R.C. Sproul on Mistaking Grace for Entitlement

In an earlier post I confessed my frustration with the idea of natural rights.  I am troubled by the extent to which they have been utilized to empower a self-centered mentality.  I find the problem especially disturbing in the church because a person who is enamored with "their rights" often forgets the blessing that their freedoms are in the first place. 

R.C. Sproul comments on this problem in a blog he recently posted by recounting a story about his early teaching days.  I'll re-post it here:

My favorite illustration of how callous we have become with respect to the mercy, love, and grace of God comes from the second year of my teaching career, when I was given the assignment of teaching two hundred and fifty college freshman an introductory course on the Old Testament. On the first day of the class, I gave the students a syllabus and I said: “You have to write three short term papers, five pages each. The first one is due September 30 when you come to class, the second one October 30, and the third one November 30. Make sure that you have them done by the due date, because if you don’t, unless you are physically confined to the infirmary or in the hospital, or unless there is a death in the immediate family, you will get an F on that assignment. Does everybody understand that?” They all said, “Yes.”

On September 30, two hundred and twenty-five of my students came in with their term papers. There were twenty-five terrified freshmen who came in trembling. They said: “Oh, Professor Sproul, we didn’t budget our time properly. We haven’t made the transition from high school to college the way we should have. Please don’t flunk us. Please give us a few more days to get our papers finished.”
I said: “OK, this once I will give you a break. I will let you have three more days to get your papers in, but don’t you let that happen again.”

“Oh, no, we won’t let it happen again,” they said. “Thank you so, so, so much.”

Then came October 30. This time, two hundred students came with their term papers, but fifty students didn’t have them. I asked, “Where are your papers?”

They said: “Well, you know how it is, Prof. We’re having midterms, and we had all kinds of assignments for other classes. Plus, it’s homecoming week. We’re just running a little behind. Please give us just one more chance.”

I asked: “You don’t have your papers? Do you remember what I said the last time? I said, ‘Don’t even think about not having this one in on time.’ And now, fifty of you don’t have them done.”

“Oh, yes,” they said, “we know.”

I said: “OK. I will give you three days to turn in your papers. But this is the last time I extend the due date.”

Do you know what happened? They started singing spontaneously, “We love you, Prof Sproul, oh, yes, we do.” I was the most popular professor on that campus.

But then came November 30. This time one hundred of them came with their term papers, but a hundred and fifty of them did not. I watched them walk in as cool and as casual as they could be. So I said, “Johnson!”

“What?” he replied.

“Do you have your paper?”

“Don’t worry about it, Prof,” he responded. “I’ll have it for you in a couple of days.”

I picked up the most dreadful object in a freshman’s experience, my little black grade book. I opened it up and I asked, “Johnson, you don’t have your term paper?”

He said, “No”

I said, “F,” and I wrote that in the grade book. Then I asked, “Nicholson, do you have your term paper?” “No, I don’t have it.” “F. Jenkins, where is your term paper?”

“I don’t have it.”

“F.”

Then, out of the midst of this crowd, someone shouted, “That’s not fair.” I turned around and asked, “Fitzgerald, was that you who said that?”

He said, “Yeah, it’s not fair.”

I asked, “Weren’t you late with your paper last month?”

“Yeah,” he responded.

“OK, Fitzgerald, I’ll tell you what I’m going to do. If it’s justice you want, it’s justice you will get.” So I changed his grade from October to an F. When I did that, there was a gasp in the room. I asked, “Who else wants justice?” I didn’t get any takers.

There was a song in the musical My Fair Lady titled “I’ve Grown Accustomed to Her Face.” Well, those students had grown accustomed to my grace. The first time they were late with their papers, they were amazed by grace. The second time, they were no longer surprised; they basically assumed it. By the third time, they demanded it. They had come to believe that grace was an inalienable right, an entitlement they all deserved.

I took that occasion to explain to my students: “Do you know what you did when you said, ‘That’s not fair’? You confused justice and grace.” The minute we think that anybody owes us grace, a bell should go off in our heads to alert us that we are no longer thinking about grace, because grace, by definition, is something we don’t deserve. It is something we cannot possibly deserve. We have no merit before God, only demerit. If God should ever, ever treat us justly outside of Christ, we would perish. Our feet would surely slip.

