And All These Things

Fires burn while we try and solve the problem with band aids

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel O'Connell) — Thu, 11 Aug 2011 22:39:00 +0000

There has been much comment on the course of the London riots. We look at the rioting population looting and destroying property because they can. We see people with no sense of responsibility for themselves, for there family, and lest of all their communities. Welfare has been the band aid for discontent and supposed class struggle for far too long.

Life doesn’t make sense without responsibility according to Victor Frankl a survivor of one of the worst human experiments known to man. Victor saw that when humanity is faced with great challenges, the one factor which sustains quality of life is a sense of responsibility. There is much which needs to be done and much which has been destroyed. Without a sense of responsibility humans are far more likely to dis-ingrate into a dog eat dog state. Much has been said of the discontent being worse then that of the 1930s and why is that? The poverty we face today isn’t as bad. We have welfare providing these people food and shelter. They riot not for what the need but for what they want. They aren’t taking bread and milk. They are taking big screen TV’s and I pads. The way welfare has been handled has lead to this lack of responsibly bred in these London youths. A question that can be asked is this the case in New Zealand?

We need to change our thinking on welfare we need to move past just supporting people because we can. People need more then just money they need a sense of responsibility. The National Government needs to change it's stance on welfare. It has been slow to response to the changes supported by the welfare working group. We need a new voice and perspective on this issue to hold National to account. If this new Conservative party can offer a fresh perspective and challenge the National government to pick up on this issue. I think it will be a good contribution to New Zealand politics.

Welfare needs to change it’s focus to help people with a hand up not a hand out

Polls apart, but still drawn together

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel O'Connell) — Tue, 03 May 2011 23:13:00 +0000

This last couple of weeks in politics has bought out some very interesting new development in New Zealand politics. Two partys have formed at both end of the specturm. What does that tell us?

My first thought is that both parties are driven by the names not by policies. This is so common in the way we do politics these days. We talk about the John Key lead governement or the Helen Clark years. We have the founding of two new partys one being not Labour lite and the other being not National lite. This cult of personality that drives these parties with very little discussion of policy reflects the media driven message. We get what the opinions of those who write for our media suggest we focus on. The major parties often slowly release policy before an election and that is about the only time we have any clue as to how they will act or decide.

There is very little geniue new policy coming the floor or indeed new perpesctive. It seems that being well informed on politics means knowing the personal details of the members with very little focus on the decisions that they make on our behalf. Brash has been around since the time of muldoon. Sue Bradford and Hone Harawira are no spring chickens. My questions is after the advent of two new parties are we going to have any more political choice then we had before? Are we going to be offered the same idealogues with no new solutions?

I would suggest that maybe all MMP has given us is more brands of the same product

noreply@blogger.com (Solomon's Chariots) — Sun, 30 Jan 2011 07:40:00 +0000

In this Sunday's readings, the love of wisdom, and the happiness which it can bring to us seems to be one of the unifying themes. Paul tells the Corinthians: "Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away." (1 Cor 2:6)

I was caused to reflect on the differences between what the world considers wise and the heavenly wisdom which Christians are called to come to know. When I was younger (in fact I should admit, perhaps still today), my pursuit of knowledge was for other purposes; money, power, prestige, authority, glory, satisfaction. It isn't hard to see similar motivations among many of my colleagues working in scientific fields. Indeed, it is nearly impossible to find a field of knowledge that doesn't have a majority of participants involved for reasons other than the pursuit of truth and love of wisdom.

Even in the field of philosophy, which should literally be "love of wisdom", the vast majority of academic institutions have been ravaged by the misdirection of the field. For a number of students, (poor) philosophy becomes a tool for the cessation of inquiry into the world, and as a result there certainly seems to be a glut of students who are nihilists, relativists and "woah-like-woah"ists. For the lecturers, researchers and other academics, philosophy is a field where the pressure for career progression can appear to trump the investigation of wisdom for its own sake.

And yet for others, philosophy has become "politics by another name". Sadly, I find that many scientists, with little or no understanding of the metaphysical and epistemological framework they should be working from are also headed to this outcome, where "science is merely politics by another name".

The reflections shouldn't stop there but for me, the most important resolution to come from this, is to emulate the great Doctor of the Church, St Thomas, who constantly sought the help of the "LORD of Hosts: he is wonderful in counsel, and excellent in wisdom.", especially before study. (Isaiah 28:29)

St Thomas Aquinas: Prayer before study

Ineffable Creator,
You are proclaimed the true font of light and wisdom,
and the primal origin raised high beyond all things.

Pour forth a ray of your brightness into the darkened places of my mind;
disperse from my soul the twofold darkness into which I was born:
sin and ignorance.

You make eloquent the tongues of infants.
Refine my speech and pour forth upon my lips
the goodness of your blessing.

Grant to me keenness of mind,
capacity to remember,
skill in learning,
subtlety to interpret,
and eloquence in speech.

May you guide the beginning of my work,
direct its progress,
and bring it to completion.

You who are true God and true Man,
who live and reign, world without end.

Amen.

Mary, Mary, necessary?

noreply@blogger.com (Solomon's Chariots) — Mon, 06 Dec 2010 07:10:00 +0000

As a Catholic, one of the things that Christians of other denominations and people of other faiths (or none at all) see as a defining aspect of my faith, is the honour I give to Mary, the Mother of Jesus.

While there is much I could say on the matter, today I will attempt to address a question that even many of the Catholics in the Church today would hesitate to affirm: "Is the presence of Mary important, even essential, for Christian life?"

I do not think I could in a blog post, fully outline all of the reasons why I think the answer is yes, but here I explore some mystical reasons for that conclusion

Yes, if we look at the actions of Jesus on the Cross, when he entrusts Mary to the Church represented (but not symbolically) by John, as well as entrusting the Church to Mary. It is His very precise intention that, in order that the fullness of salvation that Christ has mediated on the Cross is obtained, Mary play a role in the co-mediation of the redemption of the world. At the Incarnation, could not have God simply incarnated a fully grown thirty-three year old Jesus Christ? Yet, he has this woman Mary. It is not only at the the life of Jesus and Mary that this is apparent, God talks about Mary all through Scripture.

St Paul recognises Christ as the Second Adam, and it is clear that Eve is a prefiguration of Mary. God desires the co-operation of man and woman. And while it is through the co-operative disobedience of the First Adam and Eve that human nature falls, it is through the co-operative obedience of the Second Adam and Eve that human nature is not only merely restored and redeemed, but also able to bear the fruit that raise human nature beyond its initial level, even potentially above that of rest of the created order. Christ, in the Incarnation takes human nature into his own divine nature. And Mary, in sharing in Christ's sufferings, shares in his glory, and is crowned Queen of Heaven.

