Most people in this country don’t understand the economy and see Wall Street as an amorphous body that is somehow the economy. Therefore: Occupy Wall Street. I think a certain percentage of Ron Paul supporters are the same way with the Federal Reserve, though I think the majority really do understand the problem.

Now I don’t know all of the details of this bill, but I don’t think I need to. Whatever the particulars of such a measures are, they all boil down to the same basic issue: using federal authority to stop the exchange of copyrighted material for no cost and without the consent of the original publisher. I’m aware that copyright law does exist, and I’m also certain that a deep read of the act would simply involve nothing more than a specification for new authority and powers given to the Executive branch for the purpose of enforcement of the existing law. I highly doubt that any new laws are being defined here. But even given these factors, H.R. 3261 cannot but have four basic, fundamental flaws that preclude it from being a legitimate use of Federal power.

1. Free Speech

The fundamental principal on which this country was founded is that individuals have rights that ought never to be infringed. Read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States and this philosophy is pervasive. The highest abiding principal of the founders was that the worst thing a government could possibly do would be to deprive their citizens of freedom.

In order to frame this country in such a way as to uphold this maxim, the founder gave us the Bill of Rights which define specific freedoms they believed important to protect. The very First Amendment laid out the freedom of speech. No people can be considered free if they do not have freedom of speech. Unfortunately, SOPA cannot do anything but violate free speech.

The reason for this is simple. I will take, for the sake of argument, the position that online piracy is legitimately a crime and should be stopped. Nevertheless, it is impossible for an act to accurately define what is piracy and what is legitimate free speech. The Volstead Act during Prohibition had this same problem. It was intended to enforce the 18th Amendment – Prohibition. Unfortunately it was a disastrous law. Instead of laying down the proper parameters for enforcing prohibition and successfully stopping the trade of alcohol, its overly strict and Pharisaical definitions cause legitimate substances, such as certain medicines, to be banned, while leaving gaping loopholes through which the Al Capones of the world drove their distribution trucks. If the Federal Government cannot accurately and clearly define what is and what is not legitimate in terms of alcoholic beverages, how can it hope to accurately and clearly define the much more amorphous domain of Internet communication.

If SOPA is implemented, no matter how it is enforced and no matter what definitions are applied, I guarantee two things will happen. First, there will be massive loopholes that will be exploited for the sake of continuing to distribute pirated material in a technically legal way. The second is far worse, however. In the name of enforcing SOPA, the government will stop, prevent, and prosecute legitimate uses of free speech, destroying a fundamental right of its people on the largest, freest and most successful medium ever to allow people to speak freely.

This nation is so clearly founded on the principal of individual rights that we have such provisions as due process written into our legal code. Every accused gets a trial by a jury of his peers. Every accused is considered innocent until proven guilty. Every accused cannot be convicted except when there is no reasonable doubt and such verdict is unanimous. Every convicted is granted the right to appeal. Why? Because in the United States of America, our commitment to individual freedoms and rights is so great that we would rather let a killer go free than to incarcerate or execute an innocent. The former is bad, but he latter is unconscionable!

SOPA, on the other hand, is simply the next example of a disturbing trend that has been developing over the last ten years. It follows the example of the Patriot Act and of the TSA in espousing the exact opposite philosophy to our founders. The government now apparently believes that it is so important to catch the criminals that it is worth the injustice of a few innocents getting caught up as well. These are the policies of despots!

2. The Audacity of SOP(A)

Ron Paul continues to rail against the policies of the US government considering themselves to be the policemen of the world. Usually he talks like this with specific regard to our military actions in the middle east. However, SOPA presents another angle on which this is true.

The Audacity of this government to think they have the right and authority to police the world’s Internet! What right does the US government have to tell people in Sweden what they can and cannot do on the web. The US government may have started the Internet, but it does not own it any longer. The Internet belongs to nobody and everybody. The US government has no right to police the web. Yet they continue to believe themselves the arbiter of all human behavior. This is all I will say on this point.

3. Egregious Misunderstanding of Human Nature

The infringement upon free speech may be the biggest philosophical problem with this law when it comes to justice. But there is also a pragmatic problem when it comes to enforcement. For the same reason that SOPA would unintentionally squelch legitimate uses of free speech, it will unintentionally leave loopholes through which pirates will evade the law. The fact that the government doesn’t get this is no surprise at all. The government seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature.

Have you ever wondered why people always overthrow oppressive governments? We hate being told what to do! By and large we want to be left alone to do what we want. This has a good side and a bad side. The good side is that responsible people will take care of themselves, their families and their neighbors without the need of the government to intervene, mandate it or regulate it. The bad side is that no matter what laws are in place, people are going to do what they want to do. People will get what they want, and no law or regulation will stop them. Outlaw something and it will simply be traded on the black market.

Don’t believe me? Let’s look at history! The drug war is a classic example. In the 1970′s the US declared war on drugs. 1970′s!!! It’s almost 2012 and drugs are still a problem! Why haven’t they stopped drugs yet? They’ve spent trillions of dollars on it! They’ve had public service announcements galore. Why can’t they stop the drug war? Because no matter what they do, people who want to sell or use drugs will find a way to do what they want if they want it bad enough. Put up whatever blocks you want, and people will find a way around it.

Prohibition is another classic example. They outlawed alcohol and it didn’t go away. The problem got worse. There were more people drinking during prohibition than before prohibition! And, of course, prohibition created the violence of the Al Capone gangsters on top of all of it.

