to witness on screen how easy it is to persecute someone who might not fit in exactly with the culture even though that person is totally justified in their beliefs and actions. Horton took a stand for what he believed, facing down even an angry mob because he knew he was right. How noble. How integritous. (I think I just invented a word there.)

The truth is that Horton's belief in his invisible friends, who had proven beyond reasonably doubt their existence to him, was the metaphorical equivalent to my own belief in Jesus Christ. He has proven to me thousands of times over that He is not only there and real, but Lord and God. That many others don't agree is a shame, but it doesn't make me wrong to believe as I do. The Flying Toaster and Spaghetti Monster crowd can shout and rant and rave all they want, they only look increasingly silly, ignorant and desperate for doing so. They can persecute the truth all they want, but they can't change it.

On the opposite side of Horton's dilemna is the mayor of Whoville, himself beset by weak-minded fools who impugn his reputation and resort to name-calling to prove their position. Again, the resemblance to most neo-darwinists I've encountered is uncanny. Yes, there exists an informed minority in the humanist/materialist/atheist crowd who are willing to politely engage in reasonable debate, but they are just that, a minority. Most of them fare no better than Seuss's kangaroo.