Satan cannot stand to see that this weak and lowly peasant woman should in fact, be the most loved creature, to such an extent that God wills to have His only Son born of her. The Devil in his pride, is scandalised that this is should be so. We are told that he is enraged at the woman and tries to attack her fruitfulness. Satan focuses his power on preventing the fruit of the redemption. This fruit is salvation. Mary co-redeems and co-mediates these by choosing to bear Jesus, by suffering along side him at the Cross

The more we choose Mary, the more we choose the fruitfulness that she co-mediates, that is part of the fullness of redemption on that the choice of the Cross brings, which is the fruits of salvation. The more we choose Mary, the more Satan hates us. Many people choose Mary for consolation, but the Christian who chooses Mary maturely and freely is choosing to be attracted towards the Cross, to be lead to the heart of a most dramatic moment in history, the frontline of the battle for salvation, the foot of the Cross. Here, abandoned by all of the Apostles but John, despair and defeat seem certain. And yet in choosing to love, to hope and to maintain faith in her Son, Mary opens her heart to be deeply wounded, to suffer with Him.

When we choose Mary, we choose to live what Mary lived in her heart at the foot of the Cross. We can see a prefiguration of this drama in the book of Maccabees, when at the encouragement of their mother, each of her seven sons bravely and eloquently speaks out and is horrifically martyred for their faith. And it is only too apparent in modern history that the Catholic Church and its Popes are undergoing crucifixions of a sort in entering the heart of the battlefield by submitting themselves to the care of Mary.

Mary however, can only give to us what is hers to give. She does not give Divine Life, that is Christ's to give. What she was given in the greatest abundance was Divine Mercy. This might seem an odd thing to say; after all, we think of mercy being given to the fallen, not to Mary whom we say was free from Original Sin by preemption of the Cross through her Immaculate Conception. But is it more merciful for a father to pick up his daughter after she has tripped on rocks in the road? Or is it more merciful for a father to remove every stone in the road before she runs down the road? For which father bends lower and more often? To pick stones out from the ground is to get lower than to pick up a fallen child. Those closest to the heart of Mary should be merciful.

The most precious thing that Mary has to give to us is her proximity to the Holy Spirit. She constantly offers us to, and disposes us to, the love of Christ, and that fruitfulness of the love between the Father and the Son which is the Spirit. Mary alone can offer the Christian the fullness of this presence of the Spirit. There is something unique about Mary in the mystical life. Why else would Christ manifest His ministry only after the mediation of Mary at the wedding at Cana? We bring her our requests ("we have no wine..."), each and every day, sometimes it will be a pot filled to the brim, and others we will only have two small drops of water, perhaps our tears to offer. At the request of Mary, and in our obedience to her ("do exactly as He tells you"), Christ transforms the water into the new wine of happiness, which we will share with great joy in the eternal wedding feast in Heaven.

It is by her proximity to the Holy Spirit that the Rosary can be made fruitful, not merely by vocalising prayer, but by reflecting on the events in Christ's life and where Mary is at each point of this. We aim to live in our heart what Mary lived in her heart of what Christ lived in His heart.

Catholics should marry Catholics

noreply@blogger.com (nyokodo) — Fri, 03 Dec 2010 05:43:00 +0000

Over at Creative Minority Report there is a conversation on whether one could marry an atheist that has sparked much debate. The question is not over whether it is possible to marry an atheist but whether one could bring oneself to do so. My answer to this is a resounding "no!" My answer is not out of prejudice as I acknowledge atheists can be good and attractive people. It is not out of fundamentalism as I understand that unbelievers can be saved. Instead it is out of a profound desire for complete and mutually conscious Sacramental marriage.

My Catholic faith is so important to me that any relationship which did not hold it centrally would be woefully superficial. My faith is the foundation of my world-view, it informs everything I am, do and say, so much so that in order to understand me you must understand it. Without a deep insight into the faith, without a shared experience of it I will be a frustrating mystery. I need to be able to share my joyful expectation at Christmas, my sorrow during lent and the glorious joy of Easter. I need a wife who is attentive to my spiritual as well as material needs, who is also receptive to my attentiveness to hers. I need a wife who can help me get to heaven!

Additionally I want my children to at least have as good a start in the spiritual life as I did. This means two loving and faithful Catholic parents. What a terrible disadvantage it is to be raised in the faith by only one parent and have the other steely silent (assuming they take seriously their oath to raise the children Catholic). What a terrible temptation it is to fear once they are taught the necessity of Church membership for salvation, or a temptation to indifferentism once they are taught that unbelievers can be saved. Marrying an unbeliever also denies the couple the supernatural grace afforded in the Sacrament of marriage to raise the children well. Even if I thought I could bare the disadvantages in my relationship with her I could not do all this to my children!

Finally I need to marry a woman to whom contraception, sterilisation, abortion and divorce are all NOT options! I need a wife who believes that life and sex and sacred and marriage is indissoluble. I need a wife who is eminently wise and generous with her gift of fertility, and confident in her authentic femininity. Women such as these only exist in the Church!

My conclusion is that although I am open to God directing some to marry non-Catholics (who knows what greater good He has in mind), we need to restore the expectation, the norm, that Catholics should marry within the Church. In order to support this we need to establish closer knit social networks for young people in the Church to find each other and ubiquitous theology of the body training by those living it out.

The TSA, The Troops and Moral Blindspots

noreply@blogger.com (nyokodo) — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 02:59:00 +0000

There has been much furor as of late about the gross violations being perpetrated by TSA officers on travelers going through American airports. A traveler has to consent to a humiliating full body scan revealing their naked body to TSA officers, or consent to a sexually violating pat down which includes groping of the genitals, breasts and other sensitive areas, or they can't fly. To add insult to injury there are major medical concerns regarding the level of radiation exposure caused by the full body scanners. This article however isn't specifically about the TSA, nor their new mandatory sexual abuse procedures because much has already been said about them lately. This article is about a conversation I recently had on facebook and how it put a certain common moral blind-spot into stark relief.

The conversation centred around an article in which TSA officers were complaining that they were receiving verbal abuse for just doing their job. That "Our concern is that the public not confuse the people implementing the policies with the people who developed the policies..." A couple of people raised the objection that when ordered to do an immoral act, such as sexually violating someone when there is no just cause to put them under suspicion, the officer is obliged to refuse and hiding behind orders is no defense at all. The example given was the Nuremberg trials in the aftermath of World War II where "following orders" was not accepted as a defense for Nazi war crimes. The principle of this is that as long as you are capable of volition you are responsible for every action, even if you are acting out of obedience to a higher authority.

Then one of the contributors gave a curious example where there is a commonly held exception to this principle. She said that we say oppose the war but support the troops, but I'm wondering why we say this? Taking the principle from Nuremberg and assuming that the war is immoral then the free acts of the troops to execute the war is immoral also so why must we support them? Supporting soldiers executing such a war is immoral itself, so it should be clear that we have an obligation to remove our support! If you oppose a war you must believe it is wrong and if so then the acts of the soldiers in support of it is wrong too and should also be opposed.

