Science, the Bible and Adam and Eve

Given my theological training and study and my background in science and teaching science, I have developed a real interest in human origins.  One of the major sticking points in holding both science and the Bible to be true has been the historicity of Adam and Eve.  Traditional understandings of them claim that they must have lived in the Middle East around five to ten thousand years ago and that they, and they alone, were the first humans and that all of us descend from them and only them originally.  Furthermore, Adam and Eve were directly created by God and placed in the Garden of Eden.  The entire Earth was idyllic. 

Scientific understanding, however, is rather different.  At no time in the last several hundred thousand years has the human population fallen to less than about ten thousand individuals.  There is no way that we are all descended from only two individuals, especially two people who lived less than fifteen thousand years ago!  Furthermore, rather than being a direct creation by God, humans and great apes share a common descent from ancestors who lived several million years ago.  The Earth has always been pretty much as we know it today as far as weather, climate systems, biological and geological processes.

So how should we deal with these conflicting claims?  Some will jettison the understanding in my first paragraph above, and others will jettison the second.  There are other solutions which involve God picking a pair of evolved people and dealing with them in a special way.  But all of these solutions run into the problem that humans today are not descended from only two people at any point in time. 

So along comes a book, The Genealogical Adam & Eve by S. Joshua Swamidass.  Dr. Swamidass proposes that both the ideas of science and the traditional understandings of the Bible are true.  How?

The first thing that we need to realize is that we are descended from people that we have no DNA from.  That is, they are genealogical ancestors, but not genetic ancestors.   The amount of DNA that is passed along is cut in half every generation, until finally a given DNA piece that you have will vanish from nearly all of your descendants.   That is what makes doing DNA tests interesting, but frustrating.  You are related to people that you share no genes with.

Now, given this fact (which the author explains in detail), we can be descended from people that we have no genes from.  When, though, could these people have lived?  The author explains mathematical models that show that all people alive in the first century AD could very well (and almost certainly are) descended from a pair of people alive a few thousand years before, and that if they lived in the Middle East, it is even more likely.  He deals with objections such as genetic isolation in the Americas, and in Australia and Tasmania, showing that it is likely that even these people are not as isolated as one might think and that these people too are likely descended from a pair of people who lived a few thousand years ago.  The rest of humanity at Adam and Eve's time would have been descended from animals.

Now, there is no scientific way of proving that this pair existed and who they were, but there is no scientific way of proving that they did not, and in fact it is likely that they did exist. 

Dr. Swamidass has thus shown that both positions could very well be true.   This has a lot of interesting ramifications.

First, Adam and Eve are now a theological  "problem" rather than a scientific one.
Second, what are the theological questions that follow?
There are a lot of them, and the author answers some of them in more details, but for most of them, he lays out the questions in the hope that others will fill in the questions or add to the discussions that will hopefully follow.  (See his website here)

What is the relationship between Adam's contemporaries and God?  The author differentiates between biological humans and "textual" humans.
What is the nature of the "Fall"?  How does sin affect biological humans who are not textual humans?  How is sin transmitted?
How do we deal with texts that appear to teach that Adam and Eve were the ancestors of all people of all time?
How does this affect the Atonement and our understanding of what Jesus did and why he came?

Not everyone thinks that this approach solves the problems; see this review for example.  But I think that Dr. Swamidass' approach opens many doors for fruitful discussion and thought.  Has he solved the questions that are raised, theologically and textually?  No.  But I think that he has shown that one can hold to both a traditional understanding of Adam and Eve and to a scientific understanding of the origins of humanity. 

Hans Madueme, the author of the review I linked to in the paragraph above, holds to the traditional understanding of the Genesis text.  I don't think that he deals with the scientific problems in his review.  He critiques Swamadass on the basis of Biblical texts that appear to indicate that Adam and Eve were the ancestors of all humans everywhere, every when.  Madueme is unwilling to re-examine his traditional understanding of the text in the light of genetic and evolutionary evidence that points against it. 

Is it time to re-examine our understanding of the text, just as our spiritual ancestors did in a shift away from a geo-centric model of the solar system and universe?

The inability of the Left to make important distinctions

MAGA hats are racist.  MAGA hats are divisive.  MAGA hats are a vehicle of white supremacy.

Here are a few recent examples.