This is why I fear things like gun control. People will get what they want no matter if it’s legal or not. If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. That’s a bit of a cheesy cliche, but it’s true. Yet the government seems to continue to operate under the delusion that outlawing something will make it go away.

Drugs, Prohibition, Prostitution, Child Porn. These are just a few examples of activities the government has unsuccessfully outlawed. Child Porn may be the most pertinent to our discussion of SOPA. The US Government wants to stop online piracy, and yet it has already shown a fundamental incompetence to control content online! If they try to outlaw piracy, all they will do is force The Pirate Bay down into the deep web where the true creeps of the Internet reside, but it won’t stop. If they use the same tactics they try on child porn, they can only fail. If they try more draconian measures, they may be more successful, but at the cost of trampling all the more on free speech.

4. Incorrect understanding of crime

Up until this point, I’ve maintained an assumption that piracy is a crime and should be stopped. I did this for the sake of argument. But here I’m going to take a slightly different tack and argue against the law behind this act. Any law that bans piracy is illegitimate. Why? Because piracy is not a crime!

What is crime? Crime is any act which unjustly derives another individual or group of individuals of freedom or property. I.E. Crime has a victim. Murder has a victim. Someone is killed. Theft has a victim. Someone suffers the loss of property or capital and must live without it – unless he is insured. Assault, Rape and Fraud are other examples of crimes. When each of these are committed, the criminal is unjustly depriving the victim of freedom or property. I consider health and well being to be a combination of freedom and property.

Drugs, prostitution and piracy, however, are crimes with no victim. Who is a victim of drug use? The person himself? Crime is not an act wherein you deprive yourself of freedom or property. Were that the case it would be a crime to volunteer or to give gifts. A person cannot victimize himself for he is himself.

Perhaps drugs victimizes the criminal’s employer? This is wrong because if there is any problem between the drug user and his employer, it is between them and should be handled as a matter of contract law. Perhaps the drug user victimizes his family? This too is wrong, for if there is any problem between the drug user and his family, it is a private matter between them. If using drugs causes him to commit assault or criminal negligence, then the assault and criminal negligence should be prosecuted on their own merits. The fact that he committed those crimes under the influence of drugs does not change anything. In fact, by that logic, alcohol should be illegal. Perhaps the drug dealer steals in order to support his habit, thus victimizing the one he robs? Here too, we have another crime that can be prosecuted apart from drug use that is unrelated to the drug use. This kind of problem needs not only be limited to drugs. I could steal to support a video game habit, but I don’t. If I did, I would be guilty of theft. Video games wouldn’t need to be outlawed.

I use drugs simply as an example of the kind of thinking I employ. Hopefully I’ve clearly shown my logic here. An act is not criminal unless there is a victim other than the perpetrator himself. Therefore, as I’ve demonstrated, drug use is not criminal except that the government has declared it to be. Prostitution is also not criminal. It is simply the free market exchange of services at an agreed upon price. Perhaps pimps commit crime in the peripheral of prostitution, but those crimes ought to be prosecuted on their own merits. Fundamentally this displays laziness on the part of government. They don’t want to be bothered in the nitty gritty of finding out what is and is not legitimate behavior, they’d rather outlaw the whole activity with a blanket sweep. It makes it easier. It also destroys people.

So I come back to piracy. Who is the victim of piracy? You could argue that piracy is theft against the producing entity (Record Company, Movie Studio). However, I disagree with this assessment. I do so for two reasons. First, piracy does not prevent the producer from making other sales. Second, piracy does not represent a loss of a sale.

Theft removes the property from its original place and takes it somewhere else. If I steal your TV, you no longer have a TV. However, if I go into your house and make an exact replica of your TV and take it home, leaving your TV there, what have I done wrong, besides trespassing? Pirates do not steal the original copy of materials. Neither do they steal the production equipment or instructions for making copies. Nothing done by pirates prevents the studio from making additional copies of the product and selling them at stores.

You could argue that piracy makes purchasing undesirable. If pirates put the product out there for free, why would anyone buy it from the store if they could download it online. There are a number of reasons why someone would still want to make a legitimate purchase of a copyrighted material. I’m not going to enumerate them, but all of them add up to the fact that the movie and music industries didn’t go immediately bankrupt when Napster came online and when The Pirate Bay launched. This goes to support my second sub point here. Piracy does not represent a loss of a sale. If it did, nobody would buy. In reality, those who want to buy buy. Therefore, those who are pirating are not people who were going to buy anyway.

I was involved in piracy in the Napster and Post-Napster/Pre-Itunes era when I would hear a song on the radio, decide I like it and want to buy it. The problem was at this point in history, I would have to buy the entire album in CD form to get the one song I wanted. This amounted to shelling out $17 on something, taking a risk that the rest of the CD was as good as the radio single. Why should I shell out that much when I only want one song. So I downloaded the song online. I would have bought that song if I could, but I would not have bought that CD. So at the time, the record company did not lose a sale. This is just one example scenario.

Ultimately piracy is not an attempt to steal something that would otherwise be purchased. Piracy is actually something much better and more important. Piracy is the consumer market telling the producer that we don’t value the product at the price they are demanding. This is a signal that the industry should listen to. They should respond by doing two things. 1) Work to reduce cost and price. 2) Embrace digital markets and smaller units.

This is a war that Cable TV is currently fighting with the Internet. Hulu, Netflix, EZTV and other outlets have made it increasingly easy to cut the cable ties. What Cable needs to hear is that people are no longer interested in paying large lump sumps every month for 300 channels when they’re probably only going to watch 4. Currently cable is structured in such a way that to get those four, you have to buy the 2nd or 3rd tier package just to get the programming you want. So they can advertise a super low price, but it’s not for the content you want.

