Civil Commotion

Philosopher Michael LaBossiere reprises some familiar questions hereabouts.

Laying aside the political machinations, there is a rather interesting philosophical and theological question here: who decides who is a Muslim? Since I am not a Muslim or a scholar of Islam, I will not be examining this question from a theological or religious perspective. I will certainly not be making any assertions about which specific religious authorities have the right to say who is and who is not a true Muslim. Rather, I am looking at the philosophical matter of the foundation of legitimate group identity. This is, of course, a variation on one aspect of the classic problem of universals: in virtue of what (if anything) is a particular (such as a person) of a type (such as being a Muslim)?

By a different route than my own, LaBossiere reaches the same conclusion I’ve reached — there’s no telling.

What is needed, then, is some sort of sure sign—clear and indisputable proof of the one true view. Naturally, each person thinks he has that—and everyone cannot be right. God, sadly, has not provided any means of sorting this out —- no glowing divine auras around those who have it right.

Fred Phelps, a man that most Christians freely reviled while he was alive, could easily quote Scripture to prove that he was right. ISIS warriors, reviled and mocked by Muslims almost universally, can also quote holy texts which prove they are doing as the Invisible Wizard requires.

The overwhelming majority of those of each faith insist that their own odious outliers are not r-e-e-e-a-l Christians or Muslims. The opponents of both faiths insist that the sewer-dwellers among their opponents are exemplars of the r-e-e-e-a-l faith, and that the majority who don’t have the slightest interest in bothering anybody have merely a cultural association with that faith.

In other words, the typical Christian will insist that Fred Phelps is not a r-e-e-e-a-l Christian, but ISIS are r-e-e-e-a-l Muslims — the genuine article. The average Muslim, on the other hand, insists that ISIS are not r-e-e-e-a-l Muslims, then looks at Phelps’ public indecencies and wonders what on earth is wrong with Christians.

The all-important truth is that the overwhelming majority of both Christians and Muslims have too much sense and decency to be ‘good’ anythings; from al-Baghdadi to the red-faced howler at your local Southern Baptist church, it’s the ones who don’t that you have to watch.

Book Two: A Criticism of the Highest Values That Have Prevailed Hitherto
I: Criticism of Religion

§240   Supposing it were impossible to disprove Christianity, Pascal thinks, in view of the terrible possibility that it may be true, that it is in the highest degree prudent to be a Christian. As a proof of how much Christianity has lost of its terrible nature, today we find that other attempt to justify it, which consists in asserting, that even if it were a mistake, it nevertheless provides the greatest advantages and pleasures for its adherents throughout their lives: it therefore seems that this belief should be upheld owing to the peace and quiet it ensures not owing to the terror of a threatening possibility, but rather out of fear of a life that has lost one of its charms. This hedonistic turn of thought, which uses happiness as a proof, is a symptom of decline: it takes the place of the proof resulting from power or from that which to the Christian mind is most terrible — namely, fear. With this new interpretation, Christianity is, as a matter of fact, nearing its stage of exhaustion. People are satisfied with a Christianity which is an opiate, because they no longer have the strength to seek, to struggle, to dare, to stand alone, nor to take up Pascal’s position and to share that gloomily brooding self-contempt, that belief in human unworthiness and that anxiety which believes that it “may be damned”. But a Christianity the chief object of which is to soothe diseased nerves, does not require the terrible solution consisting of a “God on the cross”; which is why Buddhism is silently gaining ground all over Europe.

With its letter to the government of Iraq, which discourages negotiation with the United States even as negotiations are underway, the Republican Party has finally arrived at the logical dead-end of its nihilistic hatred of the President: Sedition. No other word fits.

Here is the text of the letter.

An Open Letter to the Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran:

It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system. Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of our Constitution — the power to make binding international agreements and the different character of federal offices — which you should seriously consider as negotiations progress.

First, under our Constitution, while the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them. In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote. A so-called congressional-executive agreement requires a majority vote in both the House and the Senate (which, because of procedural rules, effectively means a three-fifths vote in the Senate). Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement.

Second, the offices of our Constitution have different characteristics.

For example, the president may serve only two 4-year terms, whereas senators may serve an unlimited number of 6-year terms. As applied today, for instance, President Obama will leave office in January 2017, while most of us will remain in office well beyond then — perhaps decades.

What these two constitutional provisions mean is that we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.

We hope this letter enriches your knowledge of our constitutional system and promotes mutual understanding and clarity as nuclear negotiations progress.

