thoughts and quotations from Arrakis

   One of my weaknesses as a reader is my love for old friends and the preference for their company over that of unknown, potential friends. The Dune series has become such a friend during the last decade. Frank Herbert's stunning ability to mix all things social, political, religious, ecological and philosophical with a classic, expanding narrative is deeply engrossing. He's so good that the fact that he writes with an expansive, explicit agenda is often obscured by the depth and richness of the story. Of course, any powerful writer is likely to have an agenda of some sort or other, but Frank Herbert's agenda seems far broader and more educational than most. At the same time, he avoids the commonly used device of allegory to communicate his beliefs, and he escapes becoming preachy. Instead, he weaves something new. Below are some tidbits on various topics: several are on law and governing, one on the use of technology, and others on learning, dreaming, and atrocities. Each is worth thought and not simply acceptance or dismissal.

Heretics of Dune

Law always chooses sides on the basis of enforcement power. Morality and legal niceties have little to do with it when the real question is: Who has the clout?

God Emperor of Dune

In the perception of deeper needs, I must often ignore immediate ones. Not addressing immediate needs is an offense to the young. 

It takes a pretty dull policeman to miss the fact that the position of authority is the most prosperous criminal position available.

The devices themselves condition the users to employ each other the way they employ machines.

The law develops its own power structure, creating more wounds and new injustices. Such trauma can be healed by cooperation, not by confrontation. The summons to cooperate identifies the healer.

If there is a frontier, any kind of frontier, then what lies behind you cannot be more important than what lies ahead.

Children of Dune

Atrocity is recognized as such by victim and perpetrator alike, by all who learn about it at whatever remove. Atrocity has no excuses, no mitigating argument. [...] Atrocity merely arms the future for more atrocity.

Dune Messiah

To come under siege, he decided, was the inevitable fate of power.

Dune

It is shocking to find how many people do not believe they can learn, and how many more believe learning to be difficult.

What do you despise? By this you are truly known.

 

Chutzpah vs. Chutzpah

 My favorite living storyteller is Malcolm Gladwell; his books are the only books that my wife and I have consistently listened to together. I am looking forward to listening to his most recent book soon. Recently I listened to an episode from his podcast, Revisionist History. It was fabulous, just like I hoped; Gladwell is basically peerless in his ability to weave a narrative together.

 Due to changes in the way I commute, I have started to listen to stuff on my way home. This was quite rare until the last 18 months and still sporadic until the last several months. Because I am just trying this out, there's a lot of experimentation involved... I've tried audiobooks (Chesterton's Orthodoxy has been fantastic so far), podcasts, and lectures (English in America: A Linguistic History by Natalie Schilling was very informative, especially as an English teacher).

 Anyways, this episode of Revisionist History "Chutzpah vs. Chutzpah"was fantastic. It included the mafia and The Godfather, which I've never seen, but which my students assure me is the greatest movie ever made. It included Hogan's Heroes which our family secretly enjoys, while hoping it doesn't offend our German friends! It included a wonderfully winding story about the meaning(s) of 'chutzpah' practically (There is some inappropriate language from an interviewee.) It includes discussions of shame and shamelessness, Abraham's intercession for Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 18, cross-cultural differences and acculturation, immigration, and more!

 It also includes insight on modern culture, particularly American culture. Online and from a distance, I see increasing acknowledgement that the brokenness in American politics reflects the society, not causes the society's polarization. This episode essentially avoids the specifics in order to deal with the larger picture. The question it suggests  is "Have we confused [America's] chutzpah with [Israel's] chutzpah?"

All in all, this episode touches on a ton of areas that are important to me! I highly recommend it!

PS Even the ads are interesting and informative since even they are interviews done by Gladwell with business executives.

Patriotism vs. Nationalism: America & the Olympics

 So, as I said before, I'm watching the Olympics.  Plus, I love America (and other peoples).

  I also love reading the stories of great athletes who either have overcome great difficulty to be at the Olympics or who have achieved greatly. A couple stories stood out to me in this cycle, and I'd strongly encourage you to read them, and then I'd encourage you to listen deeply to the meaning of those stories, especially if you are American!