Every year during football season I get the itch to order cable so I can have the Big Ten Network and ESPN, but for the rest of the year, I don’t care. I wouldn’t watch cable for 7 months out of the year, and when I would watch it, it would only be about 5 channels. I can’t justify paying for 300 channels all year when I’d only watch 5 channels for 5 months. I don’t value the product at that price. I value it at a much lower price. So I’m content to go without, getting what content I can online and going to bars if I need to in order to not have to pay the exorbitant price and wait until Cable finally gets the message and offers some sort of a la carte options.

Piracy is the same way. Fortunately, the music, movie and book industries are slowly getting it. iTunes, Amazon Marketplace, Netflix and the Kindle are just a few examples of the ways that the free market is starting to take care of this piracy issue. Piracy is hardly tempting anymore. Want to watch a movie but don’t want to buy the DVD? No problem, watch it on Netflix Instant, or wait a week for the DVD. Want just one song and don’t want to have to buy a whole CD? Just download the individual song from iTunes or the Amazon MP3 store. It’s that easy!

The more these types of retail outlets develop, the more legitimate customers who are willing to pay the price for the unpirated product will be able to do so at a price that accurately reflects their value for the product and in a way that is convenient for them. Then the only people engaging in piracy will be the reprobate thiefs who would be the ones to go darknet if SOPA passes anyway. You can’t do anything about them.

Conclusion

So in the end, I hope that I have demonstrated that the US Government’s attempt to stop online piracy is a misguided and doomed attempt to fix something that isn’t broken at the cost of violating its own commitments of freedom to its people and extending that violation to the world.

This really falls into the category of “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin.” However, since the underlying implication seems to be that the existence of alien life is somehow inconsistent with Scripture, I figured I’d respond.

Why does God save men and not angels? Both races were created by God. Both races participated in rebellion against God. It’s slightly different for men than angels in that the entire human race is rebellious, while only some of the angels are. Nevertheless, God has never revealed any effort made to save the fallen angels. In fact, the chief fallen angel, Lucifer, and all who follow him are doomed to an eternity of damnation.

So the question remains. Why does God save men and not angels. Of all the created beings in the universe, men share a unique attribute: we were created in God’s image. We were given our very breath of life directly from him.

“Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.’ … the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life…”

If you think about this for a second, it has profound implications for the purpose of salvation. Salvation is not about granting a priveledged status to one race among others. In fact it has nothing to do with us. It has everything to do with God and his glory. It’s about reclaiming the glory and image of God. This is why Christ was said to be the second Adam. The glory of Christ is summed up in Colossians 1:15: “He is the image of the invisible God.” Jesus Christ reclaims the glory of God by being what Adam should have been. Moreover, by his substitutionary death, he has freed all men who believe in him from their bondage to sin so they can begin living that image out in their own lives, to the praise of His glory.

So what does this mean for aliens?

If there is alien life out there, we must ask two questions.

1. Did they descend from Adam? If so, they are under the same curse and are offered the same salvation.

   For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous

   A thousand years ago we could have asked the question a different way. “Suppose we find life on a continent a few thousand miles west of Europe. Did Jesus die for them, too.” Well as it turns out those people descended from Adam and are therefore under the same curse and are offered the same salvation.

2. Are they made in the image of God? If they do not descend from Adam and have rebelled against God, then we must ask if they were made in his image. If they were not, then they fall into the category like the angels. If, however, they were made in the image of God, then they must be redeemed for God is jealous of the glory of his image.

Bottom line, whatever happens, I trust that God is Sovereign. He made the universe and all that is in it. If there is a race on another world, then it is no surprise to him, and the nature of his relationship to them will be completely just, holy, righteous, mercify, caring and gracious to the extent that he has willed in his perfect goodness. Finding extra terrestrial life brings me no worry whatsoever that it might compromise the truth of the Word of God. “The grass withers and the flowers fade, but the Word of the Lord stands forever.”

Thoughts? Questions? Comments? Snide Remarks?


]]> http://seismicmike.wordpress.com/2011/11/04/did-jesus-die-for-klingons-a-response/feed/ 0 seismicmike http://seismicmike.wordpress.com/2010/11/05/windows-7-review/ http://seismicmike.wordpress.com/2010/11/05/windows-7-review/#comments Fri, 05 Nov 2010 14:31:01 +0000 seismicmike http://seismicmike.wordpress.com/?p=139 ]]> I’m now forced to use Windows 7 for security reasons at work, which sounds dumb, but it’s in the name of being uniform across the org so that they only have to focus on one plan of action for security. I guess it makes sense. Anyway, so I’ve been using it for a few days and I now have a review.

User interface is alright. Many of the UI elements look real nice but aren’t practical. Aero is ok, but I prefer the skins I can get with Ubuntu way more…. I also very much miss Compiz.

Launchy makes not having Gnome Do bearable. Not perfect, but a usable substitute. Edit: I actually have found that I don’t use Launchy anymore. The search bar in the start menu is powerful enough to serve the same purpose.

There is no alternative to Guake that I’ve found so far….

Some of the enhancements to Windows Explorer are pretty useful.

But here’s what my analysis boils down to. They have not done anything to fix the most annoying feature about Windows. Here it is:

Me: Hey Windows, can I pull out my USB drive?
Windows: Nope
Me: Um… no, really…. I need to pull it out
Windows: No
Me: Why?
Windows: You can’t
Me: Why?
Windows: It’s in use.
Me: Um, no it’s not.
Windows: Yes it is
Me: No…. it’s really not….
Windows: Yes it is
Me: By whom?
Windows: … Somebody….
* Me shuts down the computer to remove USB drive

SIGH….