It's repeated again and again in the media, "support the troops," "support the troops" so I don't blame people for believing it. It's like all soldiers of the west hold the same gravitas and moral high ground as the allies in World War II when this just isn't so. The truth is that supporting the troops when they're doing something wrong is just encouraging them in their folly, so it doesn't help them, it certainly doesn't help their victims, the cause for peace finds no aid, in fact the only people that it helps are the powers that set the immoral war in motion. This is of course why it comes up so often in the media, it's the oil to the state war machine. The mantra fires up the pro-war lobby and turns pro-peace activists into flaccid back-tracking wimps. Well I'm sick of it, and it's got to stop. Support the troops? Sure, when they're doing what is right, otherwise certainly not!

What Media Firestorms Say about the Church and State

noreply@blogger.com (Servus Corpus Christi) — Tue, 23 Nov 2010 01:50:00 +0000

Once again, here in America at least, we are exposed to a media which is bent on destroying the Church. The firestorm over condoms is the latest attempt to question the authority of a Pontiff who sits in a foreign country. Many of us know this already, but for those who don't know, this is just an attempt to establish a democracy of sorts in order to eliminate the need for a Church hierarchy. The question is, is such a move actually wise or practical?

Let's apply some common sense. What secular society looks for in the Church is a pure democracy, and some have even broke away from the Church for that reason. A pure democracy even Thomas Jefferson describes as despotism:

All the powers of government, legislative, executive, and judiciary, result to the legislative body. The concentrating these in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. 173 despots would surely be as oppressive as one. Let those who doubt it turn their eyes on the republic of Venice.

-"Notes on the State of Virginia"

This purely democractic or even semi-democratic form of Catholicism is to be rejected wholeheartedly by good faithful Catholics as well as those who purport to be rational human beings. The reason for this is simple: who among any of us would doubt that a choir director knows better than those in his choir how everything should be sung? I'm sure that many reporters would recognize that their supervisors serve some sort of purpose in helping to keep everything in line, as well as actors recognize a certain authority in their producers and directors. So why should it be different with a Church who has control over billions of souls? With my spiritual life at stake, I don't think that I would even want to be in the position of making decisions that would lead to my salvation or damnation, nor am I qualified to do so.

Yes, I recognize that the New York Times is probably not thinking about this when they break new stories destroying the image of the Church in the minds of their readers who sometimes take their erroneous opinion as truth itself. But I also think that the media should be unbiased in that regard... Sure, they can do that with Muslim imams but when it comes to a German Pontiff, he is to be scrutinized rigorously. In fact, they don't even bother to report on the remarks preceding the reported ones!!! A media organization that doesn't bother to read an entire statement in order to dismantle a person is outright slander. A responsible media doesn't report that such and such a director is too oppressive, and he should allow the actors to do whatever they want; they understand why this man is in charge because they can see it from the other side.

Jesus Christ came as the Good Shepherd. He meant that the Church be handed down to Peter, his successor, whom he told to "Feed my sheep." And in order that the gates of Hell not "prevail against" the Church, Peter's successor is supposed to "Feed the Sheep" as well, down to the current Holy Father. To slander such a person in order to promote a "mob" morality that is clearly contrary to the Church's traditional position, contrary to even Scripture itself, is a grave crime against the Church. May the Lord have mercy on your soul.

Climbing the mountain. Together.

noreply@blogger.com (Solomon's Chariots) — Thu, 18 Nov 2010 23:21:00 +0000

For those of us in the Commonwealth the media have been heavily focused on the planned upcoming marriage between Prince William and Kate Middelton. Congratulatory messages have flooded the couple from around the world. But apparently there is nothing that angers some feminists more than a Royal Wedding. The Sydney Morning Herald has this opinion piece: http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/people/despite-the-frills-its-no-fairytale-for-windsor-women-20101117-17xp5.html

The money quote is at the end of the opinion:

"The fact is that for some irritating months ahead marriage will once again be cited as the greatest possible achievement for a woman, in which wifedom is put on the highest pinnacle"

Now I'm not sure that marriage is cited as the greatest possible achievement for a woman, nor do I think the Royal wedding is going to contribute to that idea. However I don't find anything at all irritating about wifedom being put on the highest pinnacle.

As long as husbandom is standing up there hand in hand with wifedom.

See what the feminist is right about is that it is a shame that being married isn't valued equally by popular culture for both men and women. Where the feminist is wrong is that they think wifedom shouldn't be held in higher esteem than money, power, prestige, career. Being a wife is one of the greatest achievements a woman can ever achieve. It isn't so because women are somehow less capable of achievement, no, it is so because marriage is greater than all those other achievements, if you can call them that.

Being a husband is one of the greatest achievements a man can ever achieve. What is a shame is not that womanhood is presented with an overinflated view of marriage, but that manhood is presented with an image of droopy rubber balloon with "GAME OVER" written over it. Men and women complement each other in many areas. Level of esteem for each other and for the institution of marriage should not be one of them.

The Tuesday Find: Edward Feser

noreply@blogger.com (Solomon's Chariots) — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 07:50:00 +0000

Sorry for the gap in our blogging, spread out all over the world as we are now, we don't get to twist each other's arms in person. I'm hopeful that we will eventually be more productive than we ever were.

Today I want to share what was for me an accidental (but essential) discovery. Edward Feser, an academic traditional Catholic philosopher who converted from atheism. He has written a number of very worthwhile books which I urge you to consider buying, (at least having a peek to see if your library has a copy, although you will probably end up buying a few copies for yourself anyway). The one I have finished recently is Aquinas, a beginners guide that covers the metaphysics, natural theology, philosophy of mind and ethics of the great Doctor of the Church. While the "beginner" in the subtitle might put our more learned readers off, I think that Feser's presentation of Aquinas is done in a way that is extremely helpful, if not for your own understanding then for gaining clarity in the way that you communicate Thomistic philosophy and theology to others.

Meanwhile Feser has a number of other books, and his rebuttal of 'New Atheism' in his book The Last Superstition is next on my to read list, followed by Philosophy of Mind.

In political and economic strains, supporters and critics alike will benefit from Feser's analysis contained in On Nozick and The Cambridge Companion to Hayek .

Finally, and very importantly, is Feser's blog http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/, which is regularly (usually 2+ times a week), relevant, uses cultural references to illustrate points and deeply informative.

I hope to share a find every Tuesday so stay tuned!

Glenn Beck and the Common Good

noreply@blogger.com (Servus Corpus Christi) — Sat, 29 May 2010 04:00:00 +0000

While working today I was listening to the popular Glenn Beck. Generally, I have been a big fan, but today he made it perfectly clear that he wasn't fond of the common good. Since I worked to promote the common good in my undergraduate thesis, and since the "proclaimed" Doctor of Philosophy, advocated removing your membership from churches where the pastors and priests promote the common good, I feel it is my obligation to defend the Catholic Church and the Angelic Doctor's words.

First, a distinction. If by common good, one means a sort of utilitarian common good, one tramples over the words of St. Thomas and the meaning of the common good altogether. This was clearly what Mr. Beck was railing against, arguing against the philosophies of Margaret Sanger and the philosophies held by some members of the President of the United State's advisors. But when Glenn Beck overgeneralized and even when his staff requested that he qualify his position, he refused. But to stop at the utilitarian common good is to interpret the common good as solely economic or materialistic. As long as the common good equals that which gives the most pleasure or least pain to the greatest number, there is not really a common good.