Sincerely,

Senator Tom Cotton, R-AR
Senator Orrin Hatch, R-UT
Senator Charles Grassley, R-IA
Senator Mitch McConnell, R-KY
Senator Richard Shelby, R-AL
Senator John McCain, R-AZ
Senator James Inhofe, R-OK
Senator Pat Roberts, R-KS
Senator Jeff Sessions, R-AL
Senator Michael Enzi, R-WY
Senator Michael Crapo, R-ID
Senator Lindsey Graham, R-SC
Senator John Cornyn, R-TX
Senator Richard Burr, R-NC
Senator John Thune, R-SD
Senator Johnny Isakson, R-GA
Senator David Vitter, R-LA
Senator John A. Barrasso, R-WY
Senator Roger Wicker, R-MS
Senator Jim Risch, R-ID
Senator Mark Kirk, R-IL
Senator Roy Blunt, R-MO
Senator Jerry Moran, R-KS
Senator Rob Portman, R-OH
Senator John Boozman, R-AR
Senator Pat Toomey, R-PA
Senator John Hoeven, R-ND
Senator Marco Rubio, R-FL
Senator Ron Johnson, R-WI
Senator Rand Paul, R-KY
Senator Mike Lee, R-UT
Senator Kelly Ayotte, R-NH
Senator Dean Heller, R-NV
Senator Tim Scott, R-SC
Senator Ted Cruz, R-TX
Senator Deb Fischer, R-NE
Senator Shelley Moore Capito, R-WV
Senator Bill Cassidy, R-LA
Senator Cory Gardner, R-CO
Senator James Lankford, R-OK
Senator Steve Daines, R-MT
Senator Mike Rounds, R-SD
Senator David Perdue, R-GA
Senator Thom Tillis, R-NC
Senator Joni Ernst, R-IA
Senator Ben Sasse, R-NE
Senator Dan Sullivan, R-AK

The plain intent of the letter, like Netanyahu’s speech before the House of Representatives, is to undermine the president’s ability to negotiate.

I say again, then: The Republicans have gone mad, and are not fit to govern.

A North Carolina church and school might soon be out of business because of declining revenues. Not only has the mortgage-holder filed a foreclosure action, the IRS would like to know why the school hasn’t been keeping-up with its payroll taxes.

Although Grace Chapel Church faces the possibility of foreclosure from its mortgage holder, the church’s leaders are confident they will find a solution that will allow them to continue serving their congregation and their community.

Grace Christian School Headmaster Bill Carver said the church’s mortgage holder, California-based Sabal Financial Group, filed with the clerk of court in Lee County to have a foreclosure hearing concerning the church’s property on Jefferson Davis Highway about two weeks ago, but the company has since agreed to give the church a 60-day extension before further pursuing the matter.

[ … ]

Sabal said also that the church was working on what he called an “Offer in Compromise” with the Internal Revenue Service over unpaid payroll taxes.

Churches have famously loose financial controls, and it seems that the problem might be embezzlement.

In February 2014, a few months after former Senior Pastor Rudy Holland left the church, Carver filed a report with the Lee County Sheriff’s Office alleging $200,000 had been embezzled from the church over the past six years. The State Bureau of Investigation is still investigating the theft and as of yet no charges have been filed.

But maybe that’s not the problem; maybe the problem is that the church has lousy attendance.

Grace learned of the possibility of foreclosure, Carver said on the same weekend it unveiled changes to its Sunday services meant to increase attendance and forge a new direction for the church in light of the hardships of the past few years.

Yeah, well — ho-hum. This story is played out every day somewhere in America; the SBC estimates that it, alone, loses somewhere between 700-1000 churches per year, which aggressive church ‘planting’ comes nowhere close to offsetting, and which is before you take into account the churches they kick out for theological offenses like being too gay-friendly or treating women respectfully.

One more thing: The likelihood of these morons ever figuring-out that it is their own primitive, nonsensical worldview that is killing them is close to zero. So, good riddance. As Oliver Cromwell so famously said to England’s Parliament: “You have sat too long for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!”

Breathes there the man, with soul so dead,
Who never to himself hath said,
This is my own, my native land!
 
Sir Walter Scott

We say with all confidence we don’t
need any American or western intervention.
 
Ahmad al-Kinani, Shia militia

My opposition to deploying American combat troops to fight ISIS is too well-known to rehearse, but the preceding quote from a Shia militiaman points toward a benefit of staying out that I hadn’t considered: Pride — the pride of fighting for their own country, for their own freedom, for their own self-determination. Surely, Iraqis can be trusted to protect their country more jealously in the future than they have in the past.