In my last blog post I was critical of Rebecca Watson for what I believed to be hypocrisy in her willingness to blasepheme the most holy of Christian symbols, the Holy Spirit, while at the same time condemning a site where visitors can burn a virtual Quran.

One reader of my post took exception with my conclusion, arguing that Watson had simply expressed disbelief. I would like to publicly thank Scott Forschler for engaging me on this issue. Were is not for his contacting me 4–5 times over the past week via Facebook, this blog, and my personal email account, I probably would have nothing more to say on the matter. I must say I find Scott’s level of interest in this matter intruiging. That a PhD with a teaching position would have the time or interest to engage me, one who has merely studied political and theological ethics as a masters student, is surprising. That he was so aggressive (frankly, obnoxious) in his communication with me and resorted to calling me a liar (??) is fascinating. So, with that I would like to apologize to Scott for my delayed response. I am truly sorry that things such as work, family time, and similar activities, consumed much of my time over the past week and so, while it is certainly no excuse, this is really the first chance I’ve had a chance to sit down and offer a substantive reply.

My position on Watson is fairly simple. To openly and unashamedly blaspheme the Christian Holy Spirit (all to get a free DVD), while simultenously condemning the burning of virtual Quran’s as bigoted and racist is clearly hypocritical and logically inconsistent.

I told Scott that if Watson had publicly mocked Allah, the Quran, or Mohammed, I would retract my claim that Watson is a hypocrite. Well, Scott didn’t dissapoint. He found a video of Watson speaking on camera about the incredibly effective Muslim outreach program: “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day.”

You will notice that in the video Watson does not equate Mohammed to unicorns, Santa Clause, etc… as she did with the Christian Holy Spirit in her “Blaspheme Challenge. I am assuming that Watson, herself, participates in this Muslim outreach program each year. So, I retract my claim that Watson has not blasphemed Islam. She has, albeit cautiously (even alluding to the fact that by so doing she may be putting her life at risk but that she has the courage to sand up for her principles).

Yet, I am not sure that the video Scott found makes the situation more clear. If anything, I’m left more confused about Watson’s sense of propriety than I was before. So we’ve seen Watson blaspheme both Islam and Christianity. She did not, as Scott originally suggested, simply express disbelief. She deliberately chose to blaspheme some of the most sacred and holy concepts in each religion.

What leaves me confused, then, is the fact that Watson condemns virtual Quran burning as bigoted and racist but supports offending Muslims by drawing images of Mohammed. Interestingly, both “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” and the website on which to burn virtual Qurans have remarkably similar stated goals. Each seeks to promote the free expression of ideas. So what is Watson’s objection to Quran burning? Again quoting Watson:

If you have at least part of a working human brain at your disposal and you’ve not been living in a cave the past several decades, you already know how stupid and counterproductive this is. You already know that burning books is the legendary method by which freedom of expression is impinged, and you also already know that the most famous case of Quran-burning was when fundamentalist Christian bigot Terry Jones first threatened to do so in 2010 and then actually did so the following year. Angry Islamists responded in both cases, by murdering a total of 50 people and injuring hundreds more. Apparently, at least one atheist then thought, “I need to get in on that!”

So Quran burning is bad. But drawing Mohammed is good. What is the distinction to Watson? Note how Watson makes reference to how “burning books is the legendary method by which freedom of expression is impinged.” Obviously, and rightfully, Watson opposes book burning as all rational people should. But it seems that Watson’s outrage at burning Qurans — even while explicitly referencing how such activities have lead to real-world violence, just like drawing Mohammed has done — is borne of her own sensibilities. Does Watson oppose burning Quran’s because burning books (generally) is wrong or, as she states in her post, because it is a racist and bigoted thing to do?  Given Watson’s own words I don’t believe it is possible to outline Watson’s position as her views seem to drift pretty freely.

So at best, Watson is grossly inconistent. On one hand, she approves of blaspheme in an effort to protect free expression — even in the fact of violent reprecussions. On the other hand, Watson opposes burning Qurans because such actions induce violence. Does this make Watson a hypocrite? I don’t know because I can’t parse Watson’s position given her varying, and contradictory, statements and actions. I would hate to think that Watson believes Quran burning is wrong simply because it offends her own sensibilities about book burning; an odd position indeed to claim racism and bigotry against others when your own sensibilities have been tweaked (blaspheme??).