One great mind realized this: a man who Glenn discusses quite extensively on his radio and t.v. program. The Truth, The Logos (John 1:1) cared so much about the common good that He died to save mankind and asked his followers to do the same. (John 15:12-13). He died not that all men be saved, not for man's prosperity and I believe, in fact I know that Glenn realizes this.

Another great figure realized this as well. Thomas Aquinas, the patron of this blog, wrote extensively about the common good being the purpose of a government in the Summa Theologica. In the first part of the second part, Question 90, article 2, he declares that the purpose of any law must be the common good of man. This common good is the eventual happiness of man. This common good, Aquinas declares in question 94 article 2, must be pursued and the opposite, the evil, must be avoided, as a part of natural law. Because of this, Aquinas sets up a hierarchy of goods with which one must concern one's self. Because nature tends to focus on its self-preservation first, and then the propogation of the species, it is only natural that man would look at the goods the same way. But, Aquinas says, that the individual's preservation is trumped by the preservation of the species and even more important than that, the good of the community and truth must be held as the highest good of all. This good of the community Aquinas says in Question 92 is to allow everyone to grow in virtue. If men are not growing in virtue, then the common good is not being fulfilled. This is what makes Jesus' death so important, the common good demanded that an individual, a God-man be sacrificed to save us from sin. This is also what makes a martyr's death or a soldier's death possible as well. If we are to throw out the common good, then sacrifice becomes impossible. United we stand, divided we fall, and without the common good we become individuals and not a unity.

Therefore, Mr. Beck, I will not heed the warning to leave the religion if it discusses the common good. But at the same time, Mr. Beck is also right to a certain extent. If a certain religion or ideology demands that the greatest amount of pleasure be given to the greatest number of people, and therefore demands that I support eugenics for population control, or euthanasia to reduce overpopulation, then such an ideology is severely misguided as to what the common good really is. Mr. Beck, I hope that you can live with that, but I already have a pretty good idea that you can.

Our Hope.

noreply@blogger.com (Solomon's Chariots) — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 03:27:00 +0000

“Do not abandon yourselves to despair. We are the Easter people and hallelujah is our song.”

-Pope John Paul II

Part of The Isenheim Altarpiece by Mathis Grunewald

“I shall not forget you. Look, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands”

-Isaiah 49: 15-16

Who are you?....

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel O'Connell) — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 08:17:00 +0000

Simple question but feel free to convince me of who you are.

In the movie fight club there is a monologue which goes a little something like this... "You are not the things you own... you are not the money you have in your wallet... you are not you fucking khaki's..." This got me thinking, what are you then? is this identity fixed? and if it is what is it fixed on?

Most people have a name and you know them by that name. And many would say that their name is the thing which identifies them. You can find them on facebook by their name you. You can look them up on google by their name or even better yet, you can look someone up in the telephone book( so ninety's). But often many people have the same name or even same last name how will you know how to identify them?? People change their names they go online using avatars they use different names. People are often given nick names and sometimes they even legally change their names. This is a tough place to find a fixed identity for a person

Well there is how they look. You meet someone, you see their face. You see the build of their body. How someone looks is surely tied to their identity. A persons gender is a given right? But these images can be changed from hair and make up through to clothes to plastic surgery. Image or identity can be bought or sold in this way. Gender is up for grabs at the right price or birth right. Many people seem to be an image "package" portrayed to give a certain vibe. Some hip youngest are too cool(or better just too wealthy) with their Mac books and Ipods... some with there metal t shirts and jeans are the rebels that rock to freedom.... Some just what the world to see them in the black T shirts and emo cuts. But these identities are neither unique or constant, if anything is constant it is how similar teenagers "individuating" act. Teenagers tend to be homogeneous in their rush to been seen as different. I hear that biologically we change every cell in our body once every seven years. We age, we constantly change our figure. We are either growing up or growing out. so we are not constantly the skin which we live in. Are we are our egos? Our feelings? All these things change. And in all of these things we change so is identity just a constant flux, a state of paradox in which we live?

Scripture tells us that humanity is made in the image of God and that our identity is tied to our relationship with God.... How do we make sense of this in a world of flux? Christianity tells us about immovable rock. All we can see is a raging sea. Do we really want a constant identity? Well, yes all people desire to be recognised for who they are that is way we seek friends and psychiatrists. We want to be seen and recognised constantly in the face of change...Do you trust that your identity is from God is not a marketed image but a truth of life? And who is God that he know who I am? This Easter we see a man hang under a name which read king of the Jews. What does this all mean? Does identity have meaning?

Trust that God is good for his word maybe our identity is fixed but hidden. A secret to revealed and a truth right in front of our faces. This Easter the man on the tree is revealed for use to tell us who he really is. Do you know who you are?

Commerce or coerce: Priorities in the Whaling debate.

noreply@blogger.com (Solomon's Chariots) — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 11:04:00 +0000

From the hilarious Married to the Sea webcomic:

Whaling has been shoved in to the media limelight recently, partly because of the on going stand-offs between Japanese whaling ships and eco-terrorist organisations such as the Sea Shepherd and Greenpeace, but also because of the National Government saying that they may be able to tolerated the International Whaling Commission suggestion that commercial whaling be re-introduced , in exchange for other concessions on whaling. This second issue has caused no end of outrage from many New Zealanders, and indeed, I myself was initially appalled at the mention of the idea.

But upon re-examination of the question, I have changed my mind on the issue, and here’s why:

1. Whaling is uneconomic. Simply put, by being less hard-line on whaling countries, it would not be a matter of nationalistic pride for governments to subsidise the whaling industries in their respective countries. Without these subsidies, the commercial aspect of whaling alone would see that the industry dies out. Even with these subsidies, major whaling nations such as Japan are seeing a steep drop off in whaling consumption, to the extent that whale meat has to be donated for school lunches, because too few people wish to buy the meat. Commercial whaling will be more likely to lead to the removal of these subsidies than our current trajectory is, and at the end of the day means less whales are hunted.

Furthermore, unlike pre-20th century whaling, alternatives to most whale products are superior and cheaper to attain. Meat, fuel etc… are most effectively attained from other sources than whales, thanks to innovation, discovery and diversification of human industry since the time when whales were the the best way to have an oil light to read your Darwin book or whatever.

Yet again, whales have been realised since then as more commercially viable as tourist attractions.

But what damages the realisation of these commercial realities is the “no-whaling whatsoever” approach that we and Australia take.

2. If whaling is commercial, then companies and governments involved will have a vested interest in not allowing these species to become threatened or extinct. Simply put, if the whales die out, so would the industry. Companies are smart enough to realise the worth of future profit, and that this is tied to the continued survival and flourishing of the whales. Furthermore, if a particular whale species is rarer, then it is going to be a smaller pay-off to resources-consumed-in-hunt ratio for ships to chase these species than more abundant species. They may even find a way of farming whales, which could be brilliant, considering no domesticated species has ever become extinct.