"Why Trump's MAGA hats have become a potent symbol of racism" is the title of one article written in just the last few days.

"The MAGA hat, like the Confederate flag, wouldn't elicit outraged reactions if it were only a piece of cloth that harkened back to bygone days never to be relived. But it isn't. It is a signifier for those who believe America was great during some point in the past they dare not name, knowing if they do, it would reveal a time when it was worse for people of color. When was America "great"? When millions of black people were slaves? When hundreds of thousands of black men were sold to US companies via convict leasing? Maybe during the heart of Jim Crow, the height of lynching, or when black people struggling with drug addictions were viewed as criminals to be controlled, not fellow human beings needing help?"

"You can read the white rage in their MAGA hats"

"Alyssa Milano: 'The red MAGA hat is the new white hood'" 

Triggered over a MAGA hat.  by a CNN commentator!!


So what do I mean by the inability of the Left to make important distinctions?

1. They can't see how America was ever great if it was flawed, such as in treatment of the indigenous peoples or in slavery.  By this measure, no one and no nation is ever great, nor could be.  Rome wasn't great.  Because only perfection is great, but nothing human is perfect.  They can't recognize that people and nations can be great and yet flawed.  Our Founding Fathers were great people for the most part.  But some of them supported slavery and others didn't but were slave owners.  The Greatest Generation was just that, but by today's standards we couldn't call them great because they didn't get rid of Jim Crow and racism.  Martin Luther and Martin Luther King, Jr. were great, but both deeply flawed.  The first was anti-Semitic, and the second an adulterer.  I would argue that the ability to make distinctions is the sign of maturity.  We should be able to recognize that Rome was great, but had serious flaws.  We can acknowledge the great good that MLK Jr. did, but not ignore the sins and flaws in his life.
2. They can't see how people can wear a MAGA hat for different reasons.  There are undoubtedly racists and white supremacists who support Trump.  But those on the Left assume that anyone who wears such a hat or supports Trump is a racist or white supremacist, just because some of his supporters are.  But not all of his supporters are.  There are a lot of reasons why people supported Trump or would like to make America great again.  But the Left wants to associate all or most of his supporters with those groups.  This is utter nonsense and shows the lack of intellectual sophistication on the Left.  
3. Anything that the Left disagrees with is reaaallllyyyy bad.  Like Hitler bad.  Or KKK bad.   Just because something is bad, doesn't mean it's totally, terribly, completely evil.  Really?  You can't make distinctions about how bad things relative to other things?  Everything is equally good or equally bad?
4. The Left doesn't get that Trump doesn't care about words.  He uses them, but they don't mean that much to him.  What he cares about is getting things done, and words help him get there.  Results are what matter.  To the Left, results mean very little.  What does matter is words, and process, and feelings.  This is why Trump's gotten so much done.  If results mattered to the Left they would abandon many of their policies (such as the war on poverty) and try something else.
5. The Left can't distinguish between legal and illegal immigration.  If you are against the latter, you be against all immigration.  And you are a racist.  Really?
6. If I disagree with something, then I hate it.  Really?  You don't see the difference between hate (see my previous post) and disagreeing?  Hate means a strong dislike and a desire for bad things to someone or an idea. 

Is this an unwillingness or an inability?

• Are those on the Left unwilling to make such distinctions?  If so, are they lazy, or evil?
• Are they unable to?  If so, then are they mentally deficient, or merely uneducated?

Friends and others on the Left.  

Grow up.  

Develop some mental muscle and the ability to distinguish between things, ideas, and people.

If you are on the Right, you are probably agreeing with me at this point.  If you are a moderate Democrat, you are perhaps annoyed at my painting all Democrats with the same brush and not making any distinctions.  You might even accuse me of doing the same thing that I'm accusing the Left of doing.  And you would be mostly correct.  First, how do you like my doing what the Left does most of the time?  Second, please call out those on the Left when they are over top and when they fail to make distinctions.  Then we can make distinctions where they need to be made and begin to respect each other's views and each other.

thank you!

We are a hate filled nation, not a loving nation

Yesterday a story hit social media. 
"Teens in Make America Great Again Hats Taunted a Native American elder at the Lincoln Memorial"

and later in the day the other side. 
"Teen in confrontation with Native American elder says he was trying to defuse the situation"

and a summary and analysis.