 Listen to the stories of Ibtihaj Muhammad and Yoshihiro Uchida. At first glance, you may here the story of the American dream succeeding - America, Land of Opportunity! But, if you listen a little longer, you will hear a different story: you will hear a story of success through hardship, often unnecessary hardship driven by prejudice or difference. Yes, these are people who succeeded against great odds, but this is also a story of a country that has still not lived up to its own ideals of being a welcoming land of opportunity to all. Fascinatingly, both of these stories are stories of patriots, people who have lived through dark sides of America, people who know that America has not reached her ideal, but who have not abandoned that ideal in their own lives. May we learn to be better humans and better Americans, through their lives.

May she be a  great bridge, not a blip!

96 years old, still mentoring!

Henry Van Dyke summarized my personal view of a proper patriotism in a line from his poem, "America for Me":

We love our land for what she is and what she is to be.

This is a view that does not deny the broken places but does not deny the good places either. May we be honest patriots and not blind nationalists! May we pursue both justice and peace, truth and grace!

The reason to be progressive

Below is a quote from Chesterton which I find fascinating, granted some difference between the contexts for the terms 'conservative' and 'progressive,' the ideas should still be quite similar and therefore worth considering.

We have remarked that one reason offered for being a progressive is that things naturally tend to grow better. But the only real reason for being a progressive is that things naturally tend to grow worse. The corruption in things is not only the best argument for being progressive; it is also the only argument against being conservative. The conservative theory would really be quite sweeping and unanswerable if it were not for this one fact. But all conservatism is based upon the idea that if you leave things alone you leave them as they are. But you do not. If you leave a thing alone you leave it to a torrent of change. If you leave a white post alone it will soon be a black post. If you particularly want it to be white you must be always painting it again; that is, you must be always having a revolution. Briefly, if you want the old white post you must have a new white post. But this which is true even of inanimate things is in a quite special and terrible sense true of all human things. (Orthodoxy, emphases mine)

In other words, politically we can either believe in a Golden Age of perfect justice and righteousness in the past to which we must return, or we must seek a truer future. Was there a perfect society in the 1770s or 1780s or 1860s or 1940s or 1980s, or in looking towards the future should we also release much of the past? Anyways, while it is certainly not expressed here as a complete political theory, it is an interesting thought.

Cynicism concerning victories and light bulbs

  It is a statement on the disfunction of the Republican Party and its tactics that in the $1+ trillion spending bill, issues that they claim to have won are as follows:

1.  Incandescent light bulbs can still be manufactured. [This seems to be both a symbolic and a pyrrhic victory given that there replacements would save everybody money (except, possibly, electricity producers), and this is a rather innocent and insignificant case of government meddling. I agree that none of us like meddling, but...] [I suppose that all "natural market-weeding-out" is good, as when Bernie Madoff's clients were weeded out of the market for being inefficient? Truly regulations are inherently evil.]

"The light bulb issue has been an ongoing battle for Republicans, who argued that if incandescent bulbs are inefficient, the market will weed them out naturally without government pressure.

2. A ban on DC using local tax money to fund abortions. [I agree with the principle, but will it actually change anyone's life? Truly, I'm asking a question.]

3. Limit on federal agencies' spending on conferences. [Good! Glad someone did this finally.]

4. Halting new funding for the IMF and UNESCO. [Two more empty 'victories' that neither advance America's interests abroad, nor help the human race.  However, for the anti-World club, they are definitely a win, since it will allow other nations to be influential in areas where America will no longer be as involved... like global education, science, and culture!]

Other battles Republicans said they won include continuing a ban on the District of Columbia using its local taxpayers’ money to fund abortions; limits on federal agencies’ spending on conferences; and halting new funding for the International Monetary Fund and the U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization." (Source: Washington Times)

 Where'd the Republicans lose any real bargaining power? Probably in the government shutdown that made them even more deeply unpopular than Congress generally, or in the 5 years of saying that all compromise was bad [Isn't this a republic representing everyone's interests theoretically?], or...

 Now that I'm probably in trouble with all my friends, I shall step aside, realizing that this post will be obsolete in every way in the immediate future. 