Also:
Me: Windows, I need to move this file (or delete it).
Windows: Sorry
Me: Why?
Windows: It’s in use.
Me: No it’s not
Windows: Yes it is.
* Me smashes his hand through the wall in aggravation.

You’d think after all these years Winblows would have done something about these problems…. Windows 7 is no better than the previous versions of Windows.


]]> http://seismicmike.wordpress.com/2010/11/05/windows-7-review/feed/ 0 seismicmike http://seismicmike.wordpress.com/2010/10/11/riddle-me-this/ http://seismicmike.wordpress.com/2010/10/11/riddle-me-this/#comments Mon, 11 Oct 2010 03:28:57 +0000 seismicmike http://seismicmike.wordpress.com/?p=131 ]]> What do the following have in common?

2005 Cincinnati Bengals
2006 Ohio State Buckeyes (FB)
2006-07 Ohio State Buckeyes (BB)
2006-07 Cleveland Cavaliers
2007 Ohio State Buckeyes (FB)
2008-09 Cleveland Cavaliers
2009 Cincinnati Bengals
2009-10 Cleveland Cavaliers
2010 Cincinnati Reds


]]> http://seismicmike.wordpress.com/2010/10/11/riddle-me-this/feed/ 0 seismicmike http://seismicmike.wordpress.com/2010/08/11/faith-and-reason/ http://seismicmike.wordpress.com/2010/08/11/faith-and-reason/#comments Wed, 11 Aug 2010 18:52:51 +0000 seismicmike http://seismicmike.wordpress.com/?p=114 ]]> Much has been said about the relationship between faith and reason. Many times faith and reason seem to be opposed. What is the Christian to do when faced with a claim that seems to have irrefutably evident reason behind it but contradicts the teachings of Scripture? If we believe that the Bible alone (when properly interpreted) is our infallible authority, what are we to do when met with claims such as Evolution?

As I’ve thought of this I’ve never really found an answer I’m comfortable giving. Though I hold both faith and reason to be important, the problem remains of what to do when they conflict. I recently remembered a book we discussed in my ethics class at Cedarville. It was by H. Richard Niebuhr called Christ and Culture. The book discussed five approaches to the relationship between Christ and Culture from a historical and ethical perspective. The details of the book are huge wash in my brain, but I remembered them enough to look up what the five views were. As I did so, I thought it might be beneficial to extrapolate these five categories into five views of the relationship between Faith and Reason. This probably could alternatively be viewed as an analysis of the views of the relationship between Faith and Philosophy.

The Bookends

The following two views are considered the polar opposites of this model.

Christ Against Culture

A Christ against culture view shows an antagonistic relationship between the Christian Church and the “World”. The Christian’s duty is to separate from the culture as much as possible. The most stark example of the in modern times exists in the Midwestern USA in the region known as “Amish Country”. I don’t want to paint with too broad of a brush, but the Amish are most often characterized as rejecting modern conveniences and cultural influences for the sake of living pure lives among themselves. Think M. Night Shyamalan’s “The Village”.

Faith against Reason

Christians holding to faith against reason would tend to ignore reason altogether. To this believer, it doesn’t matter what evident reason states. Science is irrelevant to this person. All that matters is the direct word of God. These people are often pejoratively referred to as “Bible Thumpers” and “Fundamentalists”. While they might possibly deserve a commendation for their desire to truly believe what God says, their view has some major problems.

The first problem is that while I agree that everything in the Bible is true, this does not mean that everything that is true is in the Bible. This leaves open the possibility of finding things to be true in both Biblical and non-biblical sources that don’t seem to line up. To their harm, Faith against Reason proponents ignore the non-biblical arena. I might ask them, where does medicine come from? Were there recipes for fried Chicken in Hezekiah?

The second problem is more important. Above I made a statement that the Bible is our sole authority. Wait, no I didn’t! I said that the Bible when properly interpreted is our sole infallible authority. This implies two things. First is that there are other sources of authority outside the Bible! Just because a source of authority is fallible doesn’t mean it’s not a source of authority. It should be understood that it’s not perfect, but it can still be trusted to a certain degree. This camp completely cuts off access to any truth that the realm of reason can bring us.

The second implication is that the Bible’s authority is only infallible when it is properly interpreted. Now this presents a bit of a challenge, because the question rises of how we know we have properly interpreted the Scripture. There’s a whole field of Christian epistemology regarding this called “Hermeneutics”. One view of hermeneutics is roughly stated as “If the plain sense makes sense, seek no other sense.” This can be a good rule of thumb at times, but it can also get you into trouble! Many passages are taken extremely out of context because of this. What’s the plain sense of Ecclesiastes? Song of Solomon?! Nevertheless I personally have come across some strange theological beliefs that were formed using this very hermeneutic but don’t stack up against the rest of Scripture. This line of thinking is dangerous! By contrast a proper hermeneutic takes into account other sources of authority to help us keep our interpretation of Scripture in check, and one of these very important sources of authority is reason.

Unfortunately because the members of this camp seem to be the most loudly outspoken group of believers, they have created a stereotype in the media and popular opinion that all Christians think this way. It’s one thing to have a poor reputation among unbelievers because you uncompromisingly stand for the truth. It’s another thing altogether to have a poor reputation among unbelievers because you uncompromisingly stand for an idiotic way of thinking – even if you’re defending the truth. There are far “smarter” ways to stand for Truth. I think the whole of Christianity could be served by abandoning this camp altogether.