3. Hard-line approach shuts down the dialogue process. Our “all or nothing” approach to whaling does nothing to help dialogue with whaling nations. Canada left the IWC altogether. We have no control over their actions. Russia and the Scandanavian countries reserved objections to bans on particular types of whaling and Japan just ignores our objections and takes it as a matter of national pride to do so.

4. Of the whales hunted under commercial, indigenous quota and scientific pretences the huge majority are of species that do not have their conservation threatened… at all.

5. There are, ahem, bigger fish to fry. The species hunted are no way near as endangered by the hunting as other species are world wide. The anti-whaling campaign represents an lost opportunity cost, an ineffective and cost-inefficient way of achieving the claimed goals of environmental movement, that is the conservation of species.

We are wasting our money given to environmental groups if they engage in their anti-whaling campaigns, this money could get far more Captain Planet points for our dollar if we use them to focus on saving the species that most need a change in human interactions. Simply put, anti-whaling campaign ties up the limited cash, man-hours and resources that could be better put towards more desperate conservation efforts.

Imagine if all your dollars of money squeezed out from your pockets because you just wanted that stupid beanie wearing Greenpeace woman on Lambton Quay to shut up and stop blocking your path had been used where they would have been most cost effective, like saving the endangered Great White Shark, or the Siberian Tiger, or perhaps critically endangered things, like the Gharial.

6. Far more whales are killed by collisions with ships than whaling. Far more whales are killed as a result of being by-catch than by whale hunting. If eco-terrorist and hard-line countries like Australia and New Zealand and their respective Green Parties are consistent about their belief that the death of whales is almost an unacceptable consequence, then the eco-terrorists should be lashing themselves to ALL ships that are in the ocean, New Zealand and Aussie should be withdrawing fishing fleet, the Green Parties should be advocating taking legal action against ships in theirs and international waters, and sending military ships and aircraft to escort ships out of our waters.

7.Lastly, Whales are not the cute, fluffy smiley critters that we like to make out:

Southern Right Whale Lamb

Which one would you eat based on the objectionableness of eating cute animals?

The Dark Knight of the soul

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel O'Connell) — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 03:21:00 +0000

Happy new year ... and as no one has blogged yet for 2010( three months late... long holiday so sue me) I will try and kick things off.

This morning again I was watching that Johnathan Nola Classic the dark knight. There is just nothing like a good action flick. I feel that the discussions about the state of nature in this movie is very telling reflections of arguments that lie deep within our cultural anthropology.

The Joker pushes each person he meets on the basis that all people are anarchist on the inside and do whatever it takes for self preservation. Humans are animals, and morality, well that is just a set of plan to help people get what they want. Humans are a self interested beast with a capability only to get what ever is with their vision. The Joker hope is that if he can show the world a vision of anarchy as a way of getting what they want they will embrace it. This can be best seen in his hypothesis of the two boats that they will kill each other just to preserves themselves. He wants to expose the good people as hypocrites that they would kill just as the convicted criminals had given the opportunity. He hopes to bring down morality around their ears. Nietzsche put it another way he said that us humans are only interested in the will to power. As long as we can get what we want we will go for it or we should go for it. Moral failure for Nietzsche there lies in the failure of the will. But as the will of the people on the boats fail to blow up each other we see a human act, a good act...

This will to power view assumes that we a) know what we want and b) are able to get that through are own means. Humans are so so fallible but they are not completely flawed

Hero and villains we all love them because they do something that is not always easy in human life that is to be clearly good or clearly evil. Hero and villains often are able to hold up lens to the human person and allow us to see things that we wouldn't usually be able to see through often muddled human moral glasses. Batman is an interest sort of hero in the fact that he is not a hero in the classical hero image sense.. butter will melt in his mouth and yes he isn't afraid to break a few noses or tell small lies in the course of justice. But at the basis of his action is the desire for justice for the people of Gotham. But does the end end justify the means?? Can good people make bad decisions in search of greater goods? that is an argument for another day.

The interesting picture of humanity that is given by this film is that people have the ability to do great evil or great good it depends on the person decision. Food for thought

History Repeats Itself: Abortion

noreply@blogger.com (Servus Corpus Christi) — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 20:15:00 +0000

Today is the Feast of the Holy Innocents. We honor, today, the countless infants, younger than 2 that Herod murdered brutally, seeking to rid the world of its Savior. This is an important Feast Day for the Church, especially in the modern era. What’s interesting is that history has repeated itself. Today, we find ourselves killing our unborn much the same way that Herod killed those innocent children in the first century. But even Herod’s act parallel’s another act by another ruler. Remember Pharaoh?

Pharaoh, in the time of Moses, decided that the Hebrew’s grew too numerous and too threatening. He decided to rid the world of Hebrew male children. However through the ingenuity of one Hebrew woman, the salvation of thousands of Israelites was made possible. Ultimately, the little child who’s life was preserved shamed the Egyptian gods by calling down 10 plagues, thus leading the Israelites out of bondage. The death of thousands of innocents was avenged. But among those thousands, one was saved, and preserved the life of the nation.

Sounds very familiar to the Herodian infanticide. Herod, afraid that he will lose his political power kills all Hebrew infants. Mary and Joseph escape with the child to Egypt. They wait in Egypt until Herod dies. Ironically, this ends the reign of power he worked so hard to maintain. This child grows up to lead everyone from death into life. He doesn’t question political authority at all. In fact when the subject is brought up, he simply says, “You would have no authority over me if it hadn’t been given to you by my Father.” However, what the Messiah does do, is to lay down a list of shoulds and should nots, giving us a New Law to follow. Ultimately, though he pays the ultimate price, being crucified for our sins.

Now we face a similar situation. Millions of women, because they are afraid that they’ll lose their freedom have decided that they will end their pregnancies. Others advocate abortion, thinking that they can cut down on the population, fearing that bringing just one more kid into the world will destroy us. Society, while not actively fearing the power of the unborn, fears the implications that children will mean in their lives. Big families only cause problems, so we favor smaller families or no families at all. Babies are punishments and so thousands are slaughtered day in and day out. But history has repeated itself, once again. Look at the people who have escaped this Holocaust. Many of them have lived extraordinary lives, becoming role models, leaders, celebrities. Yet society hasn’t learned this lesson, it doesn’t realize that every life is a gift. Choice has nothing to do with it. Carry on this infanticide, and we may not be so lucky. We might have just aborted our savior, the one who is able to fix the environment, or the economy. History has repeated itself, and every single person who has killed their child/ fetus/ embryo or whatever they wish to call it, is doing the same injustice to them that Herod and Pharaoh did in their times. May God Help us all!

The Joy of Christmas

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel O'Connell) — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 01:54:00 +0000

Thank you Servus for such a wonderful Blog about the truth of Christmas. I pray that peace and joy will be spread in the hearts of all this Christmas.

I pray that that Glynn Cardy will experience the joy and truth of Christmas.