The Ethics of Pacifism

Last week Nathaniel and I watched Braveheart.  I recognize that it has become one of the most cliche movies in recent memory, so much so that along with other films like The Shawshank Redemption and Gladiator is has become banned from use in personal Top Five lists.  However, like every other person in the Northwestern Hemisphere (with the exclusion of my mother), I love it.  I love the anger and the passion that William Wallace brings to his fight against the British.  Heads are lopped off, legs are severed and hearts and pierced with arrows and all the while I am jittery with excitement because the Scottish are really and truly going to win their freedom!  And then, just as Wallace led his men onto the battlefield at Falkirk, I remembered an article that I read recently about pacifism and I became alarmingly aware of just how undecided I am on the issue.

Surprisingly enough, I have given quite a bit of thought to the idea of pacifism in the past few years.  Early on, in my uber-conservative, zealous-to-the-point-of-crazy days, I considered pacifism to be weak and truth be told, I probably had deep suspicions about the patriotism of pacifists.  How could you love America and oppose its work overseas?  Eventually though, I began to realize that "The Evangelical Right" was not wholly united in their support of the American military efforts.  In fact, I began to notice that there are several, very distinguished and respected, theologians who are opposed to capital punishment and Christian involvement in the military.  This realization forced me to confront my very preconceived notions that I had about capital punishment and military intervention.  But at the end of this time of consideration, I still find myself confused and uncertain and I think that the aforementioned blog post demonstrates my concerns pretty clearly.  So now, in the words of Taylor Mali, "I invite you to join me on the bandwagon of my own uncertainty."

The post in question was written by theologian Ben Witherington and it was entitled, "Why Capital Punishment is not Such a Capital and Christian Idea." In this post, he argues that Christians should not be employed in any career in which they are responsible or in any way involved in the taking of human life.  He based his argument on the life and example of Christ and cited passages from Matthew 18 and Genesis 4 as evidence of Christ's respect for life.  Witherington allows, although with doubts, that Romans 13 provides warrant for a government's involvement in killing, but he suggests that Christians who intend to live by the love ethic set forth in the New Testament and displayed by Christ should shun all involvement in the taking of human life.

Basing a pacifist theory off of the New Testament ethic of love is a compelling argument.  The greatest commandment is to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind...and the second is like it, love your neighbor as your self."  Furthermore, the entire book of 1 Corinthians hinges on love.  We are to love our enemies, pray for those to persecute us and turn the other cheek.  And the question that is left after all of this is "how can it be loving to kill someone?"

For all of the reasons I've listed above, I find Ben Witherington's argument compelling, but I also have concerns.  At several points in his article it appears to argue that there is a marked distinction between the state and the church, and not just a distinction of purpose.  It appears as if Witherington believes that there are two sets of ethical norms: one for the state and one for the Christian.  He says, "...but there is a higher calling on the life of Christians, a higher law and a set of principles they must answer to - namely Jesus and that law of Christ."  This quote would suggest that the state functions and is bound to a base notion of Biblical ethics, but that Christians and the Church are held to a higher morality.  Can this really be the case?  Does Jesus set out a general ethical expectation but then hold his followers to a higher expectation? Would "right" then have to be classified as "good, better or best?"

In short, I have two major concerns about the argument put forth by Witherington:

1. I believe that what Witherington argues regarding the "higher calling" of Christians propogates the notion that there are duel moralities functioning in the world.  I find this very problematic because what would be a sinful action for one person is an accepted practice for another.  How can killing be appropriate and acceptable for one group of people (i.e. non-Christians) and be an unacceptable moral norm for others?
   
   
2. Futhermore, I find his argument concerning Romans 13 to be rather weak.
   
   Romans 13:4 reads, "for he [the government] is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain."  In his article, Witherington confesses doubts about how scholars have historically interpreted this passage.  Typically this verse is used in support of justice that is distributed by the government.  It would appear even, that it is good and ordered by God.  Witherington however, questions the interpretation because of the Greek word for "sword."
   
   He argues that the word used in Romans 13 refers to a "short sword" and that during the Roman era the "short sword" was used as a tool for personal protection and not a means for execution.  Therefore, he concludes that this passage is not referencing the government's ability or license to implement capital punishment.
   