Anyway, I digress. I promise that I won’t give any more commentary on the validity of a view. I think Faith against Reason is wholly untenable, but from here on out I will try to be strictly informative and allow you to make your own decisions. As you read these, examine your own way of thinking and try to identify which of these best describes you. If you fall into this first camp, I have no intention to offend you. Please open mindedly heed my criticisms and if you have counter points you would like to make, I’m more than willing to hear them.

Christ of Culture

Jesus is seen as the embodiment of the greatest human aspirations, as the ultimate hero of human culture, as representing the very best which culture can give.

The Christ of Culture sees Christ as the epitome of culture. By extension therefore, Appreciation for the highest of culture is also appreciation for Christ.

Faith of Reason

Faith is the pinnacle of reason. I think this can take multiple forms. In one way faith clings unflinchingly to the findings of reason as though they were Scripture. In another way faith considers itself to be the highest function of reason. In this view faith and reason are not opposed. Faith and reason properly done will correspond. They will always complement each other, and the best and highest examples of each will be identical to each other. My only comment about this is that while it may be true from a proverbial birds-eye view, those of us here “on the ground” (so to speak) definitely encounter times when faith and reason collide in conflict. I think the Faith of Reason response to such situations would be to claim that either the faith or the reason involved in the conflict is in some way flawed. This may be true, but it’s hard to prove. In any case I think this camp may have the fewest members – though I have a friend in mind who I’m pretty sure fits into this one like a glove.

The Middle Ground

The rest of the views fall somewhere in the middle between “Against” and “Of”.

Christ above Culture

Christ is generally aloof from Culture. He is authoritative over it, but he allows it to run its course, stooping only occasionally and briefly to get involved if he needs to correct the course of events. The Incarnation would be the most obvious example. This is almost a blend of Deism and Christianity. It also lends itself to Openness theology. This is one of the most often used views when it comes to the problem of pain.

Faith above Reason

Faith and Reason, while opposed, have nothing really to do with each other. Faith deals in a realm that is transcendent and unattainable by reason. Reason deals with the mundane and “nitty-gritty” of life, while faith soars on high plains and deals with greater issues that even the philosophers have had to scratch their heads at. When there are points of conflict between faith and reason, it’s quite simply obvious that reason is overstepping its bounds. Faith is correct, and reason just needs to shut up. I think there are definite weaknesses to this position, but there are some elements to truth in it. I think one of my top 5 all time favorite quotes might fit into this category, though I’ve not analyzed all of its stator’s other quotes to see if the whole of his philosophy falls into this category. This is from Mere Christianity, by C.S. Lewis

…Whether there is anything behind the things science observes – something of a different kind – this is not a scientific question. If there is “Something Behind,” then either it will have to remain altogether unknown to men or else make itself known in some different way. The statement that there is any such thing, and the statement that there is no such thing, are neither of them statements that science can make.

Christ and Culture in Paradox

This is the classic Reformed position. St. Augustine said it best. There are two cities. The City of Man represents all of the worlds desires and achievements with all its strength and might. The City of God represents his work and achievement inhabited by those who trust in him. These two cities are currently in an ongoing war which will not be over until Christ’s second return at which point he makes an end to the City of Man forever. While the Christian is a true resident of the City of God, he is currently a resident of the City of Man and must live in this life as best as he can, but without holding himself distant as the “Against” crowd does, for man must see us as ambassadors from the City of God, but the Christian ever looks to the day when the war will be ended.

Faith and Reason in Paradox

This view acknowledges that all truth is God’s truth, and that while there is great truth that is found outside Scripture there is also great error found outside Scripture. The believer’s does not see his struggle is as being against flesh and blood but against the spiritual forces of darkness, and as long as the prince of the power of the air is allowed to roam free, those who hold to reason apart from faith will always find occasion to come to conclusions that are in opposition to the claims of Scripture. Therefore, although truth is absolute, and perhaps the “Of” crowd is right that proper reason will point to this truth, there will be times when the claims of reason conflict with the claims of faith. “Reason” in this case not referring to reason itself but to those who would wield it in such a way. Moreover the believer sees these conflicts not merely as innocuous disagreements arrived at from different presuppositions. Rather, they are antagonistic and militant. When this happens, evident reason may be sought and given to defend the claims of Faith, but no matter how valid the reason used, the unbeliever will not hear it, for his eyes are blinded by Satan. The Christian believes that he must stand firm, always ready to give an answer, but also believing that it is God who gives light to the eyes. The believer in this camp looks for the day when all will be made clear by the coming of Christ and the final revelation of his truth.

Christ Transforming Culture

This optimistic view believes that the corruption in the culture can be defeated through the work of the Church. This takes many forms. Classically this has been seen in the eschatology called “Post-millennialism”, which holds that the Church will triumph over the enemies of God in this world’s age and will usher in the Millennial reign of Christ at which point he will return to take the throne. Contemporarily, I think the best example would be the so-called “Emergent Church”. I use the term loosely because the movement is amorphous, but what I’m referring to are those believers who believe it is the job of Christians to enact social reform – particularly with regard to caring for the poor. Another contemporary example would be the Theonomists, the most radical of whom believe it is God’s will for the United States of America to adopt the Mosaic Law as found word-for-word in the Pentateuch as the law of the land. There are, however, far more moderate groups out there who simply desire to reach out into the world and positively affect it for the gospel and kingdom of Christ. In fact this is the most “Cedarville” of the group.