Christmas time is a time of year which western society together takes a break. In the Northern hemisphere it is all about fighting of the winter cold with warm food and good company. In the southern Hemisphere it is all about sharing summer with family and friends. So often we spend time criticising the fall of Christian culture in the west and noting the sad disregard for the truth of the gospel. I am thankful that most in the west have time for family, for pausing and hopefully reflecting at Christmas time. I am glad that our society did not vote to take that time or our other shared Christian holiday away from us.

Long may we hold this holy day as a public celebration of Christ in the mist of our culture. This Christmas I am proud to call myself a Christian in a society which has set aside time for us to celebrate that.

I pray that is Christmas that you all will come to know Emanuel.

God bless you all and thank you for reading this year.

Relation between Christmas, Easter, and Christian Life

noreply@blogger.com (Servus Corpus Christi) — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 06:29:00 +0000

The title makes this post seem so obvious. Before, I even got to the first sentence, I know that someone could sum up the title by saying “Because of Christ coming down to earth at Christmas, Easter happened. And because Christmas happened and Easter happened, we now are able to lead Christian lives.” But there is a deeper connection between Christmas and Easter, and it is very key to our lives as Christians.

The connection is the Paschal Mystery. The Paschal Mystery can be seen throughout Salvation History, in the types of Christ. Isaac can be considered as a form of the Paschal Mystery, by allowing himself to be sacrificed out of obedience to his father Abraham. The Passover Feast (which is where we derive the word “Paschal”) is also a form of the paschal mystery. But the clearest place that we see the Paschal Mystery, is at Easter. The God-man suffered and died to free man from sin, and was then subsequently glorified by God through his Resurrection. The mystery of how something so evil can bring about something good is what the Paschal Mystery is all about. The sacrifice of the God-man, and his glorification, all for our salvation is the Paschal Mystery.

What does this have to do with Christmas? In order to suffer and die, Christ had to become man. But this event, Christmas, in and of itself, is a type of Paschal Mystery. For Christ, in obedience to His Father, came down from Heaven and became Man to redeem the nature of that which he assumed. As Paul says in Phillipians 2: 6-7, Christ was made with human likeness, taking on the form of a slave (humanity), and was obedient to His Father until His Crucifixion and Death on the Cross. This man, though, did not come as a glorious political leader, let alone a deity that brought everyone under his submission. No, he came as a humble child, born of a humble, virgin mother, in a stable. His first bed was a feeding trough. Not only did he come as a human, he didn’t even come as an elite human. He’d be considered as an undesirable, one of those who some doctors and politicians (hint, the American President) would think should be killed because it’s obvious that he wouldn’t amount to much in society.

But what does God do? He glorifies His Son, on the day of His birth. This is the continuance of the Paschal Mystery; the glorification. For a little Child, who would be considered as an undesirable, angels were sent to shepherds. These hosts sang, “Gloria in the Highest! Peace to men of goodwill!” God’s Son has come into the world! Maybe His life wouldn’t amount to much, but in the end God will reconcile man with Himself. The plan for salvation has begun. Now, you could raise the objection that God’s plan was still greater; that He shouldn’t have sent His angels to shepherds. Which is why he didn’t just send his angels to shepherds, but used natural signs to lead the magi to His Son. And when they get to Jerusalem, and ask for the “King of the Jews” they scare King Herod. Herod is scared of a little child who is lying in a feeding trough! Even though God’s Son comes in the most humble way, he is already making an impact on the world.

What does that mean for Christian Living? We live the Paschal Mystery, every day. Every day, we die to ourselves, participating in our own sufferings. But through the grace given by God, through the unity of ourselves with Christ, and through our participation in the sacraments, we are also making ourselves available to participate in the glorification of God through the glorification of our very selves. And once that is done, it is necessary to spread the word to others, in order that they might experience the same thing.

Thus, the Christmas message is this: Glory to God in the Highest! Peace to men of good will! Men of God’s will. Men who are willing to live as Jesus did, obedient until death. For it is in this death to our will, and birth to God’s Will, that we become like God. This is why there is so much truth in the saying, “God became man, so that man might become God.”

Merry Christmas!!!

Of fusses about buses

noreply@blogger.com (Solomon's Chariots) — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:18:00 +0000

Here in New Zealand there has been too much fuss over the atheist bus campaign (including me even bothering to post this). What is the big deal? Catholic Archbishop John Dew is bang on the money when he says he doesn’t understand why an atheist organisation seems to spend most of its time talking about God. Surely ignoring God altogether would be a more effective way of making people stop believing in Him?

Any how, the other bloggers have been bugging me for not posting a while (and rightly so!), so I chose this because it doesn't require much time or brain power and I got to draw a cool picture with my crayons for you all:

Hopefully you can all see that. Also hat tip to whoever made the AGW spoof (Anthropogenic Global Warming).

There, you all happy?!?!?!

Manhattan Declaration- a call to stand with those who fight for life

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel O'Connell) — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 22:45:00 +0000

I am sometimes a little behind the news but when I stumbled over this it blew my mind. A document was drafted by 3 leading Christian thinkers and put forward for the Amercian people to sign. This is a great call to stand from within the American nation. It is a united Christain stand. It is a stand for those who cannot stand for themselves.

We live in times which are in some ways wonderfully great. We have access to technology, freedom of travel, amazing health care and opportunities to always to work to aid our fellow man and ourselves. Indeed great wealth that we have inherited from those gone before us. In New Zealand we are a blessed nation. But we also live in time when evil still walks the face of the earth. We stand against a dark despair, a hopelessness which threatens the lives of so many of our countrymen. I appeal to all my brothers and sisters in Christ and all those of good will to join this stand.

Let us work against the great evils of our times, let us continue to work for good in the face of evil that is often begun in the human person. It can seem like there are many evils in the world and I know that I will not be able to bring an end to all of them, but let us work to bring about a change for the better. A change of culture, a change of legislation, and most importantly a change of heart. Let us dream of a culture without abortion, euthanasia and disrespect of religious freedom. Let us dream so that we can then share that dream with others. Let us push forward a revolution of hope, a desire to change. Lets us stand for people of faith and good will. Let us stand for the desire to know the truth.

Reading this document I was inspired and I hope that it inspires you to take the time to ask the questions, to engage in the conversations and to inform yourself. For those of you who have worked for the advancement of the cause of protection of life from the start I say thank you for your hard work and please continue to challenge us. Let us call humanity on to a greater good. But let us go together, Catholic, Protestant , Jew and Atheist , all men of faith, let us go together, stand together and let us not stop at mere words to bring about the change we wish to see. Lets us be the change we wish to see.

Sex,religion according to shakira

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel O'Connell) — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 21:44:00 +0000

Shakira talking about sex is probably not that uncommon but then she starts advising us on religion. I feel this south Amercian pop star has strayed a little too far from the fold. She probably only spread a myth that someone else had told her but it really gets on my nerves this one. Why the hell did they name them the dark ages? I mean did they all blow out their candles for a time? did the art of making fire leave the continent of Europe? Did the sun stop rising? I think we can safely say no to all of these questions. The history of Europe is not worse for the presence of God but better. She is wrong about the history and taking a brief read of Historians like Norman Cantor will show you there is more to the dark ages than just "the darkness"... I will have to send her an email, but I do think Shakira is onto something when she says that libido drives the world.