   I believe that this assessment misses the point of the analogy.  The state, not an individual, is using a sword and swords typically represent violence (otherwise why be afraid of the sword?).  Romans 13 reveals that the state does utilize a sword and that action is not condemned by Paul.

I don't believe that these two concerns completely undermine the pacifist argument, however I do think that they demonstrate that the argument isn't as clear cut as it sometimes appears.  Regardless, the argument that Witherington makes is compelling, convicting and well worth my consideration.

A Cheap Re-Post

I am a blogging derelict and this post does nothing to fix that status.  However, my husband, after having himself taken a two month hiatus, has posted a particularly good blog post and I have chosen to post a link to it here.  In the post he discusses what responsibilities Christians carry and how at different times in history, they have failed to live up to those responsibilities.  A good read from a good man.

September 11, 2011

I was in the front office of Baker County High School. I had forgotten my calculator in my car and because I had an algebra test that afternoon, I asked permission to visit the office to get a pass to the parking lot. Mrs. Lancaster was the secretary and as I walked to the desk she hung up the phone and said, "The twin towers have been bombed." I spent the rest of the morning convincing my parents to check me out of school so that I could give my undivided attention to what was unfolding in New York. That afternoon I drove to our local gas station and picked up a special edition of the Jacksonville Times-Union where I saw photos of people diving to their deaths and I became sick to my stomach. The evil perpetrated that day was overwhelming. The lack of compassion, the lack of love and the complete misdirection and understanding of faith had devastating ramifications for those who were unfortunately caught in the line of fire and made the presence of evil in the world a very prominent reality for me.

I was 16 then, and in the past 10 years my life has changed dramatically, but as I read stories of those who were heros on that day and as I watch news footage from the events, I am just as thoroughly impressed with the weight of evil. It's hard to see a positive angle to the events that occurred on September 11, 2001, hard to see the silver lining. What I do think however, is that when evil of the magnitude we all witnessed 10 years ago is apparent, by its nature, it reveals its opposite. Because I recognize evil, I must also recognize good. It is because all Americans will carry pain in their chest today, that I know that all Americans, whether they agree to it or not, know that there is right and wrong. When we recognize the evil in the world we should also immediately recognize that because we affirm the reality of evil, we also affirm the reality of good. Because we judge that there are actions which should not be taken, we also affirm that there are standards by which our actions are judged.

Paul discusses this idea in Romans 2.  He argues, "Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges.  For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things." Paul is arguing that because we condemn the actions of others, while also committing these actions ourselves, we are condemning ourselves by our own condemnation.  Now you may be thinking, "I've never done anything that even compares to what happened on September 11" and physically and logistically you haven't.  However, you have gossiped, disobeyed your parents and have probably been boastful.  Paul counts all of these things as evil, along with murder, malice and maliciousness. Paul rebukes the Romans for being, "filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice.  They are full of envy, murder strife, deceit, maliciousness.  They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless."  If we label the contents of this list as "undesirable actions," then each of us should recognize that we are not only guilty of committing these offenses, but that we have condemned others for committing them as well.  We all know then, that there is wrong, and for something to be considered wrong, there must be something to compare it to and something to contrast it with.  There must be an objective right.

This idea of right isn't nebulous, it is firmly attached to the character of God.  If a person recognizes the reality of objective evil, then they must also recognize that there is objective good.  On September 11, both good and evil were clearly on display. The evidence of good is in the thousands of selfless acts that we have read about throughout the past decade, and, contrary to popular belief, this good can't just be attributed to the "goodness of the human spirit." The reason that these acts were selfless, good and inspirational is because they reflected the Creator who is the very embodiment of goodness.  In Matthew, Jesus said, "Why do you ask me about what is good...There is only One who is good."  

Coming to grips with September 11 has been a long process for me.  My initial reaction was one of anger and extreme patriotism.  Following that came a period of heartbreak for the men who so completely misunderstood how to have a relationship with God.  I don't know where I am in the process now.  I am probably like most people who don't give the day a lot of thought generally, but who have found themselves crying uncontrollably while reading the "stories of remembrance" on Yahoo.  However, what I do know is that the events of September 11 demonstrate the presence of evil more clearly than any other event that I have witnessed in my life.  While the reality of that day is tough to bear, for all Americans but especially for those personally affected, it serves as yet another reminder to me that God is good and that I know that he is good and that His goodness is known throughout the universe.