The LORD's Unbelieving Messiah

  In considering, on this election day, what Scripture passage(s) should be instructing my thinking concerning whatever God has elected for our nation as we move forward, my mind quickly went back to Isaiah 44-45 where I quite recently spent significant time.  God anoints a messiah for His purposes, and twice (45:4, 5) He says that this messiah has not know Him.  He also says in 45:3 that at least a part of His purpose in this is that this messiah will come to know Him.

 But consider, this divinely-elected ruler smashes nations through empire-building and accumulates vast wealth, by the sending of God - not exactly activities we'd condone in our leaders typically.  But, the point of the entire passage is missed if we simply say fatalistically that 'God's will will be done.'  That is true, but this passage is part of a lengthy and powerful argument for the absolute greatness of God compared to the futility of idols.  In other words, the point of this prophecy/appointment which was given long before Cyrus breathed is to demonstrate that the LORD Does/Causes/Chooses/Effects/is THE LORD!  So, we trust Him, regardless of what unbeliever He elects for our nation and what devastation that may cause here and elsewhere, in God's plan.  God's plan goes forward unhindered and unhinderable - worship Him, place full confidence in Him, His greatness, His goodness.

*******

 Also, an unrelated but excellent post on a wonderfully different perspective on our elections from some grateful, not-yet Americans...

Evangelicals and Muslims Together?

  Sunday, CNN featured this article on its website, "How Evangelicals Could Grow to Love Muslims." I agree with the guy's basic premise that evangelicals could get over their prejudices against Muslims, just as they got over their one against Catholics from 50 years ago.  The subplot is that they would also make natural allies for Republican social conservatives since many Muslims are socially conservative.  (This same would apply to Latino immigrants; if the Republicans would compromise on the immigration issue, they could gain a powerful constituency that would be a very natural alliance.)

 Anyways, I considered posting the article on Sunday because I thought it said a useful thing.  The  'need to hate [or simply, be against something]' which the article matter-of-factly mentioned is certainly not a Christian ideal.  So, there ought to be some question as to what has hijacked our thinking so that the outside world doesn't even know us by our love!  

 But it was the headline article on Hank Williams Jr.'s tirade against President Obama, mentioning Islam, today which made me decide to blog.  Now, the President has attempted to make it clear that he is a Christian in his own understanding.  Obviously, he could be lying.  But, that's not really the issue.

  Would it be a bad thing if he were a Muslim?

  No.

  Not from a Christian perspective, other than in regard to his soul - followers of Jesus have usually lived under unbelieving rulers.  From an American perspective (which should be secondary for followers of Christ), it would also be a positive outcome of our values to elect someone who was not from the majority faith.  It would be the most basic expectation of our values to say that someday someone of another faith would lead this country which claims to hold freedom of religion as a core tenet.  Otherwise, we undermine the core of the word freedom and relegate those of other beliefs to second-rate status ...if it would be 'un-American' to have a President who claimed something other than Protestant-ism.  But, that's a sidetrack.

 To return to the original article, it is noteworthy that all sitting justices on the US Supreme Court are Catholic or Jewish in faith.  (Remember that this religion was formerly vilified in US politics.)  Now, of the four Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates, only one (Barack Obama) claims to be Protestant - the others are confessedly Roman Catholic or Mormon.  Politics is an odd world, but amid the many shades of gray which it creates, Christians should try to live out their Lord's commands, not become party to one earthly agenda or another.

 As for Americans generally, it is vain to decry one who 'takes away your freedom' and at the same time say that that one has no right to power, when it is the freedoms you cry for which he champions by being in the position he is in.  Neither race nor religion nor gender are sufficient to disqualify someone from office based on American values.  I do not speak for Christian values here, though if the freedoms that are being championed truly were derived from Scripture as many claim, than that also must be considered.

The Religion of Consumerism

If you care to consider this, kindly read the whole thing and think about it before commenting.  The context is the question of what do we see as the Kingdom of God which we are to desire upon this earth and, particularly, how does our consumerist model match up.  The entire section in the book is worth considering.