Faith transforming Reason

In this camp, the believer grounds himself solidly in the faith, but makes use of the tools of reason and is in fact well versed in them. He makes it his aim to engage with those of the world and believes that through faithful proper use of reason he can begin to win over the unbelievers to seeing the validity of the claims of faith. He makes every effort to do so in an evangelistic way, but without violating the rules of the medium. He is optimistic that it will be shown through his efforts that the truths of the scripture are indeed true.

Conclusion

Where do you stand? I think I find myself most squarely in the “Paradox” group, though I have some leaning toward “Transforming” and “Of”, with even a nod to “Above”. I’m certain I’m not “Against”. I think it’s interesting to node that “Against”, “Paradox” and “Transforming” all believe that there is a conflict, while “Of” and “Above” disagree. Is there a conflict? Well, if all truth is God’s truth, then ultimately there is no conflict. But as I mentioned, while there may ultimately be no conflict, there certainly are temporal conflicts that arise in the moment. I agree with the Paradox crowd that these conflicts are not simply misunderstandings, but are in fact battles. This is because there’s a distinction between reason itself and those who use reason. Men who use reason apart from faith are corrupted by sin. They are therefore susceptible to being flat our wrong, but are also guided by sinful desires. Furthermore, they have eyes that are blinded by the “god of this world” (2 Corinthians 4). So while there may be no conflict between, say, Christ and Science, there are certainly conflicts between Christians and Scientists.

I think the main difference between the three camps that acknowledge the conflict is their attitude toward it. The “Against” crowd is pessimistic. They believe that reason is uncompromisingly tainted and not only is it beyond redemption it will corrupt the believer if he dabbles in it too long. The “Transforming” group is optimistic. Reason is tainted, but we can clean it up by doing some good solid faith-based reason in opposition to the taint. While the “Paradox” group is realistic and patient. They understand that they have a duty to be faithful, but that until Christ appears the influence of darkness on reason will never be gone.

Thoughts? Insights? Questions? Comments? Snide Remarks? I’d love to hear them!

Sources

• “The Enduring Problem of Christ and Culture”, Bruce L. Geunther – mostly for his list and explanation of the five views.
• Wikipedia article on H. Richard Niebuhr – for general reference.

]]> http://seismicmike.wordpress.com/2010/08/11/faith-and-reason/feed/ 2 seismicmike http://seismicmike.wordpress.com/2010/07/09/thats-a-rip-off/ http://seismicmike.wordpress.com/2010/07/09/thats-a-rip-off/#comments Fri, 09 Jul 2010 13:41:17 +0000 seismicmike http://seismicmike.wordpress.com/?p=112 ]]> Why is scalping a crime? I’ve never been able to figure this out. What’s scalping?

To resell at a price higher than the established value: scalping tickets to the baseball game.

What is “established value”? Established value refers to the price printed on the ticket. In other words it’s the price that the box office of the venue or the performer has decided to sell the ticket for. So the simple answer to this question is, scalping is a crime because you’re ripping someone off by selling them something that isn’t worth what you asked them to pay you.

But is that a crime? Yes there’s a law on the books making it illegal, so technically it is, but should it be? I take issue with this notion that there’s anything wrong with this transaction. That mostly comes from the fact that I truly don’t believe there’s any such thing as a rip off.

No such thing as a rip off? Wouldn’t a rip off be when you pay more than something is worth? That’s just it. What is value? How do you determine something’s worth? Value is not defined by what a business man in an office decides something is worth. Sure he has computer regression models to see historical trends on how much things are generally charged, but he can’t really know what something’s value is. Why? Because value is defined by the buyer.

If I pay $12 for a cheeseburger, that cheeseburger is worth $12 to me. If I want to get into a baseball game so badly and can’t find tickets, so I go buy them from some guy in the street and pay $30 for a nosebleed ticket, then that ticket is worth $30 to me. I was willing to pay that much for that ticket, therefore the ticket had that high of a value for me.

Let’s take a real world example. After Hurricane Katrina, grocery stores started raising their prices on things like milk. They were decried as being price gougers – vilified for taking advantage of poor people in a desperate situation just to make an extra buck. That couldn’t be further from the truth! With the roads jammed and messed up, it was likely that the next shipment of supplies was going to be long in coming, so the stores had to make do with what they had. At the same time, people were starting to stockpile things. Demand went through the roof. Supply went through the floor. In order to keep from selling out of milk in the first day to people who were buying 20 gallons, and making sure that everyone who really needed the milk got the milk, they raised the price. This discouraged anyone from buying unless they really needed it. And it worked.

Let’s go back to the baseball game. The box office doesn’t know every variable that goes into the value of that ticket. Suppose I’m a bit older and my son is a player, and he just got called up from the minors to make his big league debut. Now, I know my scenario is a bit flawed, because the team would probably give me tickets in that situation, but just for the sake of argument, run with it. If I can’t find a ticket except from a scalper, I’d be willing to pay just about anything to get in the doors. I don’t care if it’s a nosebleed ticket, I’ll pay whatever the guy asks, because it’s worth it to me to be in the stands when my kid steps to the plate, or on the mound for the first time.

Maybe that scenario’s too far fetched. Let’s say you’re just a regular Joe who is going to the game and forgot to pick up tickets ahead of time, and you’re walking along and rather than wanting to wait in line at the box office – or perhaps they’re sold out – you decide to buy from a scalper. If you don’t want to pay more than face value for a ticket, then have the guy show you the ticket before you buy. If you don’t, you’re a dupe. If he won’t show it, then either don’t buy, or if you do buy you ought to be aware that you’re probably paying more than the price printed on the front. If you do that, you’ve willingly gone along with this scheme. What crime has been done against you at this point?

