Seeking Truth

I’m finally getting around to writing something mildly philosophical, but this post also goes to the core of my purpose for writing blogs, and tries to make this purpose more concrete. Obviously, I am a Christian, but I want to make it clear why I am a Christian, why it is important to me, and more importantly, why it would be important to you. First, my number one commitment is to truth, and not to Christianity (though I am committed to Christianity because I believe it is true). That may sound strange to some, but truth is the one thing all of us seek, whether consciously or subconsciously. In agreement with the great contemporary Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga, I would also assert that truth seeking is a part of our proper function. In essence, I’m arguing that we are naturally truth seeking, but our intellects and the noetic effects of sin both conspire to cause us to either reject the truth or to avoid the truth, respectively. Yet ultimately, we have a choice in the matter.

A close acquaintance of mine is a high-level executive for a Fortune 500 company, with hundreds of employees worldwide under his charge (and care). His brilliance is without question. Yet even as a Christian, he disagrees with me that humans are truth seeking, and further that we can even know the truth. Fundamentally, as he has related to me, he doesn’t believe there is objective truth, and by extension objective moral truth. In everyday life, however, he operates as if the very thing he denies actually exists. For example, at work he must communicate complex thoughts and ideas regarding company strategy and tactics to his team, ensuring that they are properly executed in a timely manner. His very presumption is that even though their minds are separate and distinct from his, there is a universal ability to interpret and execute on his directives in a manner that meets his approval. Moreover, he expects them to perform their work ethically. Without some universal standard of ethics, he would have no measure on which to punish actions he believed to be unethical. I can just imagine him calling one of his employees out on some unethical practice, and that employee responding that since ethics are relative, there isn’t a problem so they should just drop the whole thing. Now that would be a “career limiting move," but I digress.

So basically where I’m going with this post is that it is my belief that objective truth exists, that it is real, and that it encompasses moral truths that indicate what we ought to do. We put truth into practice in virtually every human experience whether cognizant of it or not. It is also my belief that Christianity best accords with truth, given the alternatives. Clearly, I don’t know this exhaustively, as no human has access to exhaustive knowledge. That is reality and is a part of the human condition. Given that caveat, with the best of my knowledge I believe it is my duty to work from core Christian beliefs that are transcendent and eternal. It is these truths on which our country and its Constitution were founded, whether from a deistic or orthodox Christian view of a creator. An atheistic or relativist view could not deliver the same as there would be no grounding basis or imperative other than force through monarchy, at a societal/cultural level through social contracts, or purely individual, all of which would be temporal and transitory at best (with the last being, effectively, “survival of the fittest”).

The Bible states that the [moral] law has been written on everyone’s heart, as described in Romans 2:15 and Jeremiah 31:33 (and yes, I am aware that things can and do go wrong, so I presume proper function for this law to be in effect). The knowledge of right and wrong is unmistakable; you can see this in an inchoate state in children even before they acquire language. Even Hitler knew what he was doing to the Jews was wrong, otherwise he wouldn't have attempted to hide his gruesome handiwork. For him to know it was wrong, and for us to know it was wrong also, requires a universal rule or measure from which to determine right from wrong, i.e., some truth or truths. We Christians believe we have encountered truth, and are fully aware that we are all part of a fallen creation. Others, unfortunately, use their intellect and the sinful nature they have in common with us to override the truth that God has made so plain (cf. Romans 1:20).
share on: facebook

Whoopi and Taxes

For those who haven't had the chance to see Whoopi Goldberg's perspective on taxes on "The View," it's definitely worth viewing:



She makes a great argument that while she doesn't mind paying taxes and giving back, since she has done well financially, she still feels she's being punished by the government for her success. And Whoopi, I couldn't agree with you more. You see, I'm not jealous of your success, as I know that talented, entrepeneurial people like yourself are the folks that are taking risks and creating jobs for those of us who are employees. You and other business owners small and large are the engine and the driver of our economy. But your government, in it's current form led by the Democratic party, doesn't see it that way. And that's not to say it was considerably better under the previous Republican administration, since they strayed far away from core conservative principles of small government, low taxes, and personal responsibility. They received the "due penalty" of their error, and are now doing penance (I pray).

These days I often hear liberals say that Reaganomics have concentrated money at the top over the past 25 years, and now that Democrats control the Presidency and Congress, they will "redistribute" money back to the poor and the middle class. But here is the question: why do they believe those doing the "redistribution" can do a better job than properly regulated market forces? There will be a small, concentrated group of people performing the wealth redistribution (i.e., Obama and Congress), which means they will decide what to take from whom and to whom they will redistribute the proceeds. Do liberals really feel this is a job for government? And with the trillions of dollars this small group of people plan on redistributing, can they do this solely on the backs of the "rich," who make over $250,000? I don't think that's realistic. The middle class will have to participate in this ill-gotten, productivity killing scheme as well.

To demonstrate my view, please note the following summary of Federal Individual Income Tax Data from 2006, showing each group's share of income taxes (source: Internal Revenue Service):

• Top 1%: 39.89% (>$388,806)


• Top 5%: 60.14% (>$153,542)


• Top 10%: 70.79% (>$108,904)


• Top 25%: 86.27% (>$64,702)


• Top 50%: 97.01% (>$31,987)


• Bottom 50%: 2.99% (<$31,987)

Note that the top 5% (Whoopi and other "greedy" folks making over $388,806), are already carrying 60% of the tax load, and that the top 50% (making over $31,987) are carrying 97.01%. The bottom 50% are paying 3% of the total tax load. Looking at these numbers, the issue of fairness comes in to play. If the top 10% are paying 70% of the taxes, what is a "fair" amount for them to pay? 80%, 90%, 100%? Even if you ask the top 10% to carry all of the tax load, you're asking some that are making just a little over $100,000. That sounds like a lot of money in some states, but in states such as California and New York, that's middle class living at best in major metropolitan areas.

