SEPTEMBER 2012

    How can we forget Obama’s “you didn’t build that” bomb in a July 13, 2012 speech in Roanoke, VA (see full text here and see a video clip here). I would call this a gaffe, except for the fact that Obama hasn’t apologized for nor backed down from it; he genuinely feels like this country is great because of government, and not primarily because of the freedom of its hard-working, honest and entrepreneurial citizens. And not only was “you didn’t build that” not an isolated blunder, but the full context of the statement reflects that it was the centerpiece of an argument that he was making over several paragraphs regarding the value of big government and the need for citizens to pay more taxes:“There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

“If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

I don’t disagree with the reality that many people and tools can assist us on the path to success, including a “great teacher” or “roads and bridges.” However, the President almost eradicates the relationship that typically binds hard work and personal incentive to individual success. I, furthermore, find comments like these impossible to swallow from someone who hides data about his past, has had so many things handed to him over the years, and who has never started nor run a business in his life!

    So, What’s the capital of Israel? That simple question should yield a simple, straight-forward answer, in fact, an answer that is either one or two words long depending where your loyalties lie! However, in a White House press briefing from July 26 of this year, Obama spin-meister Jay Carney refused to answer that question, even when pressed hard by members of the press (see a one minute clip here). That is, the Press Secretary refused to simply state that this administration supports Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, one of our closest allies. The next day, Carney attempted to clarify the issue, but his clarification was disturbingly shifty and ambiguous (see a clip from the July 27 press briefing here).

    But then a few days later, on July 30, White House Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest was pressed by the media about the ambiguity of Obama’s position. In fact the fuzziness of Obama’s stance was in stark contrast to Romney’s clear declaration in support for Jerusalem as the proper capital of Israel. Earnest’s response affirmed the disturbing vagueness of the Obama administration on the matter (see the July 30 video here). Furthermore, both Carney and Earnest are being supremely disingenuous that Obama’s ambiguity is even categorically similar to the views of Ronald Reagan or even Bill Clinton on this matter. The unwillingness of the Obama administration to speak out clearly in support of Israel and her capital of Jerusalem is frightening; this has enormous implications regarding the direction that Obama’s foreign policy may take if the American people grant him a second term.

    This ambiguity and disunity about Israel was painfully demonstrated at the recent Democratic Convention when the majority of delegates rejected an amendment inserting reference to God and to Jerusalem back into the Dem’s platform (see article and video here). The amendment was passed anyway by fiat by the comically confounded convention chairman LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. Perhaps the theological confusion of the party is related to their slightly skewed opinion of Obama; in June 2009 Newsweek editor Evan Thomas remarked: “ . . . in a way Obama's standing above the country, above . . . the world; he’s sort of God” (click here to see the video).

    So how did Obama and his closest confidants view his divine reign . . . I mean . . . his presidency even before his inauguration? Valerie Jarrett, Co-chair of the Obama transition team ominously stated in a November 9, 2008 interview on Meet the Press with Tom Broka: “Given really the daunting challenges that we face, it’s important that President-elect Obama is prepared to really take power and begin to rule day one” (italics added).  First of all, the reference the “daunting challenges” seem to have been used by the Obama administration as an excuse for an ongoing power grab by the federal government; or, as Rahm Emanual said in November 21, 2008, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” Second: it is extremely revealing that Jarrett would employ phrases like “take power” and “rule [from] day one” to describe Obama’s attitude toward leadership. I would think that a Constitutional scholar like Obama would have a better understanding of the role of President as a leader rather than a “ruler.”

    It’s almost unfair to pick on Biden, a very likeable fellow, but someone who spends more time with his foot in his mouth than on the ground. He claimed in September 2008 that the wealthy need to be patriotic by paying more taxes, an idea that he continued to promote in a February 23, 2012 speech about the “shared reasonability” the wealthy have in “tax equity.” That is, he feels that the very wealthy are not sufficiently and fairly sharing in the tax burden even though as of 2009 the top 1% of earners provided almost 37% of federal income tax revenue and the top 5% paid over 58% (taken from the National Tax Payers Union and the Tax Foundation, and see more detailed numbers from the Congressional Budget Office). This taxed-inequity contradicts his assertions that America should be more “fair.” More recently, Biden claimed on August 14 to a mixed-race Virginia audience that Republicans want to “put ya’ll back in chains” and he asserted the next day that he wants to see America lead in the “twentieth century;” a gaffe, by the way, that he made back in February 2010 as well (uh . . . Mr. Biden . . . you’re about a decade behind). Biden epitomizes a leadership mentality where class warfare, race-baiting, and contradiction lurk under a thin veneer of charm and cheesy grins.