So again, a big thank you Scott Forshler. Without his consistent, aggressive, and obnoxious communication with me over the past 7 days, this blog post would not have been possible. I have noticed that one of Scott’s areas of expertise is the ethics of belief — an area I too find very interesting. As time allows, I hope to watch a few of Scott’s talks on Youtube to better understand his positions.

While religion is an important part of my life, I consider myself a skeptic.  Not a skeptic in the sense of the “New Atheism” but rather, I simply hold to the belief that claims of truth should be supported by evidence.  If these claims are not supported by evidence, then this should be made clear by the person(s) promoting such beliefs.  For example, a person can state their belief in God but it is important to acknowledge that this is a belief largely, if not wholly,  unsupported by empirical evidence.  I don’t think there is anything wrong with such beliefs necessarily, but I do believe it is important to combat the promotion of beliefs and ideas that can be dangerous.  Radical fundamentalism that leads to violence, for example.

In a recent post on Skepchick, Rebecca Watson bemoans the existence of a site where one can virtually burn a Quran.  She rightly states that such a site is not only bigoted (and probably racist), but also counterproductive.  She argues:

If you have at least part of a working human brain at your disposal and you’ve not been living in a cave the past several decades, you already know how stupid and counterproductive this is. You already know that burning books is the legendary method by which freedom of expression is impinged, and you also already know that the most famous case of Quran-burning was when fundamentalist Christian bigot Terry Jonesfirst threatened to do so in 2010 and then actually did so the following year. Angry Islamists responded in both cases, by murdering a total of 50 people and injuring hundreds more. Apparently, at least one atheist then thought, “I need to get in on that!”

I fully agree with Watson.  Such a site is as stupid as it is counterproductive.  However, I find the hypocrisy demonstrated by Watson to be  a little rich.  Just a few years ago Watson proudly participated in “The Blasphemy Challenge” wherein participants publicly denied the existence of the Christian Holy Spirit.

Watson seems to fully support the goals and aims of The Blaspheme Challenge.  One such goal is to promote the notion that the historical Jesus didn’t exist; a position that is, quite frankly, absurd.  Taking issue with the Jesus of the Gospel narratives is one thing but to call into question the very existence of the person of Jesus simply demonstrates a desire to reinforce what these folks obviously wish were true.  For anyone who seriously doubts the existence of the historical Jesus I have a suggested reading list (from actual scholars of ancient Rome and Hellenized Judea as opposed to biologists and neuroscientists).

• A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus
• The Life of Jesus Critically Examined
• Myth of a Gentile Galilee
• Any basic primer on text-criticism of the New Testament
• And many many more …..

What these folks want us to believe is that Jesus was a completely made up person surrounded by known historical persons (Peter, John, etc..) and that these known historical persons conspired together to create the Jesus myth.  If you believe that, you may also believe that George W. Bush was at the center of a conspiracy behind 9/11.

(Yes, I know the reference to Jesus by Josephus are problematic and that Christian apologetics in the first and second centuries turned Christianity into something akin to other religious myths common in Hellenized Judea.  Yet, even the most cursory and basic text-critical examination of the New Testament reveals the historical Jesus while simultaneously casting doubt on claims of divinity, etc..)

Back to Watson.  It is inconceivable that Watson is unaware that  defamation of the Holy Spirit is as offensive and degrading to Christianity and Christians as burning a Quran is to Islam and Muslims.  So what could explain Watson’s inconsistent outrage?  Perhaps it is because in modern times, Christians do not react to such offenses with violence.  In most cases, Christians simply follow the admonition of Jesus to “turn the other cheek.”  

Hypocrisy, thy name is Rebecca Watson.

It is unfortunate that in today’s political climate, discourse often focusses solely on consequences, or supposed consequences, to evaluate the merit of any given political position. This is not to say that weighing and considering the outcomes of social policy is not vitally important. It is. However, it seems political bickering wherein both sides quote pet studies and throw out statistics in favor of their favored position, often masks the shared moral values that underpin these disagreements.