The teens in question, students at a Catholic school in Kentucky, were in Washington DC for the Pro-Life March and were waiting for their bus to pick them up in the late afternoon.  Exactly who said and did what, and in what sequence, is still open to question.  Who was in the right or wrong isn't really my concern at this point.  I would instead like to make a different point.

This episode (and others like it such as those involving Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, and Henry Louis Gates Jr.) show that as a nation we are quick to judge and condemn and slow to forgive.  We don't want the whole story; we want the story that fits our narrative.  We want to feel righteous and condemn others. 

I was introduced to the story above yesterday by feeds on Facebook from two of my younger friends (both young enough to be my children).  In both cases the individuals who posted the story condemned the young man in the picture and his classmates.  I pointed out that this was a rush to judgement and that we should wait for the entire story to come out.  This morning there was much more on the second side, casting major doubts on the first narrative.  No doubt there will be more information that comes out, and who knows what the final verdict will be?   One of my two young friends is still inclined to believe the first narrative, and the second apologized for rushing to judgement so quickly.  (hooray for him!)

So how do love and hate fit in with this?  I think that the famous love passage from St. Paul will shed some light on this.

First Corinthians 13
4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.  8 Love never fails.   NIV, from https://www.biblegateway.com on January 21, 2019

My two young friends (and a whole lot of other people) did not exhibit love in this situation.  They were easily angered, and kept a record of wrongs.  They seemed to delight in the "fact" that the young man was a racist and was disrespectful.  It didn't seem to occur to them that this was a sad thing, and might not even be true.  Lewis' comments below shed light on this. 

C S Lewis on 
“Suppose one reads a story of filthy atrocities in the paper. Then suppose that something turns up suggesting that the story might not be quite true, or not quite so bad as it was made out. Is one's first feeling, 'Thank God, even they aren't quite so bad as that,' or is it a feeling of disappointment, and even a determination to cling to the first story for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies are as bad as possible? If it is the second then it is, I am afraid, the first step in a process which, if followed to the end, will make us into devils. You see, one is beginning to wish that black was a little blacker. If we give that wish its head, later on we shall wish to see grey as black, and then to see white itself as black. Finally we shall insist on seeing everything -- God and our friends and ourselves included -- as bad, and not be able to stop doing it: we shall be fixed for ever in a universe of pure hatred.”

― C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity  found on https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/170990-suppose-one-reads-a-story-of-filthy-atrocities-in-the on January 21, 2019

What do the Leftists and Progressives think of Trump supporters?  Do they think that MAGA supporters are as bad as possible?  Yes, I think that overall they do.  Are people on the Left frequently looking for reasons to be offended by those on the Right?  Yes.  Democrats think the worst of Republicans.  I don't think that the reverse is true, but it is rapidly become so.  As a nation we are increasingly acting out of hateful attitudes and motives.   We see the worst in the other side, and we only want to see the worst.  We want to be offended by the other side.

What's the remedy for this?  I'm reminded of Jesus' words of the second greatest commandment. 

"Love your neighbor as yourself."

Love is wishing the best for another person, and the best love is actively working toward that best.
Hate is wishing the worst for another person, and the worst hate is actively working toward that end.

By those definitions,

• When we get angry at another motorist, are we acting in love?
• When we react negatively toward people we disagree with, do we wish them the best in spite of our disagreement, or do we hope the worst for them?  Is this love, or hate?
• When people threaten others professionally, or their lives, or in other ways because of disagreements, are we acting in love or hate?
• When we look for reasons to be offended, are we acting in love?

What can you and I do about this situation?  

• Practice thinking the best about others and giving them the benefit of the doubt.
• Encourage others to wait for a more complete picture before rushing to judgement.
• Call people out on truly hateful attitudes, words and actions.  
• Differentiate between disagreement and real hate.
• Pray for those we disagree with.
• Actively do good things for others.
• Stop looking for reasons to be offended by what others say and do

Our culture can be improved if we act more out of love, and less out of hate.

Chapter 3 Economic Systems that do not lead to prosperity

I'm currently reading The Poverty of Nations by Wayne Grudem and Barry Asmus that was published about a year ago.  It was on my reading list, and my daughter bought it for me for Christmas.  I've begun to read it and will give a summary as I go.