   In particular, they don't want us to ask, "Where does all this stuff come from?" Instead, they encourage us to accept a certain magic, the myth that the garments and equipment that circulate from the mall through our homes and into the landfill simply emerged in shops as if dropped by aliens. The processes of production and transport remain hidden and invisible, like the entrances and exits for the characters at Disney World. This invisibility is not accidental; it is necessary in order for us not to see that this way of life is unsustainable and selfishly lives off of the backs of the majority of the world. What the liturgy of the mall trains us to desire as the good life and "the American way" requires such massive consumption of natural resources and cheap (exploitive) labor that there is no possible way for this way of life to be universalized. (Though the United States comprises only 5 percent of the world's population, we consume somewhere between 23 and 26 percent of the world's energy.) The liturgy of consumption births in us a desire for a way of life that is destructive of creation itself; moreover, it births in us a desire for a way of life that we can't feasibly extend to others, creating a system of privilege and exploitation.

- James K. A. Smith, Desiring the Kingdom, pg 101. (emphasis mine)

The Future of America and the Globe

  "The myth of America's decline" on cnn.com today brought to mind various readings I have done in the last year.  The article expresses well the basic reasons why America will continue to be in a commanding central position as a global leader for the foreseeable future, barring a disruptive act of God.  George Friedman's excellent book The Next 100 Years is a more detailed argument for the same basic thought.

In my opinion (though some would disagree), there is little contradiction between those who see a dominant America and those who would argue that globalism will soon overpower the unilateralism of the present.  Fareed Zakaria's The Post-American World (now in its second edition) makes compelling arguments for why the world will become less dominated by America, but he does not make a strong case for another nation becoming more dominant.  In other words, as we look to the future, I see no reason that the USA will not be the world's primary shaker-and-mover indefinitely: only America will have the power to move the world to action and lead such action.  However, Zakaria's basic point that America will no longer be able simply to do as it likes also carries weight.  The balance may well be that a tandem will be created by which America must dance with (much of) the rest of the world while also being the only force large enough to chose the tune for dancing.

Immigration, politics, the Constitution, and two parties

back to politics and immigration:

"Illegal Immigration and the Rule of Law" - a fascinating article with some balancing thoughts on the aspects of the debate that get conveniently ignored by both sides

"Why I'm Leaving the GOP" - an article by a fiscal, constitutional conservative who happens to be Muslim and Coloradan, and also happens to be going to the Democratic party because of his basic conservativeness... fascinating as well.

  I didn't agree with portions of both of these articles obviously, but always good to really listen to what's being said.

China vs. America

This article was a very interesting look at the two major political systems thriving in the world today.  It examined both their strengths and their weaknesses - as well as the implications of both.  Will a consumer-driven, populist democracy prove stronger, or will the authoritatian, hampered-enterprise rule triumph?  Good thinking!

Also, an article on China's probable next president...

PBS: "Of God and Caesar"

I got to watch "Of God and Caesar" Episode 6 of PBS's series "God in America" this evening; it was very interesting: How evangelicalism has interacted with her culture and ways in which she has been shaped by it and reacted to it over the course of the last 60 years.

Watch the full episode. See more FRONTLINE.

Fathers get nursing break?!?!?

The politics of sameness (disguised as "equality) has finally lost it completely.  Spanish dads are now legally entitled to a 1-hour "breastfeeding break" from work every day till the baby's nine months old!  Read about it here.

Arizona

This post and others on this blog present a constructive view of the immigration law passed in Arizona, for people of faith.

Some of the boycotts going on regarding Arizona are rather ridiculous, but while Arizona certainly has the right to seek to enforce its borders, I do think that everyone else has the right to expresss their dismay about how it does so... that's what we are doing to N. Korea and Iran...

Christians at the Borders, Literal and Metaphorical

   A couple of friends have already blogged about this, but I thought I'd add a few thoughts to the immigration discussion.

 Tonight, I finished Dr. Danny Carroll's book Christians at the Border, which I think can best be described as a quietly reasoned plea for Christians of all origins in the United States to base their thinking on the volatile topic of immigration on the Word of God, not their political, economic, or social backgrounds.

