Morality and International Policy

The following blog post is excerpted from an essay by George Weigel in First Things of August/September 2010.

United States foreign policy has oscillated between two poles. One pole is the Realpolitik, self-interested policies of Theodore Roosevelt and a liberal, idealistic, interest in the welfare of the world’s people in general. In other words, it has varied between our interest and our purposes in the world. Our Realpolitik presidents have been Theodore Roosevelt, Harding, early Franklin Roosevelt, Nixon, Ford, and H.W. Bush. Presidents committed to the welfare of the international community have been Wilson, later FDR, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Reagan, and George W. Bush. Our policies in foreign affairs have varied with the situations and the philosophical bent of our leaders, and American foreign policy has moved according to these forces.

Whatever we, Americans, have done in the past 110 years, has been good or bad, according to one’s values and outlook. But Winston Churchill has said that Americans will always do the right thing after they have tried everything else.

We find ourselves caught, however, in a clash of which is the moral and the safest thing to do—the thing that will help the world’s people and that will secure American safety and prosperity.

On the Right side of the argument is the Protestant moralistic viewpoint that attempts to reduce international relationships to questions resolved by the Sermon on the Mount. On the other side is the camp that attempts to resolve all moral and policy questions on the basis of human reasoning in view of the situations on the ground at the moment. Neither viewpoint seems capable of resolving the problems of the world.

What seems to be needed in this conundrum of values is a combination of common sense and a good dose of Christian moral thinking, applied to situations as they arise. But it is patently evident that neither approach will do as an answer in itself. It would be nice if we could answer all our questions of foreign policy by referring to the pages of the Bible; but it seems hardly possible that one could deal effectively with such tyrants as Hitler, Pol Pot, and Saddam Hussein by turning the other cheek. Unfortunately, this dilemma will not be resolved; but we need leaders who will not ignore one pole of the argument in favor of the other.

The New Left in American politics sees all of the problems in foreign policy as being due to personal selfishness and self-interest on the part of the American people; and they would like to apologize to all the world for the bad things the United States has stood for; they decline to defend human rights activists in Russia, China, and Iran; and they turn their backs on our allies and reinforce the activities of our enemies. This is the message of the Obama administration; and it absolutely will not work. I am hoping that future administrations will correct this imbalance of thinking and bring a semblance of common sense back into American policy.

Affirmative Action Should Come To An End

Senator James Webb, a Democrat from Virginia, has written an op-ed piece for the Wall Street Journal dated 23 July 2010, in which he decries the continuing discrimination in America against white Anglo-Saxon Protestants. This anti-white discrimination has been going on since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when it was put into place by the Johnson administration. Discriminatory policies against these WASP’s have effected males more than females. They have effectively prevented the hiring and college admissions of qualified Whites in preference to Blacks and other ethnic groups.

As Senator Webb and others have pointed out, this administration-initiated preference was justifiable in 1964 and for years afterwards because of an obvious discrimination bias against Blacks in the university and work-place environment. Shelby Steele, a preeminent Black sociologist from the University of California system, has written that affirmative action has done its job and now should be discontinued. The reason is that it is allowing Blacks and other minority ethnic groups to enter education programs with lower qualifications than whites at all levels of upper education, and this assures the outcome of lesser qualification upon graduation of Blacks when compared to Whites. In other words, Black Ph.D.’s, M.D.’s, R.N.’s, etc. come out of their training programs with lesser abilities than their White competitors. It is time for us to get away from affirmative action and admit all comers to universities and the job market on the grounds of their actual qualifications instead of on their ethnic background. Qualified Blacks can stand up on their own against qualified Whites; and both groups would benefit from a discontinuation of affirmative action policies.

Quran—A Dangerous Doctrine

I am making a careful study of the Quran; and I am increasingly concerned with the frequency of admonitions in that book that encourage Muslims to resort to violence in order to promote the cause of their religion.

The Quran, itself, is difficult to read. It consists of a collection of recurring themes in an apparent jumble of text without any ongoing stream of logically flowing idea. The themes that repeatedly recur are ideas that magnify Allah and show him to be “all forgiving and all merciful,” along with many other complimentary names. The book has some admonitions toward moral behavior and commands for integrated family life, erroneous historical accounts from Old Testament sources and other references to historical events from Muhammad’s own life and times. Mixed in with the above are many admonitions and commands favorable to violence against the enemies of Muslims and of Allah, himself. Followers of Islam are guaranteed passage into paradise where there will be very pleasant surroundings—all in response to the good things they do in this life. They are especially favored if they slay unbelievers or are slain in the act of killing enemies. There is no mention of kindness to enemies or to unbelievers—all these are relegated to punishment until they pay the “jizyah,” a tax on unbelievers that allows them to live in peace in a Muslim community. Especially prevalent in the pages of the Quran are erroneous statements about Jews and Christians—claims that these two religions add gods to Allah. The Quran claims that Jews and Christians have changed the books that were originally given to them by God in order to make their religions look better and to justify their pagan beliefs.

I think that those who would claim that Islam is a peaceful religion should read this book and then make their claims, because this doctrinal statement is disturbing to the MAX.

“Disclose” Act, A Very Dangerous Piece of Legislation

The U.S. Senate is now considering a very anti-free speech act designed to muzzle the voices of corporations in American politics. Included in these corporations are issue-oriented organizations such as National Right To Life, the American Family Association, and the Family Research Council. These organizations are the ones that many of us depend upon to inform us of legislation and of legislators who would limit our civil rights to free speech and other basic human rights.

This legislation would limit our rights to intervene in the legislative process; and it would specifically avoid limiting the rights of left-wing organizations, such as labor unions to do the same sort of things. This kind of unbalanced limitation of rights was out-lawed by the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. FEC on 21 January 2010.