    So, that’s the choice in November: a socialist regime that wants to rule and impose narrow definitions of “fair” on this country by taxing us to death, or a decision for less government, less taxes and more freedom. The choice seems clear enough when you see their ideology in their own words.

ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD: Part 2, More Classical Arguments

    We continue in our series on the various arguments for the existence of God. These arguments are not so much “proofs” as much as they are assertions about how reasonable the existence of God is despite what the small but vocal atheist community would have us believe. That is, God’s existence is unprovable but not at all implausible.

    In the last article in this series we discussed the Cosmological argument, or the reality that all things that we see were caused by something else which points back to an initial uncaused Cause (i.e., God).  God is self-existent and, unlike all other things that caused to exist, his being was not caused by anything else. In this article, we will continue to discuss the classical arguments that have been used from medieval times to confirm God’s existence.

    The Motion Argument is very similar to the Cosmological argument, and often simply collated with it. The argument basically goes like this: things that we see that are in motion didn’t create that motion themselves. Most things eventually come to rest, and only move if they are acted upon such that they move (yes, this includes husbands!). Everything that we see moving was caused to move by some other force. This implies an original unmoved mover that caused all other things either directly or indirectly to move but was not caused to move by anything except himself; this is unmoved Mover is God. Note Scripture’s references to the stars (Ps 8:1, 3), to the motion, or “circuit,” of the sun (Ps 19:6; 113:3; Eccl 1:5), and even to the movement of paths in the seas (Ps 8:8) and of the winds (Eccl 1:6; 11:5).    The Teleological Argument (from the Greek word telos meaning “end,” “outcome” or “goal”) is the Cosmological argument but with the twist of intentionality: The way creation works implies an intentional Creator. The design of the universe implies an intelligent designer. This Designer is God (Ps 19:1-2; Rom 1:20). As we said in the last article, a series of dominoes not only implies an initial cause for their existence and placement (Cosmological argument) and something that instigates their motion (the Motion argument). It also implies an intentional arranger (Teleological argument) who positioned the entire series of dominoes so that they would work properly and accomplish certain goals and outcomes. This idea of intelligent design has even picked up some momentum within the scientific community and is championed in works like William A. Dembski’s 1999 book Intelligent Design and the more recent Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design by Stephen C. Meyer (2010).  Rather than suggesting that science draws them away from a belief in God, scientists in the Intelligent Design movement assert that the more they observe nature either on an astronomical scope or microscopic level, the more convinced they are that matter is organized in such as way as to demand a Creator.  

    The last two “classical” arguments are less scientifically oriented and more philosophical. The Moral Argument suggests that when we make a moral comparison of any kind we imply a standard of perfection, and that Standard of Perfection is God (Rom 1:19; 2:14-16; 3:23). Of course, some may argue for moral relativity or that our conception of moral perfection is a biologically evolved capacity. Still, the detractor has to convincingly verify how morality evolves universally such that people from diverse locations and backgrounds all recognize at least basic moral absolutes, for instance, that murder or theft are wrong. This argument certainly reflects a Scriptural principle (again, Rom 3:9 and 23 are pretty definitive), just one that may not have as much traction in a post-modern relativist context.

    This last one is a bit tricky, and I’m not as convinced by it as by the others, but I’ll let you decide for yourself if you buy it or not. The Ontological Argument goes like this: Humans have an intuitive idea of a perfect being. Humans cannot have an intuitive idea of a non-reality, therefore a perfect being a must exist. This perfect being is God (Rom 1:21; Eccl 3:11). An antagonist may quickly fire back that we can imagine unicorns, orcs, and dragons, but (as far as we can tell!), these are not real. However, these fictions are extrapolated from real creatures. Unicorns are horses with a point; orcs are cranky humanoids; dragons are big lizards that just happen to also breath fire. All of our notions of these non-real beings are based on their conceptual proximity to something real. Similarly, the reason why diverse people have similar conceptions of God affirms his existence; even the made up deities have some conceptual proximity to the one and only true God.