Introduction was here
Chapter 1 was here
Chapter 2 was here

Now for chapter 3.
It's also helpful to look at which systems don't work and why they don't.  Although the right system in and of itself does not bring a nation out of poverty, the wrong system will doom a nation.  A poor system will not lead to lasting solutions to poverty.

The authors describe nine systems and critique each to show how they do or do not lead to the creation of more wealth.

1. Hunting and gathering systems do not leave enough time and energy to devote to economic development and specialization.  Plus, there simply aren't enough of these resources left to support a nation in this fashion.
2. Subsistence farming does not leave enough energy and time to devote to specialization and development.  All one's time and energy are spent on producing enough food to feed one's self and a few others.  Again, there aren't enough resources in the world to support a large population in this fashion.
3. Slavery.  Living off the lives of others is not going to lift a nation out of poverty.  Enslaved people never do their best.  Plus such a system is dehumanizing.
4. Tribal ownership.  If everyone owns it, then no one does.  Commonly owned property is usually treated more poorly than property that individuals own.
5. Feudalism  In this system too much of the return to the labor goes to the land owner and not enough to those at the bottom of society.  
6. Mercantilism  Although it seems that this method would increase a nation's wealth, it would not do so over the long haul.  Large companies and monopolies are favored against consumers.  The producer os favored rather than the consumer.  The government picks the winners and losers.  
7. Socialism and communism misunderstand how goods are valued.  They are valued by how much someone else wants them, not by the resources and the time put into creating them. Communism reduces the incentive to work.  The problems of tribal ownership also haunt communism and socialism to some degree.  The history of communism also indicates that it is an evil system, with close to 100 million human beings killed by their own governments during the twentieth century.
8. Welfare state and equality  This system can't be sustained on a large scale and for very long.  Sooner or later someone has to pay the bills.  The incentive for hard work is also removed.  
9. Free market system  This system is the one that the authors describe as the one that is most likely to lead to the reduction of poverty.  It is important to understand what they mean by a free market system.  It is where the individuals can freely choose what to buy and not buy, what to purchase and not purchase, where to invest and not to invest.

The next chapter describes the free market system

Curing Poverty - chapter 2

I'm currently reading The Poverty of Nations by Wayne Grudem and Barry Asmus that was published about a year ago.  It was on my reading list, and my daughter bought it for me for Christmas.  I've begun to read it and will give a summary as I go.

Introduction was here
Chapter 1 was here

Now for chapter 2
In this chapter the authors discuss approaches that will not lead to prosperity.
They list the following:

1. Foreign Aid
1. Foreign aid does not work because it does not build the structures that bring and keep people out of poverty.  Instead this aid tends to become a good that those in power use to enrich themselves or to stay in power.  It encourages corruption.  It eliminates the incentives for hard work, education, and working for one's own success.  Furthermore, the history of foreign aid is that it does not work.  Why does it continue?  Because bureaucracies are more interested in perpetuating themselves than in finding solutions that work.  The authors also point to many of the civil wars in Africa that came about because of conflicts over the control of foreign aid money. 
2. Emergency aid given to non-government agencies is often useful, but must be done with care.
3. The Bible teaches help for the poor, but not handouts.  In the Old Testament the poor were given opportunities to glean for themselves, but not to simply receive handouts.
2. Wealth redistribution
1. Some countries have large differences between the wealth of a few and the wealth of the vast majority of citizens.  Latin America in places, North Korea, parts of Africa and Russia are cited as examples.  In these cases, simply redistributing the wealth will not raise people out of poverty in the long term because there are problems in society that need to be addressed.
2. Some countries have wealthy people because those people have worked hard or created services and goods that others will pay money for.  To redistribute these people's wealth is stealing.
3. Depletion/over use of natural resources
1. Depending on a few natural resources for a nation's wealth is a mistake.  The authors point to Spain in its dependence on the gold of the New World and OPEC nations today.  It is too easy to depend on the wealth that the resource brings and not use the resources to continue to build wealth.  Norway is a positive example of using oil, but many other nations have not been so successful.
4. Blaming poverty on external factors
1. The authors discuss colonialism and contend that although both harmful and beneficial, colonialism is only partially responsible for the poverty of most of today's poor nations. Colonialism has created the conditions that have lead to poverty in some nations, and has led to creating structures in other countries that have led to wealth.
2. Blaming the past does not create solutions for the further.  While it may be wise to look at the mistakes of the past, staying mired in the past will not lead to solutions in the future.
3. World Bank and similar agencies.  Should these loans be forgiven?  If so, then we are back to simply giving foreign aid - see above.  How will the conditions that gave rise to the lack of ability to repay be changed?  If they are not, then forgiving debt will not actually change the situation in any country.
4. The section on commodities in the world market was very interesting.  I would suggest that you read it for yourself  (pages 92-99).  The authors do not favor the "fair-trade" movement.  Nor are they in favor of market manipulation through subsidies and tariffs by large companies or more powerful nations.
5. Multinational corporations: Again, this is a more complicated section and needs to be read in its entirety.  The authors speak out against monopolies of labor because that artificially lowers or raises the cost of labor.  When companies compete with each other for the cost of labor, then everyone benefits.  Employees should be treated fairly and honestly.
5. What does cause poverty?  This is complicated and people on both sides of this issue are often too superficial in their understandings.
1. War, crime, disease, accidents, disasters can all cause or contribute to poverty.  This is often beyond the victim's control.  
2. Laziness by the poor person
3. Other factors?