What is that I hear you say? I am no nymph, nor am I suggesting Freud is entirely right with man being entirely sexual, but sexuality is an important part of being human. The expression of human sexuality is both a deeply personal experience and a force for change in people, therefore it can be a force for change in the world and for love. However this is as close as Shakira and I come to agreeing. Is the Church out to destroy sexuality? Restrict the expression of oneself? Never! The Christian God is the God of the Song of Songs, He takes sexuality and it's expression very seriously and this is a good for which his creation has been made (see Adam's first blessing). This God of love is not just about feeding the poor and loving enemies he is also a huge promoter of love between a man and a woman.

I heard a great quote the other day, "pornography has achieved something the church has failed at for centuries, put men off having sex with their wives." This statement reveals a great truth that the sexual "liberation" has enslaved so many to misery and unfulfillment that it is turning some off sex. It is really sad watching men and women become enslaved, and it is a tough reality which leads people to some sad places. The misery of abortion and unwanted children generally starts with undesirable sex. So I say to Shakira we are not freed but hurt by those who would cast off the "shackles" of religion and find themselves in a deep pit of despair. Marriage helps to protect people from the evil that is often found inside of them because the root of sin is found in the selfishness of the individual.

Shakira, your hips may not lie but your history and understanding of sex sure do.

Free Market Environmentalism: The Common Good Part 2

noreply@blogger.com (nyokodo) — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 05:35:00 +0000

Three words you don't often see together "Free Market Environmentalism" are what many believe to be an oxymoron, but which are really the most powerful means of protecting the environment. Environmentalism is an area which showcases how the free market unleashes the hidden powers of individuals to work towards the common good, and how it motivates people to want to do so. It shows how the free market digs down to the grass roots to deal with problems, but also how it neutralises the threat of large groups.

The very sorry fact about humanity is that most of us are only motivated by selfless benevolence some of the time, but all of us are motivated by self interest all of the time. This means that any system intended to bring about the common good needs to exploit maximally the self-interest of individuals and not rely on their selfless benevolence. Charities know this, that is why they hold auctions, have dinners with high powered guest speakers, and utilise all manner of innovative methods to return more than simply self satisfaction for donations. The free market liberates self interest to work towards the good of the environment through closely protected private property rights.

When a society upholds private property rights it means no one is allowed to interfere with one's own property nor disposal thereof except if it violates someone else's rights. This means that any pollution which passes from one property to the next by any means including atmospherically constitutes a violation of property rights, and in a free market system the polluted could then sue the polluter to have them cease and pay compensation. For instance say a corporation were polluting the ground water, the land owners affected could sue the corporation for compensation for damages and force them to stop polluting. Their motivation to do this is that the corporation is reducing the value of their land and possibly interfering with it's use. Even if the polluted choose compensation instead of ceasing the pollution they cause the corporation to pay the full cost of it's pollution and trying to maximise profits it will be forced to find cleaner methods of production in future.

Another example is land-fill usage, currently land-fills are almost exclusively owned, operated or at least regulated by local governments. Currently disposing of a plastic bag costs no more than biodegradable non-toxic cardboard yet plastic causes a lot of damage to the environment and biodegradable packaging causes none. If this regulation were lifted and land-fills were privately owned then they would have a vested interest in retaining the maximum value of the land once it's been sufficiently used for land-fill and avoid the lawsuits from adjacent land owners due to pollution across property boundaries. This means that items more damaging to the environment would either be banned altogether or at least be charged much more to dump due to the greater compensation required. This means that the cost of dumping plastic would go up for the dumpers which means they'd have a vested interest in choosing clean packaging and reducing plastics. At the same time businesses which choose clean packaging will gain customers and unclean producers will lose customers, which means that businesses will turn to clean packaging to gain market share and maximise profits. This in turn means that harmful packaging will reduce over time and the environment will be increasingly better taken care of.

In these situations we have the polluter being regulated by the cost of the pollution, policed fastidiously by the property owners affected. This is contrasted against the current situation of being regulated by stale, inadequate and geologically slow to develop government regulation and policed by disinterested and often incompetent public servants. Take climate change, assuming it's being caused by human pollution then it has been more than 20 years of political inaction to bring us to the point of having vague promises of inadequate responses to the threat. A free market response would have caused such a rash of lawsuits that economies could not have avoided setting up effective carbon trading schemes and setting actually realistic carbon reduction targets years ago. At the same time there would have been a great deal of investment put into getting the science correct by both sides of the argument, so if anthropogenic climate change proved to be a false concept then we could avoid the expense and turmoil of radically transforming our entire economy. So the free market system helps correct for errors in environmental forensics also.

Due to having to pay the full cost of pollution individuals, businesses and corporations, seeking their own benefit are then forced to avoid pollution and invest in cleaner technologies. A truly free market system would therefore be a boon for the "green economy" and clean sustainable technology. In a free market system the mighty and ever present force of self interest is turned towards the common good.

Athens and Jerusalem

noreply@blogger.com (Servus Corpus Christi) — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 04:40:00 +0000

Many people today have gone around just accepting that faith and reason don’t mix. I remember telling someone about my areas of study: Philosophy and Theology. This person was confused and wondered if these two areas of study weren’t contradictory. His response was much like Tertullian’s response, “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?” But three major theologians in the Catholic Church provide Tertullian with the answer, Athens and Jerusalem are very much connected; faith and reason go hand in hand.

St. Justin Martyr, in his Second Apology, states this: “Beyond doubt, therefore, our teachings are more noble than all human teaching, because Christ, who appeared on earth for our sakes, became the whole Logos, namely, Logos and body and soul. Everything that the philosophers and legislators discovered and expressed well, they accomplished through their discovery and contemplation of some part of the Logos. But since they did not have a full knowledge of the Logos, which is Christ, they often contradicted themselves.”

The second theologian in the Church who answers Tertullian is a major figure in this blog as well as in Catholic Philosophy. St. Thomas Aquinas’ proofs for the existence of God have proved very philosophically grounded, not grounded in faith as most people would think. The most insightful words come from his response to the objection to the proof for God’s existence (I may post sometime on the actual proof for God’s existence, some other time). “The existence of God and other truths about God, which can be known by natural reason, are not articles of faith, but are preambles to the articles; for faith presupposes natural knowledge, even as grace presupposes nature.”

The final theologian in the Church who answers Tertullian is Pope Leo XIII, whose encyclical tracks the correlation between faith and reason and offers magnificent praise for St. Thomas Aquinas. Pope Leo XIII has this to say about the nature of faith and reason: “the early Fathers and Doctors of the Church,… took up and investigated the books of the ancient philosophers, and compared their teachings with the doctrines of revelation, and, carefully sifting them, they cherished what was true and wise in them and amended or rejected all else.” He goes on to quote I Cor. 1:24, saying that the Church Fathers “understood that, according to the divine plan, the restorer of human science is Christ, who is the power and the wisdom of God.”