Such is the case with contemporary debates surrounding guns and gay marriage. Broadly speaking these issues draw clear ideological lines with urban liberals supporting tight gun control and suburban and rural conservatives opposing gay marriage. In truth, support for both guns and gay marriage is rooted in the same moral and political principle: In a free and pluralistic society, individuals should be at liberty to pursue their own conception of the “best life” without paternalistic governmental intrusion by beauracratic moralists, be they religious or secular.

Gay marriage is about liberty. The US constitution offers equal protection under the law for the simple reason that unequal treatment is inherently unjust. Equal protection is not sacrosanct because of of the outcomes it produces. Rather, equal protection is a moral principle; something that if violated, represents an affront to justice itself. We do not argue about equality under the law in terms of consequences — although they are often part of a the wider discussion.

Private firearm ownership is also about liberty — both individual and collective. Before continuing, allow me to say that no rational person believes that the United States is on the brink of a tyrannical oppression. However, Ronald Reagan was correct when he said:

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.

Those who, during the Bush administration, raised concerns about portions of the Patriot Act were doing their part to ensure that the United States remain true to its founding principles of liberty — even in the face of new and emerging outside threats to national security. Similarly, and broadly speaking, advocates of the 2nd amendment are doing the same thing. Reasonable people can, and do, disagree as to the original intent of the 2nd amendment — whether it applies to a private right or a collective right of the people to band together to form state militias. Even the framers of the Bill of Rights debated this point. Regardless, the Supreme Court has consistently affirmed the right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms completely separate from the formation of state militias.

There must be an open and civil dialogue regarding both gay marriage and private gun ownership. Gay marriage represents a new paradigm in the modern era that will result in unforeseen and perhaps unintended consequences. Yet, we cannot let a fear of the unknown or the potential for negative social outcomes (whatever they may be) prevent us from removing the existing chains of oppressions from gay, lesbian, and transgender Americans.

The social costs of ubiquitous gun ownership are well known and must be addressed holistically. Countries like Switzerland, with similar levels of private gun ownership, do not experience gun violence as seen in the US. What is is about the US that leads to such violence? I don’t know. But it is an issue that must be thoroughly studied and we must act. The 2nd amendment, as interpreted by the courts, does not mean firearms are to be unregulated. The must be regulated to ensure that those who have forfeited their right (felons) and others incapable of owning firearms responsibly cannot — through legal means — obtain firearms.

Again, I support both guns and gay marriage. At their root, both issues are about liberty and individual rights; American values that must never be abandoned.

Ten years ago I made a terrible and tragic mistake. I supported the invasion of Iraq because I, like others, believed what our intelligence agencies were (supposedly) reporting. We have since learned that 1) there were no WMDs in Iraq and 2) US intelligence agencies were pressured to produce reports to support the planned invasion.

The decision to support the Iraq War was not one I made quickly or easily. I struggled with the proposed invasion for a long time. Ultimately, I decided that if UN resolutions (of any kind) were not enforced then they were essentially of no practical use. Therefore, because Iraq was pursuing weapons programs strictly forbidden under UN resolutions and seemingly had no intention of complying with demands to grant inspectors proper access, I decided that the US must act.

In the ten years since the beginning of that war nearly 7,000 US troops have died and many thousands more have been seriously injured. The best estimates place Iraqi civilian death at 100,000 – 120,000. The Iraqi people paid – and continue to make — a high price for liberty and freedom. However, their liberation was not our choice to make. There is no question that Saddam Hussein was a cruel, violent, and oppressive dictator. But just as our founding fathers had to choose freedom from Britain, so too do oppressed people today. I fully support US involvement in supplying aid, training, arms, etc… to those who choose to revolt against tyranny but it is foolhardy to impose the choice of freedom.

So, to commemorate the 10th anniversary of one of the worst choices I have ever made, I will state my opposition to any pre-emptive war with Iran. As the Iraq War showed us, our intelligence can be deeply flawed and politically influenced. But let’s assume that our intelligence on Iran’s nuclear program is 100% accurate and that they will have weapons within a year. Can we predict that Iran will use these weapons? No. So unless we adopt some “Minority Report” mindset where pre-crime becomes a crime, we should not engage in pre-emption.