The purpose of the book is not to solve the myriad of real problems found in the immigration discussion; it is to re-orient believers to what the Word says.  Personally, I have long felt instinctively that there was a Gospel way of approaching this topic which was being completely ignored; this book helped throw some light on why I sensed this: the Bible is a book that is completely relevant to the discussion, starting from Genesis 1, not just from Romans 13. 
I would highly recommend the book to anyone seeking to consider this issue as a Christian.

   Finally, I will add a few of my own thoughts on the topic.  Is it ok to break the laws of a nation where you are not a citizen?  If so, why are we concerned about the illegality of Central American citizens crossing into our country?  If not, is it right to smuggle Bibles into countries where that is illegal, or to witness there?  You will say that those are things commanded in the Bible, but I would ask whether it is not commanded in the Bible to feed and protect your family.  Does it not say that the one who does not provide for his own family is worse than an unbeliever (1 Timothy 5:8)?  You will quibble, and I certainly have not made an exact comparison, but maybe you should pause and reconsider.  Are the laws you defend just?  Does God call for you to defend all of the laws of this (or any) country?  As one Latino brother in Christ said, "Do they think we LIKE running across the desert?!" Nay, it is of necessity.  Do not "shut up" your "bowels of compassion" before you have had the opportunity to interact and feel the need and pain of your brothers and sisters!  And especially remember that many of these immigrants are in Christ together with you and me; do not judge rashly for they stand before the same Judge and call Him Father and Savior and Lord!  Search the Scriptures, my friends; and if you desire some aid, read Dr. Carroll's book.

   Incidentally, my previous post concerning The Good Mexican was spawned by a comment Dr. Carroll made in a sermon at Providence Bible Church.

This article was very interersting on the China-Google spat.  It considers the broader issues of the Chinese rise toward superpower status as well as the question of the difference it will make whether China is faced outward or inward.  Interesting...

A few more thoughts on the elections... from others

A post from acquaintances from Cameroon that I thought put things quite nicely. Dan Seely on why he's glad Barack Obama won...

And a timely article by Kevin Bauder on the Christian's responsibilities to the President, whoever he may be. This article gives good thoughts on both the past and the future of the Presidency.

Irregular sharings

Just some notes:

1. For those of you who use Macs, the newest version of MacSword has come out and is worth downloading as it improves some things that needed it. (If you haven't used this program in the past and want to, get the modules that make the program really useful from here, after you get the main program.)

2. I will give here a hint of my current study project that I hope to blog sometime soon. In my philosophy classes, we have read a number of the classic philosophers and their views on government. In addition to that, I have been in dialogue with a friend who has also been studying the topic though from a slightly different angle. So, sometime soon I will hope to begin posting a several-part "series" on thoughts on Government and the Believer. I expect it to have parts relating to the Old Testament, the New Testament, historic philosophy, and eventually a part on the topic of civil disobedience (which was what started the discussion.) Mayhap it will interest some of you. Oh, and if you are interested in "why?", it is combination of personal interest and a good philosophical discussion to dig into as I begin my studies in this field.

3. Less than 48 hours, Lord willing...

Well the news in my life is not very exciting, so I have not been sure what to post. I am continuing on in Turkish classes; currently I feel that I am doing ok and learning and improving... but that is subject to change without notice. :) Today I did a presentation in class on Ismet Inonu, Turkey's second president and the man who led the country into a multi-party democracy. The research for that was quite interesting, and the presentation.
I enjoy following political news, and so this primary season has interested me quite a bit. Unfortunately I still don't know if I like any of the major candidates for a long list of reasons. :) And when it comes down to practical things like foreign policy, I don't really see anyone who fits my definition of reasonable. I assume that means that I'm unreasonable. :D
Anyways, I figured I should put some new news up and this is the randomness that you got. Hope you like it.

Turkish Elections in 2 days

Well, as a friend reminded me in an email, the Turkish Parliamentary elections are on Sunday. These elections are pivotal for the direction of the country and possibly the whole region. Please pray that the results would be beneficial for the gospel's progress in the country.
Personally, I don't know which party I would like to see in power. I can see positives and negatives to the various parties and their ideas. However, the Lord knows what is best, and so let us ask Him to bring these results.