So, what does Athens have to do with Jerusalem? Everything. Christ is the Logos, the power and wisdom of God, and its only through natural reason that we can come to know the existence of God. If Christ is the Logos, then it’s only through the understanding of natural reason, the understanding of the Logos, that we know about Him. If He is the power and wisdom of God, then it is through the understanding of that wisdom that we know Christ. And if we can know God’s existence through reason, then natural reason is necessary for faith. With this knowledge, the question should be asked, “What doesn’t Athens have to do with Jerusalem?”

The benefits of a classical education

noreply@blogger.com (Servus Corpus Christi) — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 05:11:00 +0000

Not too long ago, I was asked by someone what I thought the benefits of a classical education was, in comparison to a technical education. At first, I gave an answer that was very cheesy, and would make the person with whom I was discussing this matter feel good (it was so bad, I don’t even remember the answer… something about learning from history’s mistakes). However, after thinking about it, I came up with a much different answer than I had before. A classical education is so much more superior than a technical education in almost every form. Many of us think that our goal in life should be to get a good job; then we’ll be happy. But that’s not the case. This is where a classical education trumps a technical education. By looking back at tradition, studying the classics, one can see how happiness is found, not in money, power, honor, or fame; but rather it comes in the living of one’s life to the full.

The definition of a Classical Education that I’m providing, is exactly what a certain school in Kansas teaches: The Liberal Arts, and Latin and Greek. The Liberal Arts are seven: Mathematics, Rhetoric, Grammar, Logic, Astronomy, Geometry, and Music. All nine of these subjects illustrate a very wonderful point: They are not directed towards themselves as a particular study, but rather they’re directed towards some greater end. The study of the seven liberal arts focuses one’s attention as to how one might live a life well rounded. How can one learn to write, if grammar is not applied, or learn to speak if rhetoric is not applied? What good is learning at all if none of these seven liberal arts are not part of a person’s education? This is living one’s life fully, searching for happiness the way that ancient philosophers lived. It is in these pursuits that one can find fulfillment, even if their fields are not located in one of the seven liberal arts. Without any of these, man is sure to fail.

But, you may ask, why have I included Latin and Greek in this mix? From the study of Latin and Greek, every modern language has arisen. Therefore, language barriers begin to crumble, once both of these two (as some might say) “dead” languages are overcome. But, in studying the languages myself, it can be seen how one can learn important principles of grammar. Relative pronouns, passive voice, direct objects,… many of these things that everyone struggles over in elementary education are made much clearer with the study of Greek and Latin. Just think of how much faster one can learn to speak and read if we integrate this back into schools.
Finally, a word about History. Through a historical education, one learns the pitfalls, struggles, and glories of the human race. It is a great disservice to our ancestors that many schools fail to teach history. A knowledge of the intentions of our forefathers and their legacy is very important if we ourselves want to carry on their legacies, to reach their glories.

A classical education is very essential to the human person. A rational animal, a person needs to be able to function well before he can be happy. And if our goal is our happiness, then I see no reason why a classical education should not be essential to our education system.

The Climate Change Hacking Scandal

noreply@blogger.com (nyokodo) — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 01:39:00 +0000

As most would have heard already recently a hacker broke into the University of East Anglia network and stole 61mb of confidential data from so called "leading" climate scientists. It's being widely proclaimed as a major blow to the credibility of the whole global-warming side of the climate debate. Cutting through the sensationalism I think a very disturbing picture is painted of the state of climate science and therefore the politics based on it.

The first issue to consider is that although the break-in has been confirmed the data is still somewhat less than necessarily genuine. We're talking about data obtained illegally and published on the internet anonymously, this is not information gained via a freedom of information act request or a police sting. Although it doesn't appear that these emails have been faked, and doing so would be quite difficult, it would be much easier to cherry pick and present them out of context. Presumably over the number of years represented by the emails a lot more than 61mb of them would have been sent and so it's safe to assume that they represent a selection not the totality. So straight away the leaked data is questionable, however it's telling that no one involved has come out declaring the data to be false. With a disaster like this a provably innocent party would be running press conferences and writing opeds declaring the data to be false and generally doing damage control. However the most from the East Anglia crowd so far has been a vague and brief press release, maybe more is forthcoming so time may tell.

Taking all of this into account what does the data indicate? It appears that scientists at East Anglia have been literally conspiring to remove journal editors and miscellaneous board members who are skeptics of global warming as well as suppressing dissenting scientists' papers. If this is accurate it is to me the most concerning part of it all since a healthy scientific discipline is one in which dissenting voices are allowed to speak. Any area of science that doesn't have an open mic as it were becomes inbred, stale, prone to mass delusion and the suppression of progress. Open and frank disagreements are encouraged even necessary, and anyone would forgive a bit of private negative hyperbole here and there, but trying to wrestle people out of positions of influence who disagree with you is not on. In this clime scientific conviction transforms into violently held orthodoxy, and as famous physicist Freeman Dyson wrote:

"So it happens that the experts who talk publicly about politically contentious questions tend to speak more clearly than they think. They make confident predictions about the future, and end up believing their own predictions. Their predictions become dogmas which they do not question. The public is led to believe that the fashionable scientific dogmas are true, and it may sometimes happen that they are wrong. That is why heretics who question the dogmas are needed." Freeman Dyson, Heretical Thoughts on Science and Society

For a response from the other side of the debate they have addressed this episode over at realclimate.org. Here they give a general response to the occurrence as well as answering some particular scientific questions raised. They are right that scientists vehemently disagreeing and even not being very nice doesn't necessarily reflect on their science, however as I said above the political machinations do raise questions about the health of their field and how open it is to contradiction. As for the science I will leave it to the climate scientists to debate as I have no expertise in this area and any attempt would be naive and largely pointless. However we all have a vested interest that the right scientific culture is in place so that we can trust what we learn from the experts, and in that I can and have made commentary.

To smack or not to smack... that is not really the question is it?

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel O'Connell) — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:44:00 +0000

There has been much controversy about the "smacking" debate. Proponents of the bill point to the disturbingly high rate of child abuse in New Zealand. "Time to stop the abuse," they cry.... but how can we stop this problem? Is it a matter of having police in every house? Can the state show us the way to be moral on one hand and give us our moral liberty with the other? Obviously the government has the "best" and most "well formed" conscience in order to lead us and sometimes take us where we need to go...

When the protesters go to the street in Auckland are they fighting for the right to smack or the right not to be told what to do? This demand for democracy from the people I find interesting. It appears to validate the claims that minorities are ruling over a majority in a democracy... that would never happen, surely? Is it really a tyranny of the minority? I say good on the people! Too often the rights of the majority are neglected too often the big man is kept down. I say stand tall defend the too often oppressed majority.

It really does seems strange that such terms can apply to the largest groups in our society but often we are ignored for the "wisdom" of our leaders. Hmmmm, not that I am a fan of mob rule but it is just so often we are forced to accept views because that is what society believes to be right, and now when society stand up and tells the government what they think they get told to shut up, because they do not know what they are talking about. Will no one stand up for the big guy? I fear we are moving into a society with rights for all except for those who need them.