Thought of the Day 11.09.09

Imagine for a moment someone who believes in gay marriage and someone who opposes it having an argument. It could be pretty vehement, right? Now imagine someone walking up to them and offering the following advice: “Hey, guys. Why don’t you just realize that this issue is all a matter of opinion and it doesn’t really matter since there is no truth anyhow. Can’t we all just get along?”

Unless I’m really wrong in my assessment of human nature, the gay marriage advocate and the gay marriage opponent would immediately unite to fight off such an offensive bit of “friendly” advice. The amazing thing is how rarely the dogmatic indifference preached by relativists elicits that response.

See, the basic message of relativism isn’t that everybody is right, but that everybody is wrong for thinking that anyone can be right. In essence, they try to unite disagreeing parties through the supremely arrogant assertion that only relativism is right. At least those of us who disagree about what is right still agree that something is right and that figuring it out matters.

Thought of the Day 11.06.09

President Obama and the Democratically controlled Congress are trying to pass a health care package which will require health insurance for all Americans, provide that coverage for many of them, and intensely regulate non-government insurance plans. Both the scope and novelty of this proposal have led many people to question its Constitutionality.

See, no matter how good an idea is, Congress can only do what the Constitution permits. Everything else is illegal. And because states were scared of an expansive federal government, the burden of proof was historically against Congress. A law was presumed unconstitutional unless the power to pass it was specifically enumerated in Article 1, Section 8. This is why the President had veto power, not as a way of coercing them to pass his agenda, but as the first line of defense against Congress playing out of bounds.

Sadly, our founders may have had too much faith in the federal oath of office, or, more precisely, in the Constitutional knowledge which it presumes.

Thought of the Day 11.05.09

This morning, Spencer was twirling Sage around on his back by the legs on our bed. At first he was laughing, but then he stopped smiling and started complaining mildly. I immediately told Spencer to stop because “Sage doesn’t like that.” “But daddy, he was laughing about it,” he replied.

At this point, I realized I needed to be very careful how I proceeded because there were really two different things going on here. On the one hand, Spencer was doing what Sage didn’t enjoy, which needed some correction. But on the other hand, Spencer clearly was trying to entertain Sage and had been correct in sensing his early enjoyment, which I wanted to encourage and praise.

So, I said, “Well, honey, you have to keep paying attention because he can change quickly from liking something to being upset by it. But I’m really glad you’re playing with him, and I like that you’re paying attention to whether he likes it. That’s good.”

One of the great challenges of parenting is to nurture the good and also discourage the bad things kids do, especially when both are present in the same behavior.

Thought of the Day 11.04.09

As someone who loves language, I regularly find myself in a linguistic bind. On the one hand, I can use the word or grammatical construction which is common but which I know to be inaccurate. On the other hand, I can use the correct word or construction, knowing this will make me sound strange to most people. Loving others enough to want them unhindered in hearing my ideas, this dilemma vexes me. My normal solution is to find a different, correct way of saying the same thing without sounding weird…or British.

Consider the simple word “assume.” If, based on past experience, I say, “I assume he’ll pay his bill,” someone will likely quip about what happens to both of us when one assumes, heh, heh. Cute, but not helpful. See, “assume” can have many meanings, but “to form a belief recklessly” is not one of them. On the contrary, making an assumption requires some sort of reasoning process rather than wild (and imprudent) guessing.

To avoid this problem, I’m willing to use another word when I mean that I’ve thought about it and formed a rational conclusion. But what word should I use? Infer? Suppose? Reason? Surmise? Deduce? Presume? “Yes, Mr. Holmes. Quite so.” Only “assume” is not awkward in such expressions.

So, feeling like my culture has betrayed the language I love, I’m left without a satisfactory alternative. This makes me grumpy because I assume there’s just no way to win here.

Thought of the Day 11.03.09

Acts 3-4 tells a story about the apostles healing a man who was crippled his entire life. In response, the non-believing Jewish leaders imprison the apostles and confer amongst themselves. Startlingly, they admit that a genuine miracle had been done, which everyone in Jerusalem has to know. They even go so far as to say that there is no feasible way to deny the fact.

At this point in the story, we naturally expect the Jews to be converted. After all, they have seen a miracle and been told it was done by the power of Jesus Christ. But no. Their response is to try silencing the apostles so that no one else will be carried away by such demonstrations. This tactic, of course, does not work.

It’s amazing that these men could stand in total admission that a miracle had occurred (the very pinnacle of proof that any skeptic might want) and yet still seek to suppress the truth instead of being converted by it. It’s a sobering reminder not to be too optimistic that people will embrace the truth even when they’ve seen it with their own eyes.