"The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.  Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge.  There is no speech nor are there words, whose voice is not heard.  Their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world." - Psalm 19:1-4

The Conviction of Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Over the summer I read a biography of Dietrich Bonhoeffer by Eric Metaxas. It was, without a doubt, one of the most compelling books that I have ever read. This book outlined the struggle that Bonheoffer had with understanding how personal faith affects a person's actions. He lived in Germany during the early 20th century. He witnessed Germany's defeat in World War I, the devastating ramifications of the Versailles Peace Treaty, and the rise of Nazism and of Adolf Hitler. Bonhoeffer had a brilliant and keen mind and through all of this, he noticed that the idea of Germany as a "christian nation" was a fallacy.

Yes, Germany was the birth place of Martin Luther and Protestantism, but Germany had long since ceased to be a nation driven by the Word of God. Germany was a nation that was complacent in its religion and because of this, because of this false confidence in their own spirituality, the people of Germany were not prepared to withstand or even fully comprehend the evils perpetuated by the Nazi party. For many Germans Christianity was a fact, not a practice. It was a birth rite, not a gift of grace. Because of this, and because of a fierce loyalty to the idea of the German nation, there were few in Germany who were willing to oppose Hitler, and this troubled Bonhoeffer greatly.

For Bonhoeffer, the problem was a misunderstanding of grace. He believed that most of his countrymen had a view he called, "cheap grace," the idea that salvation didn't require anything of the believer. Bonhoeffer however, vehemently disagreed. Instead, he argued that grace was costly. He said:

"Costly grace is the gospel which must be sought again and again and again, the gift which must be asked for, the door at which a man must knock. Such grace is costly because it calls us to follow and it is grace because it calls us to follow Jesus Christ. It is costly because it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only true life. It is costly because it condemns sin, and grace because it justifies the sinner. Above all, it is costly because it cost God the life of his Son...and what has cost God so much cannot be cheap for us."

Bonhoeffer insisted that a life lived in fear or inaction was no Christian life at all, it was a misunderstanding of what grace is. Christians must conform their lives to that of Christ because a dear price was paid so that we could have the ability to do so. Therefore, Christians must advocate for the oppressed because that is how Christ lived his life. Christians must oppose evil because we are to be a light in the world. Bonhoeffer said, "We are not simply to bandage the wounds of victims beneath the wheels of injustice, we are to drive a spoke into the wheel itself." This is action. This isn't complacency. The grace shown to the Christian should compel us to action, for the benefit of both the oppressed and the oppressor.

I personally, find the message of Bonhoeffer to be incredibly convicting. It's easy to ignore the injustice and the evil in the world, and it is even easier to think only of the benefit that Christ's grace brings to me.

Liam Neeson and Things We Can't Not Know

This is an article that a professor at Southeastern posted last week.  He recently watched  Liam Neeson movie and the premise of the film reminded him of natural law and of a book written by one of my favorite authors, J. Budziszewksi.  Here is the link.  Enjoy!

Rights and the Bible

Over the past year, our middle school students have been studying a curriculum on church history.  We have covered all of the major topics (Nicea, Augustine, Luther, Aquinas) and now, as our time together draws to a close, we are looking at the various ideologies of the 19th century and their influence on the church.  Now, we completed this section yesterday, unfortunately closing with a rather dismal discussion of Nazism, which included a lively discussion concerning a comparison I made between the Fuhrer Principle and the Pope...clearly not my best moment.  However, the section began, brightly enough, with a look at the idea of "American Individualism" and that lesson prompted me to write this post.

In a rather desperate attempt to jump start the conversation on the American idea of the individual, we treated the kids, and ourselves, to clips of Braveheart and Independence Day.  It did everything we hoped it would do and more.  The kids were cheering and some, for the first time, began to see Randy Quaid for the gem that he is.  However, while Braveheart makes me weep like a baby and Independence Day draws out a deep longing for bar-b-que and Will Smith movies, they also reveal a very emotional attachment to freedom, and that was exactly that point we were trying to make.

Personal freedom and individual liberty had a grand start during the American Revolution and while freedom, equality and liberty are to be desired, they cannot be considered paramount, especially to the Christian.  In an attempt to ensure that all people posses these liberties, we have developed the idea of rights.  These rights have taken on many different forms during the 250 years that the United States has existed, but I want to consider the legitimacy of these rights.  Not whether they are correct political developments, but whether the attitude behind them is the correct attitude to have if we are seeking to imitate the model of Christ.