This so-called “Disclose Act” was passed by the House of Representatives by a vote of 219-206 on 6/24/10; and it is now in the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. The bill is designated S. 3295. If you would like to read more about this bill, I would refer you to National Right To Life’s letter to House representatives concerning its predecessor, H.R. 5175. You can view their opinion on http://tinyurl.com/29pf663. You should e-mail your senator or call him/her as soon as possible about this very dangerous bill—it would greatly limit our First Amendment rights to free political speech in America.

The Ultimate End of Things

This week, Nancy and I have been camping on the slopes of Medicine Bow Peak in the Snowy Range of southwest Wyoming near timberline. The place is the most beautiful spot I have ever seen with its mountains, trees, lakes, wild flowers, and wild animals. One of the most beautiful parts of this experience was looking up at the sky late at night. It was a clear, cloudless, moonless night. The stars were bright, large, and seemed very near. The Milky Way was spread across the sky like a huge banner. The sight was spectacular! I stood there in wonder and amazement, as men have done again and again for hundreds of years, just looking at this marvelous handiwork.

Those stars! Stars are whirling globs of super-heated gas, finally reaching temperatures of 27,000,000° F, giving off radio waves and other kinds of radiation. Scientists tell us that new stars are being produced in stellar nebular nurseries and dying after billions of years of existence—but all of them aging and gradually dying off. This temporal universe is aging; and someday, if God does not intervene, the last star will blink out.

Of course, I do not know what will become of mankind before this predicted end of the universe, but if there might be any man left watching when the old universe finally gives out of light and energy, can he help asking himself this question: “Where did it all come from? What was the meaning of all this? Was it really something that came into being without a cause? Or…Who was behind all this?”

Things that end all had a beginning—they are called “effects,” and they all have causes. Our universe had a Cause: It was a Who, not a What. That Great WHO is watching; and He is the God of order and rightness. It is He who defines good and bad, right and wrong. It is He who gave us morals and a Savior from the bad things we do. Look at the stars from Medicine Bow Peak and think about all this.

Immigration Reform, A Colorado Perspective

A recent poll of voter attitudes toward immigration reform in Colorado reported by the Wall Street Journal today indicates that 61% of Colorado voters favor an Arizona-type immigration law. Non-tax paying immigrants who are a drain on our social services, our emergency rooms, and our prisons are overrunning our state. This kind of social stress cannot be allowed to escalate. On the other hand, these poor people cannot get jobs to support their families, and they are having stress over that problem, personally. Their situations are very sad; and we owe it to them to help them as any Christian should be able to understand. As a worker in this population of immigrants, it is obvious to me that there is a triad of problems that absolutely prevent employment, i.e., no immigration papers, no transportation, and no ability to speak English—these three things often occur together; and they completely block any attempt to obtain employment.

Mexicans have been coming into this area of America for centuries—even before the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, they have considered this area their property. Unfortunately, the area of arable land in Mexico is not sufficient to produce food adequate for the burgeoning population of that country. What arable land they have is often used for cash crops such as roses (especially in the Cuernavaca area southwest of Mexico City). Mexican jobs are scarce, and crime is rampant. Can any of us blame Mexicans for trying to escape such living conditions?

The economics of the situation indicates that southwestern farmers need cheap farm labor to handle their crops. It is also a fact that Mexican and Central American laborers send $15-20 billion back home each year in remittances to their relatives.

It seems to me, that the answer to this immigration dilemma faced by our society today would be to build an impermeable fence across the Mexican border and patrol it effectively to prevent illegal entry into the United States. Then, we should establish a legal temporary immigration program to allow a certain number of Mexicans into the country to work in needed jobs, mostly in agriculture and allow them to send however much money they wish to send back to Mexico. The next step would be to severely penalize anyone who hires illegals without a permit. And, lastly, we should subtract however much money the legal workers send home from $20 billion and give that money to Mexico for agricultural and educational use—of course, that money given to Mexico should be closely supervised and administrated by American managers, because the rampant corruption in Mexico would prevent effective and efficient use of the money if given to Mexican administrators.

Arminianism & Calvinism: What’s the Essential Difference?

The essential difference between Arminianism and Calvinism has recently been described to me by my good friend, Dr. Robert Ferris of Columbia International University. This question plagues many Christians; and I think that Dr. Ferris’ explanation is very helpful.

The only one of the 5 points of Calvinism that is agreed upon by both Arminians and Calvinists is the first doctrinal statement—the total depravity of man. Mankind, on his own, is totally incapable of responding to God’s call for faith, which will result in his salvation. Necessary for men to be saved is a special work of God in granting him the grace necessary to respond in faith. Without God’s initial act, men can never approach God in a way that will result in their salvation. Upon that point, both Calvinists and Arminians agree.

The main point on which these two camps in fundamental Christianity disagree is the point about God’s sovereignty. Calvinists believe that God controls everything; and Arminians believe that God has the RIGHT to control everything. Arminians believe that God gives His empowering grace to everyone on earth. Arminians also believe that God voluntarily and within the bounds of His own sovereignty, gives man the power to respond to his free gift of grace. Thus, man can voluntarily respond to God—but, he needs the empowering grace from God to do this first.

Both Calvinists and Arminians believe that man is responsible for his decision to reject God and go his own way in life. The Calvinist says that man is responsible for his own decisions, but he is totally incapable of doing otherwise. That makes no sense—nobody can be responsible for something that is impossible for him.

In the Arminian system, man becomes actually responsible for his own rejection of God. In the Calvinist system, man cannot really be held responsible for rejecting God because he is totally incapable of responding positively.

There is a lot more to this argument than I can write in a blog post; but I have not enough space for further discussion, now. I invite my readers to comment on these thoughts.