    Again, the goal here is not necessarily to prove that God exists as much as to lend credibility to his existence, and in fact, demonstrate how foolish it is to deny his existence. These arguments get us pretty far in terms of identifying a powerful, intelligent, God who creates and sustains. However, these arguments do not get us all the way to Biblical, orthodox Christianity. That is, as a result of these rational arguments, we have a God who is real, awesomely capable, intentional, and moral. However, we can not discern through observation nor reason exclusively Christian concepts such as the Trinity, the incarnation of the Son of God, or the propitiation and resurrection of Christ.  These must be (and have been!) revealed to humanity specially through God’s Word.

    These arguments, though extensive, do have a limit, doctrinally. But they at least demonstrate how difficult it is to deny that there is an initial unmoved Mover, an original uncaused Cause, who serves both externally and intuitively as a moral standard of perfection for all people.

    The book of Psalms twice claims that the person who denies God’s existence is simply a “fool” (Ps 14:1; 53:1 see also 10:4). In light of these arguments for God’s existence, it is very hard to disagree!

THE QUEST FOR THE IDEAL MEDIEVAL FANTASY SERIES: Part 3, Critiques of Some Medieval Fantasy Series

    While the medieval fantasy field is saturated with books and series today vis-à-vis fifty years ago, very few modern fantasy authors strike a gratifying balance between innovation and cliché. We have been arguing that great medieval fantasy, or high fantasy, utilizes cliché or expected elements of the genre (swords, dragons, magic, etc.), but also includes innovative nuances to these typical elements. In addition to merely balancing the innovative and the generic, really great medieval fantasy contains compelling plots, settings and characters as well. It is critical to have gripping leading characters who are charming, relatable and multi-layered (see our article “Seeking a Great Protagonist” from the May 2012 edition).

    While we voyage to understanding why some medieval fantasy series are great, it is also helpful to examine why some were lacking. This article offers some critiques of certain high fantasy series that I have read, and why some of them simply didn’t break from good into great.

    I’ll start with what may be some controversy over a classic: I have enjoyed C. S. Lewis’ Narnia series (written mainly in the early 1950s), and I'm rather fond of the movies versions as well.  However, but I can never get over the impression that I am reading books directed at kids, though I am aware that I am picking up on a couple of gems that most kids probably miss. There was definitely the expected elements of magic, swords, quests, witches, etc., and these were deftly balanced with innovative elements, such as a Messianic Lion and the interaction between the fantasy world and the modern world. These will always be a classic series, and a suburb point of entry into the genre, but ultimately unable to compete with the maturity and texture of most high fantasy series.    Ursula K. Le Guin’s Earthsea series (began in 1964) describes a pre-technological culture spread out over an archipelago of hundreds of islands. This series was fairly cliché featuring a coming-of-a-age boy who becomes a powerful wizard. The innovative component is, of course, the numerous islands of that culture, and thus there are many more maritime elements  than one would typically find in a fantasy series. However, this element was not used to create anything extraordinary about this series, and the device is almost completely ignored in the second book The Tombs of Atuan. It often didn’t seem to make any difference between whether the characters were traveling great distances across land or water; the focus in fantasy is usually more on the destination than the means of travel. The islands-and-sea approach was a novel and unique element, but simply not creative enough to make this series stand out.

    I am currently plowing through Tad Williams acclaimed Memory, Sorrow and Thorn series. This is a solid (and long!) series in terms of mixing the typical elements of magic, swords, politics, battles, quests, etc., but, like Eragon, there were hardly any unique or innovative elements.  I’m sure I’ll comment more on it later, bit for now, I’ll simply say that it is enjoyable, and good, but not great.

    I have read several high fantasy series, and merely started several more. Those in the latter category seemed to me to lack the balance and quality to catapult me into subsequent installments of the series. As stated in the March 2012 edition of The Eclectic Kasper, I began George R. R. Martin’s The Game of Thrones, but it was too much politics and not enough medieval fantasy for my taste. I read the Eragon, the first installment of the Inheritance Cycle, but found the naïve writing to be too cliché to continue with it. I could say the same for David Edding’s three-volume series The Elenium, the first of which didn’t sufficiently compel me to bother with the rest of the series. Its not that it was bad fantasy, but it was just too generic and derivative to continue on.

    As these examples demonstrate, some series lack any innovative and creative elements, and thereby read like bland and generic medieval fantasy. However, some feature a very creative spin on the typical elements. This can be good, but an innovation that is too inventive risks sending the entire series into implausibility.