The next chapter deals with systems that do NOT lead to wealth.

Curing Poverty Chapter 1: The goal

I'm currently reading The Poverty of Nations by Wayne Grudem and Barry Asmus that was published about a year ago.  It was on my reading list, and my daughter bought it for me for Christmas.  I've begun to read it and will give a summary as I go.  In the last post I introduced the book.

Chapter 1
Per capita income must increase for a nation to become wealthier.  More goods and services need to be created.  That is, goods that have a monetary value must increase in number.  If people bake bread at home and eat it, per capita income does not increase.

This measure does not give any indication of how well the wealth is distributed in a country, however.  We do not know whether the wealth is in the hands of a few, or in many hands.  For a nation to become more wealthy, the wealth needs to benefit many people.

Wealthier nations are able to afford cleaner water, air and better medical care.  So while more wealth is not the only answer to better lives, it is a necessary starting point.

The rest of the book is a description of how the GDP (gross domestic product) can be increased.   But in summary, a country needs to continually produce more goods and services each year.  The country will have to figure out for itself what those goods and services need to be.

The authors interact with other goals that have been suggested about how to eliminate poverty.  These include more aid, more equal distribution of wealth, discovering new natural resources, debt forgiveness, better trade terms, more fair trade goods, and restraining multinational corporations.  the authors show briefly why these are not adequate for lifting a nation out of poverty.  More substantial objections will be explored later in the book.

Of particular interest in terms of current American cultural and political thought is the morality of profit.  The Occupy Wallstreet movement is in the recent past, and many in America have recently begun to think that profits are evil.  The authors point out (p. 53) that ". . . profit is not immoral, but is a measure of morally positive value that has been added to the nation."  When two or more parties agree mutually to buy and sell and one makes a profit, then the other has agreed that the value is fair and that they are willing to pay it.  Profits then reflect an increase in value over raw materials because of human talent, training, and hard work.

How then can a nation increase the amount of goods and services that it produces?  How can more garments be produced?  More food, refrigerators, or whatever?  This will be dealt with in the rest of the book.

Grudem and Asmus point out several historical examples of nations that have become more wealthy.  Britain, Japan, Hong Kong, and South Korea, all come to mind.  They mention the Industrial Revolution and how it eventually benefited England, but they don't mention the social destruction that went along with it as well.  I hope that they address these factors as the book unfolds.

Biblically, the authors point to the wife of Proverbs 31 who seems to be an entrepreneurial capitalist.  They also point to the Creation mandate of Genesis 1 where Adam and Eve are commanded to subdue the earth and implies that they were to use the resources of nature for their own benefits.  The New Testament also points to the importance of working.

Chapter two: Wrong Goals:  What won't work

Curing Poverty Introduction

Every year especially at the Thanksgiving and Christmas holiday season I give thought to those who are less fortunate than I am materially.  There is so much food, so many things in my life, and yet there are many around the world who have little or not enough of food, water, and other things that make life more enjoyable.

I give thought to what I can do to help those people.  I have been interested in micro finance and have contributed money that way in the past.  And yet I have read articles that lead to me believe that those avenues may not be as helpful to lifting people out of poverty as we would hope.