In I Corinthians, Paul spends a great deal of time scolding the Corinthians for their rather selfish behavior.  "Selfish? I thought we were talking about rights, not about being selfish!" Ah, but they are closely connected aren't they?

"But some, through former association with idols, eat food as really offered to an idol and their conscience, being weak, is defiled.  Food will not commend us to God.  We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do.  But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak.  For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol's temple, will he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols?  And so by your knowledge this weak person is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died.  Thus, sinning against your brothers and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ.  Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble." I Corinthians 8:7-13

Yes, we have rights.  Yes, we oftentimes have knowledge that allows us a freedom that we didn't know before, but boasting in that knowledge and cherishing those rights is not how we are to use them.  Instead, we are to hold them loosely, we are to be constantly aware of our brothers and sisters.  We should be more concerned with their conscience and their struggles than with our ability to live out our freedoms.  This is where things become difficult for me.  It fights against my instinct which says, "Why have rights if I can't enjoy them? " or "What is the purpose of gaining freedom if I just subject myself to someone else?"  Thankfully, Paul continues:

"For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them.  To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews.  To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law.  To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law.  To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak.  I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some.  I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings." I Corinthians 9:19-23

The Christian life isn't about gaining rights and living the easy life.  While devotion to Scripture and to the model Christ set before us brings certain advantages, our focus should be on the Gospel.  Earlier in I Corinthians, Paul encouraged his readers to "imitate me, as I imitate Christ" and that imitation is far removed from protecting one's freedom.

"Who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.  And being found in human form, hum humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross."

Ph.D Questions

I found this article, by Prof. John Stackhouse of Regent College, to be really helpful and interesting.  In the post he discusses how one should think about pursuing a Ph.D.

http://stackblog.wordpress.com/thinking-about-a-phd/

 I hope you had a wonderful 4th of July.  I floated around in a tube on a lake.  It was very nice.

The Conscience- An Overivew

When I was in the 8th grade, my sister owned a 1987 Monte Carlo.  It was roughly the length of a school bus.  One night, leaving the McDonald's drive through, Kara turned the wrong way and started driving North in a Southbound lane.  Our only resort was to try a three point turn, but in a Monte Carlo, a three point turn is no easy feat and we hit a road sign.  When we returned home, I got out of the car and scurried inside while my Dad questioned Kara as to the reason the car had a new dent.  Kara, bold as ever, refused to cave and insisted she knew nothing about it, but Dad knew how to get the information he needed.  He let me stew for about 30 minutes and then knocked on my door.  "Kanon, do you know anything about the dent in Kara's car?" I caved.  I was a rat.

When considering the conscience, I feel especially equipped as my conscience has been over active since the moment I could talk.

But what is the conscience?  It is something that everyone has, or at least is aware of.  To put it quite simply, the conscience is an aspect of the mind that helps to distinguish what is right from that which is wrong.  Now, from this point on, discussions of the conscience will differ dramatically depending on your philosophical and religious perspectives.  I will proceed from the traditional perspective of Christianity (although I will discuss other ideas on the conscience in a later post.)

Thomas Aquinas, a medieval theologian, argued that the conscience has two aspects.  On one hand, the conscience is fueled by man's ability to reason.  "I can determine that an action is good because I look at points x, y, and z as evidence."  On the other hand, this reason is guided by a remnant of innate knowledge concerning absolute truth, Aquinas called this knowledge, "synderesis."  So the conscience then, is a joint venture between man's ability to reason and his innate knowledge of absolute truth.  But there is a problem...

According to Aquinas, the conscience has limited functionality.  Our ability to know and properly perceive absolute truth was desperately handicapped after Adam and Eve's experience in Genesis 3, hence his use of the word "remnant."  Man's desire to be like God, drove a wedge between us and God.  This division, while mended through Christ, still affects us while we remain on earth.  We still suffer from the physical effects of "the fall" and our loss of knowledge regarding absolute truth was a bitter result.  Romans 1:21-23 gives us a picture of the situation, "For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.  Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles."    