The problem in this country is that we’re shielded from the notion of value. We don’t heckle in the marketplace any more, so we don’t understand what it means to really get a good deal. The fact of the matter is, if you’ve paid for something, whether it’s at Walmart or from a guy on the street, you’ve not been ripped off. Nobody can rip you off but yourself, because you are willing to pay for it. If you see something you want that’s priced higher than you’re willing to pay, don’t buy. If you do, you’ve ripped yourself off. Conversely I think we’ve done a disservice to sellers. By not allowing the prices to be flexible on a lot of things, we’ve robbed them of situations where a buyer really does place a higher value on something, but a fixed price structure allows him to pay less. In that sense, we’ve almost ripped off the seller!

Just my two cents.


]]> http://seismicmike.wordpress.com/2010/07/09/thats-a-rip-off/feed/ 0 seismicmike http://seismicmike.wordpress.com/2010/06/13/the-root-of-all-nanny-statism/ http://seismicmike.wordpress.com/2010/06/13/the-root-of-all-nanny-statism/#comments Sun, 13 Jun 2010 04:11:21 +0000 seismicmike http://seismicmike.wordpress.com/?p=109 ]]> “A great silent collapse, an enormous unspoken disappointment, has in our time fallen on our Northern civilization. All previous ages have sweated and been crucified in an attempt to realize what is really the right life, what was really the good man. A definite part of the modern world has come beyond question to the conclusion that there is no answer to these questions, that the most that we can do is to set up a few notice-boards at places of obvious danger, to warn men, for instance, against drinking themselves to death…” – G.K. Chesterton, Heretics.

No wonder we have so many public service announcements on TV and so many Nanny State laws!!!


]]> http://seismicmike.wordpress.com/2010/06/13/the-root-of-all-nanny-statism/feed/ 0 seismicmike http://seismicmike.wordpress.com/2010/06/05/federal-governments-agenda-in-the-golf/ http://seismicmike.wordpress.com/2010/06/05/federal-governments-agenda-in-the-golf/#comments Sat, 05 Jun 2010 18:07:32 +0000 seismicmike http://seismicmike.wordpress.com/?p=106 ]]> I was listening to Scott Sloane on WLW this morning while driving to the bookstore. He was talking about the BP oil spill in the gulf. He was generally noting how everyone is out to blame somebody over the disaster and he thinks that’s premature. Fix the problem first, then assess blame.

However, he and some of the callers were talking about the fact that there doesn’t seem to be any kind of infrastructure in place to protect us against this disaster. Generally speaking this was “our well”, but there are other wells out there in the Gulf that don’t belong to us. They belong to other countries like China or whoever. So if those wells aren’t ours, who’s responsibility would it be to protect our shores if something like this happened to one of those? We don’t have authority to tell the Chinese what to do – not in the kind of direct way that we can BP. (aside: not that I’m in favor of Congress dragging in the owner of BP, and not that I’m in favor of the Attorney General discussing criminal charges).

The point is, shouldn’t the coast guard and the federal government be concerned with protecting our borders in this kind of a situation? Isn’t this part of their job? Sloane then went into a discussion of all the money that’s poured into this and wondering where it’s going. He also mentioned the FAA and the FDA and how they don’t come close to accomplishing their jobs sufficiently in terms of Airport infrastructure, and pharmaceutical regulation respectively, despite untold billions of dollars funneled into them.

Then I had a thought. Think back with me about two years – maybe more. Think early on in the 2008 presidential campaign. Think back before the housing crisis and the worst recession since the Great Depression (that isn’t even as bad as the Carter years). What was one of the hot button issues at the time? Oil prices. What are we going to do about this dependency on foreign oil?

Now I generally disagree with the premise of that discussion: that we’re dangerously addicted to foreign oil. I don’t think the problem is nearly as bad as some people think. Though the fact of the matter is, many people think that we are. Those on the right think so because they think it’s a national security threat. What if Iran and Saudi Arabia decided to stop selling to us. What then? Those on the left think it’s an environmental threat. Apparently, oil is bad in any case. But whatever the reasons, there was a great discussion about what to do about getting off of foreign oil.

Now, there were two general theories about how to do it. Theory #1 was: drill for more oil here. Remember ANWR? Those on the right generally supported drilling in ANWR or expanding drilling off the coast of California or in the Gulf. (ANWR = Alaska National Wildlife Reserve and was generally pronounces “awnwawr”). Theory #2 was to invest in alternative sources of energy. Those on the left supported this approach.

I’m definitely generalizing and summarizing here, but this was the basic debate. Those on the left argued against drilling by claiming it would be a disaster to the environment. They talked about all the wildlife that would be disrupted in ANWR and the dangers of drilling off of the coast. They would talk about the Exxon Valdez and the devastating impact that would have.

Now we come to it. What were the counter arguments of the right, class? The first thing they would point out was that the site that they wanted to drill in ANWR was tiny compared to the whole of ANWR. The left wants us to believe that we’re just going to go in and trash the whole place, when in face, the right just wants to go into one small part and set up a couple derricks to begin drilling.

The second argument, however, was to point out that, despite the Exxon Valdez (which was a tanker that crashed and not a rig, oil or derrick that malfunctioned) there has been an extremely low instance of spills and other accidents in the drilling apparatus around this country, and that it’s really very safe, and hardly anything ever goes wrong.