So it was with great interest that I became aware of a book The Poverty of Nations by Wayne Grudem and Barry Asmus that was published about a year ago.  It was on my reading list, and my daughter bought it for me for Christmas.  I've begun to read it and will give a summary as I go.

Within my lifetime (55 years) the Western world has given at least 500 billion dollars to Africa, yet that continent remains mired in poverty.  What has happened?  Surely that much money should have raised the average African to at least being out of poverty.  But that's not what has happened.  In this book, the authors show how nations (not individuals) can leave poverty behind them.  They examine these factors (seventy nine total) and show both economically (Barry Asmus) and Biblically (Wayne Grudem) why these principles work.

Introduction
The authors want to provide a sustainable solution to poverty for nations.  It is important that the solution last  - so it must be sustainable.  The authors realize that within nations there will be inequality of wealth, and that some nations will be wealthier than others.  That is the way life is, but it is important (and Biblical) that people not be left in poverty.  The focus of the book is on "national laws, national economic policies, and national cultural values habits because we are convinced that the primary causes of poverty are factors that affect an entire nation." (p. 26)

It is important that these changes come from within the poor nation itself.  Outsiders cannot impose solutions, nor should they act in ways that will lead to dependence by the poor nation (paternalism).

The authors recognize that wealth is not all that there is to life.  Many poor people may be better adjusted and happier than many wealthy people in their own countries or in other countries.  It could also be argued that although we in the USA may be very wealthy materially, that we are in fact very impoverished spiritually and in our relationships.  Nevertheless, it is not good that there are so many poor people in the world who are unable to feed themselves and their families, or who are stuck with the barest essentials while others have so much more.

Why don't economists agree on the solutions(s) to poverty?  The authors list six reasons and interact with them.

1. Some do agree with our authors, and they list several works that could be read.
2. Some economists are "professional donors."  That is, they give away others' money and have a stake in the system continuing as it is.
3. Pure economists only address economic concerns and do not address cultural, moral, or spiritual values.  The authors of this book believe that all these factors are important for lifting people out of poverty.
4. Some people do not believe that certain cultural values are better or worse than others.  All cultural values are equal.  
5. Some people believe that wealth comes becomes of accidents of geography.  The book Guns, Germs, and Steel is one such approach.
6. Planners (I am so glad they included this part) believe that government experts can adequately plan economies and thereby create wealth.  If it hasn't worked well before (or at all) it is because the wrong experts have been in place.  Sounds like the current administration in Washington!! 

So what can I, as an American do?  First, it is my hope that by reading this book and summarizing it for you, I can raise your awareness of the issues.  Perhaps an influential person in a poor country will read these posts, and then read the book and take action in their own country.  Second, you and I can influence our leaders in the West and businesses that deal with poor countries to put in place policies that will actually benefit these poorer nations.  We can also encourage the elimination of policies that do not help and may actually keep poor countries in poverty.  Third, as we work through the book, hopefully there will be other ways that we can help that become more obvious.  Lastly, we in the West are not guaranteed to remain prosperous.  We may be leaving some of the principles that have helped us create our wealth.  So it would be wise of us to examine our own culture to see what we can do to not squander the wealthy inheritance that we have been given.

Dennis Prager interview with Wayne Grudem on the topic and the book.

Chapter 1 is next

Political Concept Group

Recently I've been having several discussions on Facebook with different people about politics, truth in politics, public policy and social issues.  Some of the people agree pretty closely with me, others are very (almost uncomfortably for me) liberal.  Once we get past the sloganeering that many (most?) of us are at times prone to do, we have some interesting discussions.  I learn a lot about how others think, and why they value what they do.  I learn that many of them share my concerns and that we could work together.  And then some idiot politician says something stupid, and I feel like we're back to square one.  So, I’ve been thinking about forming a new group on Facebook.

What I have in mind for this group is that we discuss truth and facts in the political and social realm and their implications for public policy.

I don’t want posts straight from either of the major parties.  I don’t want sloganeering, but rather questions and discussions about what is true and what isn’t true about what the candidates and parties claim.  I want us to discuss the implications of these truths and falsehoods related to such issues as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the debt, the deficit, defense spending, cultural values, (abortion, homosexual marriage) and so on.  I hope that even though we may disagree with each other we will at least understand where people we disagree with are coming from.  Most Conservatives and Republicans aren't evil or stupid.  Neither are most Liberals and Democrats.