So our conscience is broken.  That which is supposed to point us toward the right, deceives us and in fact, is deceived by us.  In a perfect world, it would be a perfect indicator of what is right.  However in an imperfect world, assuming that the conscience is always correct is more akin to assuming that your compass is correct when you have a magnet in your pocket.

Follow Your Conscience?

A lot of emphasis is placed upon the idea of the conscience. It is the mystical way that individuals know what they are supposed to do in those tough, moral situations. One's conscience is often honored as the supreme moral authority in life and thanks to Jiminy Cricket's oft quoted statement, "Let your conscience be your guide," this trend is likely to continue.

But doesn't this seem odd?  What in the world is a conscience and why does it have so much power and prestige in my life and in my decision-making process? Should I ignore my conscience? Should I afford it a place of less importance? In the next few blog posts I am going to explore the idea of the conscience. I am going to consider what the conscience is, why it is good, why it can be bad, how it can be cultivated and then I will consider practical out-workings of a grounded conscience.

Here is a link to R.C. Sproul's recent article entitled, "Ethics and the Conscience." It will give you a preview of what is to come.

The American Democrat

I like a routine. I can't help it. I find myself reading the same news sites and the same columns week in and week out. The routine is so engrained in my mind that I find myself frequenting sites and authors that I don't particularly care for. But occasionally, and only occasionally, these habitual forays of mine pay off. Take Roger Simon for instance. Mr. Simon is a contributer at an online magazine named Politico. Typically, I find his posts maddening and meandering, but I found his most recent article rather interesting. 

In his latest article, Mr. Simon cites a recent poll which suggests that America is growing more uncivil. Incivility in the workplace, in the media, in government, and basically any place else you want to look, is on the rise. Some blame the internet, others blame the constant barrage of negative media, but regardless of the source, this rise in rudeness is a growing trend in almost every facet of life. The article itself is not shocking, and neither are the results that is discusses (probably because as an active participant in American society, I find it rather easy to believe that people are becoming more uncivil). The thing that I find compelling about this story is how this perspective on life in America is so radically different than the hopes of the men who actually founded our nation. 

James Fenimore Cooper is famous for the penning the Leatherstocking Saga, a series of five books chronicling the life of the first great American hero, Natty Bumppo. Cooper also wrote on politics and theory and in his article entitled, "The American Democrat" he makes an argument that stands in stark contrast to the views set forward in Roger Simon's article.  Mr. Cooper argues that, "The principle advantage of a democracy, is a general elevation in the character of the people." Cooper backs this argument up by suggesting that since a democracy allows a man to pursue his own interests, he will make wise and informed decisions and this freedom, this liberty of pursuit, will instill a greater sense of character and right in the citizens of that democracy.  So why the apparent failure? Why has our democracy, which at its inception was considered a bastion of morality and justice, become a country where people, "tune out, making us less likely to vote or serve in government or engage with others." 

The problem lies with Mr. Cooper's ideas on what propels a man toward good character.  It isn't the prospect of success or the hope of equality. This hope cannot engender morality in an individual and the prospect of success only nurtures greed and selfishness.

"Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith."- Alexis de Tocqueville

Why blog?

Blogging requires commitment.  When I was attempting to put a name to this page I was constantly thwarted by bloggers who set up a site, posted one entry (if that) and then left their blog languishing in the wilderness and consequently holding a perfectly appropriate domain name hostage.  I don't want that to be me.  So, in order to have a motivation behind my blog, I am going to put my purpose in writing.

When I was a young lass, I had very strong opinions about things.  I loved to debate and to argue and I was never terribly concerned if my arguments were logical, rational, reasonable or right.  Winning an argument was contingent upon me using my wit to my advantage.  If I could bring up an embarrassing story surrounding my opponent's argument and make a witty jab about it, typically my opponent would crumple and I would declare victory. It was all quite silly.

Since that time, I have decided that an argument should not only be correct but it should also be winsome.  Therefore, my arguments for or against something should be both well thought out and well presented.  The problem however, is that this sort of organization is not easy to come by.  It isn't a natural tendency of mine to think logically when I am arguing a point.  My tendency is to zero in on the most effective strain of argument and camp out there, building trenches and praying against any grenades.  But, this sort of argument never wins any converts and it rarely wins respect.  Therefore, the first purpose of this blog is to teach me to refine my thoughts and to present them in an orderly way.