Let's again note that the bottom 50% pay a total of 3% of the taxes. According to the Wall Street Journal, with the new and expandable refundable tax credits Obama's budget is proposing, the bottom 50% will pay NO taxes. This, the paper notes, "could cement a permanent voting majority with no stake in controlling the cost of general government." So in this regard, the Democrats could permanently assure themselves both the Presidency and the Congress because they will have a plurality of voters that, with a little help, could vote themselves the largesse they feel they deserve. And I believe as politicians, they will look out for themselves first, since they will be in an elite class that wants to remain an elite class. If that means class warfare and redistribution of wealth as a means to that end, then so be it. The key question is what would happen if a portion of the top 50% got fed up with being penalized for achievement, and decided to cease being as productive? What would happen then? Inquiring minds want to know.
share on: facebook

Helping My Liberal Friends to Understand the Conservative View – Part 2 of 3

Whenever I offer any criticism of Obama's policies, some of my liberal friends accuse me of "bashing" him personally. I want to be emphatic that it is not my intent to "bash" Obama explicitly or implicitly, and certainly not personally. I simply believe his policies won't work and know that very little of the "investments" (that's code word for spending) and tax increases for the "rich" he is proposing are directly related to stimulating the economy. Instead of focusing on the economic crisis to restore confidence in our financial system, which is a difficult task within itself, he is using the crisis as an opportunity to conduct an aggressive social agenda through massive government spending that will change society as we know it. Those who support this grand redistribution of wealth plan either haven't done their homework or don't realize the unintended consequences of more and bigger government in every aspect of our lives.

Few of my friends understand what conservatism is about, and on what principles it stands. So I thought I would include excerpts from a recent speech by a well-known conservative that spoke to the heart of conservatism. Please carefully consider the following: "We conservatives have not done a good enough job of just laying out basically who we are because we make the mistake of assuming people know. What they know is largely incorrect based on the way we are portrayed in pop culture, in the Drive-By Media, by the Democrat Party. Let me tell you who we conservatives are: We love people."

"When we look out over the United States of America, when we are anywhere, when we see a group of people, such as this or anywhere, we see Americans. We see human beings. We don't see groups. We don't see victims. We don't see people we want to exploit. What we see -- what we see is potential. We do not look out across the country and see the average American, the person that makes this country work. We do not see that person with contempt. We don't think that person doesn't have what it takes. We believe that person can be the best he or she wants to be if certain things are just removed from their path like onerous taxes, regulations and too much government."

"We want every American to be the best he or she chooses to be. We recognize that we are all individuals. We love and revere our founding documents, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. We believe that the [sic] preamble to the Constitution contains an inarguable truth that we are all endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life. Liberty, Freedom. And the pursuit of happiness. Those of you watching at home may wonder why this is being applauded. We conservatives think all three are under assault."

"We don't want to tell anybody how to live. That's up to you. If you want to make the best of yourself, feel free. If you want to ruin your life, we'll try to stop it, but it's a waste. We look over the country as it is today, we see so much waste, human potential that's been destroyed by 50 years of a welfare state. By a failed war on poverty. We love the people of this country. And we want this to be the greatest country it can be, but we do understand, as people created and endowed by our creator, we're all individuals. We resist the effort to group us. We resist the effort to make us feel that we're all the same, that we're no different than anybody else. We're all different. There are no two things or people in this world who are created in a way that they end up with equal outcomes. That's up to them. They are created equal, given the chance - - We don't hate anybody. We don't -- I mean, the racism in this country, if you ask me, I know many people in this audience -- let me deal with this head on. You know what the cliche is, a conservative: racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe."

"I want anyone who believes in life, liberty, pursuit of happiness to succeed. And I want any force, any person, any element of an overarching Big Government that would stop your success, I want that organization, that element or that person to fail. I want you to succeed. Also, for those of you in the Drive-By Media watching, I have not needed a teleprompter for anything I've said. And nor do any of us need a teleprompter, because our beliefs are not the result of calculations and contrivances. Our beliefs are not the result of a deranged psychology. Our beliefs are our core. Our beliefs are our hearts. We don't have to make notes about what we believe. We don't have to write down, oh do I believe it do I believe that we can tell people what we believe off the top of our heads and we can do it with passion and we can do it with clarity, and we can do it persuasively."

The above speech was none other than that delivered by Rush Limbaugh at the recent Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) Conference. Yes, Rush is a polarizing figure somewhat lacking in the social graces, and no, he is not the voice of the Republican party. But he is a (not the) voice for the conservative movement. He made it clear in the speech that he doesn't want Obama to fail if his policies are good for the country (e.g., economic growth, low taxes, liberty), but he wants Obama to fail if his policies will be detrimental to our Republic (i.e., federalization of health care, education, and energy through onerous taxation). The liberal media won't quote Rush in full context because it wouldn't be news, instead they make it news by saying that he wants Obama to fail and leave it at that. That isn't news, but it is irresponsible journalism.

* A fellow graduate student asked me to note that Rush's attribution of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to the preamble of the Constitution is incorrect, and that this phrase is actually found in the Declaration of Independence.
share on: facebook