So if you’re still with me at this point, I hope you’re getting a sense of where I’m going with this. Because you need to see it or my next statement will sound like an outright unfounded conspiracy theory. And it may be an outright unfounded conspiracy theory. But with the left wing solidly in control of Washington, can we seriously be surprised that the party that desperately wants to use environmentalism and global warming for the sake of control might be doing the following:

Could it be possible that despite having options to help BP fix this problem and despite having resources to aid Governor Bobby Jindal in Louisianna who is begging for help to go stop this thing might be intentionally holding back and allowing this problem to grow larger than it really needs to so that the next time this foreign oil debate arises they have a case in point? Yeah, ok. Perhaps that’s a bit of a 9/11 truther logic there. Is it? Does this party ever allow things to serve their agenda? They weren’t very quick to blame Bush for Katrina were they? Oh….

Hmm….. Perhaps there’s nothing to this, but maybe it’s an angle to remember the next time this debate comes up. If they come out strong with this as a case to prove their point, I’d be leery of it. Fact of the matter is, despite this accident, the record for this kind of thing since the very beginning of drilling decades ago is still excellent, and this mistake gives us ample opportunity to learn and do better next time, so it should not prove anything for the left, but you can bet they’ll use it in that debate. I’m wondering how many will buy it.


]]> http://seismicmike.wordpress.com/2010/06/05/federal-governments-agenda-in-the-golf/feed/ 0 seismicmike http://seismicmike.wordpress.com/2010/05/17/legislating-morality/ http://seismicmike.wordpress.com/2010/05/17/legislating-morality/#comments Mon, 17 May 2010 02:43:41 +0000 seismicmike http://seismicmike.wordpress.com/?p=99 ]]> Have you ever heard the saying, “You can’t legislate morality?” Ever wonder whether it’s true? People love to debate this topic. The fact of the matter is, people seem to think that you can. Whether it is the militant religious right attempting to push Biblical morality on the nation, or whether it’s those godless commie liberals who want everyone to hug trees1, many people – at least those in power – seem to be interested in behavior modification. But what’s a Biblical Perspective on this? I’ve written before on Theonomy, but here’s another observation:

Matthew 23:27

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness.

This is just one of many passages that can be quoted to show a very important point about righteousness. God desires righteousness. We’re well aware of that. It is for want of righteousness that the world advances toward its inevitable judgment. However, the perspective of those who I think might at least in part be correctly labeled Theonomists seems to be that the ideal situation would be for us to impose an outward righteousness on men as much as we can. However, the point I want to be seen from this passage and others like it – the Sermon on the Mount for example – is that God is not so much concerned with Outward Righteousness as he is with Inward Righteousness. God is concerned with external behavior, but only as an outworking of an inward righteousness. This inward righteousness is only present in those who have been called into the Kingdom by God’s regenerative grace.

Romans 7

I’ve written before about Romans 7, but I want bring it up because I did not make this connection before. Here is the verse again. (Romans 7:7-8)

… if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead.

I explained in my previous post that what Paul is speaking of here when he said “sin, seizing an opportunity…” is his lack of inward righteousness. Sin does not start as an outward act. Sin is a lack of the inward disposition toward God that God desires. Without this inward righteousness, outward righteousness is impossible – at least not outward righteousness that pleases God.

Here’s the connection I want to make. Paul here is explaining a simple truth: rebellious hearts rebel against the law. Have you ever noticed a tendency for people to do something just because they’ve been told not to? This behavior is often most observable in children, but it’s observable in adults too, you just have to be more discerning to pick it out. Want proof? Let’s look the opposite way. Portugal decriminalized marijuana and other drugs in 2001 and “Judging by every metric, decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success,”2. Both the rates of overdoses and HIV contractions due to sharing needles have decreased over the last decade. Why? Simply because there’s not a law to rebel against. Want another example? Prohibition => Moonshine.

Not everyone breaks every law, but everyone who has a rebellious heart and does not have inward righteousness is naturally resistant to authority. Therefore it is my my conclusion from Romans 7 that the introduction of more laws, and the stricter enforcement of existing laws will only serve to produce unrest and crime in the populace of a nation. This is in direct conflict with the most fundamental purpose of government: to promote and insure peace. It is more the behavior of a tyrant. This applies whether it is the use of drugs, the drinking of alcohol, the use of plastic v. paper at the grocery store, your carbon footprint or anything.

So I believe that Biblical wisdom would encourage us to favor a libertarian state that would allow us to live peacefully with all men, in which we can point people’s hearts toward God rather than focusing only on externals.

It’s obvious that certain laws must exist. After all there is a certain category of law that is really self evident if there is to be a peaceful society. The difference between a Libertarian Peace and an Anarchistic Chaos is that Libertarians don’t believe in abolishing all laws – only those that do not promote peace. A society cannot have peace if private property rights are not upheld – theft is a crime. A society cannot have peace of its members are constantly afraid for their lives – murder is a crime. A society cannot have peace if there is no impartial judge to preside over disputes – contract law and judicial system. But it is absolutely true that morality cannot be legislated. You can make a law that says Thou Shalt Not Murder, but you cannot make a law that says “Thou shalt not hate”3. Morality is an inward issue, not an outward one, and everyone knows that Thoughtcrime is undetectable – even if we all adopt Newspeak.

Footnotes

1. Note: I’m using these pejorative terms with my tongue in cheek
2. Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html#ixzz0o9LrKPxI
3. Matthew 5:21-26

]]> http://seismicmike.wordpress.com/2010/05/17/legislating-morality/feed/ 0 seismicmike