I’m hoping that we can call out politicians on either side when they make stupid claims, statements, or utter falsehoods.  Or when they stretch the truth.  I hope that we can do it in such as a way that we aren’t playing “gotcha” with each other.  I would like us to link to articles that are thoughtful and fair.  We will try and present others’ views as fairly and accurately as possible and then discuss them.

One of my online Facebook friends/debaters suggested that we call such a group as this the “Concept Party”.  I ended up with “Political Concept Group - A Via Media.”

You may still believe that your party is better than mine, your candidates more ethical and better than mine.  Fine.  But let’s realize that we have many of the same goals for ourselves and for the country (for those in the USA.  For those who aren't there are still lots of common areas such as debt, poverty, abortion, homosexual marriage and so on).  We’ll treat each other with respect, and not be nasty about each other as people.  And we’ll try to not be nasty about positions that we disagree with.  We won’t call each other racists, Nazis, fundamentalists etc unless it’s really warranted.  If you think a policy has racist implications, then spell out those implications without assuming that the person is a racist.  Maybe the person who holds that view is a racist.  Maybe you see something he’s missed.  Maybe you’re missing something.

Some of us will be Christians, some not.  Let's all remember to treat each other as we would like to be treated.  Let's be up front about our own biases and positions.

Interested?  Know someone else who holds some of these same values?  Let me know.  I’ll moderate and control the group for a while at least.  People who engage in name calling or simple sloganeering will be gently admonished and given a chance to moderate their statements and/or apologize and interact with the group before being blocked.  Those who persist in acting this way will be blocked at some point.

Here’s an article that got me to sort of wanting to do something.
http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/lies-damn-lies-and

Book Reviews: Still the Best Hope & The Brief Against Obama

I'm getting a bunch of reading done this summer!  Some of it's fiction, but I'm also doing some political reading.  Specifically, I'm reading The Brief Against Obama by Hugh Hewitt and Still the Best Hope by Dennis Prager.




I've listened to both men for years on their radio programs and read several of Dennis Prager's books.  Nothing against Hugh, but I really like Dennis.  Both write well.  If you are interested in knowing more about why you should support Conservatives rather than Liberals, read one or both of these books.

The Brief Against Obama is primarily presented as a legal brief against Obama.  There are twenty-five chapters.  Each chapter is a topical brief against Obama.  These briefs are reasons not to vote for Obama.
The twenty-five chapters are divided into three areas.

1. Domestic Policy Failures
2. Foreign Policy Failures
3. Leadership Failures

Each chapter is fairly short and easily read.  Some are more interesting and compelling than others, but together they make a compelling reason not to vote for Obama.

Still the Best Hope is longer and summarizes Prager's thoughts on America, her values and their roles in the world.  The sub-title is: Why the World Needs American Values to Triumph.  Prager believes that there are only three futures for the world.  Either the world will embrace Leftist values, American values, or Islamist values.  He believes that only American values will give security, prosperity, and  freedom to the people of the world.  This book explains at length why.

Part 1 explores Leftism, which is the most relevant to our situation in America today with the election coming this Autumn.  

Dennis describes why Leftism is a religion and describes what Leftists believe and why they believe it.  He then describes what the consequences are of these beliefs  The Left is Utopian, believing that in this life and world we can have a perfect or nearly perfect life.  The Right realizes that the best is often the enemy of the good and that in the search for the best the Left destroys much that is good in society.  Why is the Left so successful in putting forward their ideas when their ideas are so destructive to society and so often don't match reality?  Dennis explores this at length.  The reasons include: the emotional basis for much of Leftist thought, sloganeering, pursuing self esteem rather than accomplishments, the wide-spread dissemination of Leftist thought in universities and the media, the demonization of the Right, and the creation and propagation of crises such as heterosexual AIDS, second hand smoke, swine flu, global warming and so on.  The last chapter of this section deals with the moral record of the Left.  Prager concludes that the Left does not recognize evil, and that whatever it touches, it has made worse.

Part 2 explores Islam and Islamism.  I'll have to comment more on this part later, as I haven't read this part yet.

Part 3 describes America and her values.  Again, more later.