We should assume the same position in regards to US defense that has served us well for most of our nation’s existence. Be strong. Show that strength, and respond to any acts of aggression against the US or its allies with disproportionate military force. Most importantly, never act pre-emptively or aggressively. Any military action should only be in response to acts of aggression towards the US and her allies. No war with Iran. A pre-emptive strike by the US would be as immoral is it would be ineffectual.

http://www.withoutend.org/wealth-disparity-social-decline-perspectives-book-mormon/

http://www.withoutend.org/overcoming-correlation-or-mormon-studies-and-pastoral-care/

The doctrine of eternal progression is likely the most distinctive and integral part of the larger Mormon theological framework. It is a doctrine which sets Mormonism apart from more traditional Christian traditions. To put it plainly, the doctrine of eternal progression is the teaching that human beings have the potential to become like God; and at its core, is the rejection of a notion of “heaven” as a static sphere of worship. Eternal progression is the idea that human beings may progress eternally toward godhood, “have no end, [and] be from everlasting to everlasting .”

 In 1830, Joseph Smith began a “translation” of the King James Bible wherein he added, replaced and edited text as he felt inspired. In 1832 Joseph and his close associate and scribe Sidney Rigdon came to John 5:29 and felt that its KJV rendering was inadequate because “if God rewarded every one according to the deeds done in the body, the term ‘Heaven’ as intended for the Saint’s eternal home must include more kingdoms than one.” At this time, Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon were given an extensive vision which indeed, confirmed the existence of multiple kingdoms in the next world.

 According to Smith and Rigdon’s vision, the afterlife consisted of three distinct kingdoms; namely, the celestial, terrestrial, and telestial. All human beings would be rewarded by God for their earthly faith and works and receive “the glory” and eternal status associated with their kingdom. In a sense, this structure offered an almost universal salvation as it discarded the traditional notion of hell and indicated that only a very few “sons of Perdition” would experience eternal misery.

 To the early Mormons, the goal of celestial glory became the focus of their faith as each Mormon’s central goal was to inherit “the glory of the sun, even the glory of God; the highest of all.” From 1832-1843, this view of the afterlife remained relatively constant within the Church until Joseph Smith began to introduce additional concepts relating to the celestial kingdom; which teachings and concepts we now know as the doctrine of eternal progression. In 1843, Joseph Smith taught that “in celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; and that in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage.” Smith taught clearly that “if [a man does not enter this covenant of marriage] he cannot obtain [the highest degree of celestial glory] and may “enter the other [celestial degrees] , but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.” Thus, the ideas of eternal marriage and eternal progression or “increase” became inexorably connected. Later in 1843, Joseph Smith recorded a revelation which made this connection much more explicit:

 “If a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant … in the [the] resurrection … [the husband and wife] shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths … [and will continue] to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fullness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.”

 In 1844, Joseph Smith delivered two sermons which, in conjunction with section 132 of the Doctrine & Covenants have become the bedrock of the eternal progression doctrine; the King Follett Discourse and the Sermon at the Grove. It is important to note, however, that neither of these sermons have ever been canonized by the LDS Church and thus their status as doctrinal absolutes is somewhat ambiguous.

 In these 1844 sermons, Joseph Smith explained two essential points. First, that God is an exalted man and that he once was a mortal being just like us. Smith did not elaborate on this point and but rather, used it to establish his second main theme: individual souls or perhaps the elements which comprise those souls are co-eternal with God. They have always existed. Therefore, there has never been a time without each individual in one form or another. Again, Smith does not elaborate and a close reading reveals that there is some disagreement between the two sermons on the mechanics of this point.

 What is absolutely unambiguous in Smith’s teaching is that mankind was intended to progress eternally — to always increase in wisdom, knowledge and power — and to receive an ever increasing glory from God the Father. All of this made possible through the sacrifice and atonement of Jesus Christ.

 The majority of Latter-day Saints received these new doctrines gladly. For others however, these new doctrines in addition to the ever-increasing rumors of Joseph Smith’s polygamy or “spiritual wifery” further alienated and angered some Mormons who felt that Joseph Smith had become a fallen prophet. These Mormons eventually organized behind a former close associate of Smith — William Law — and eventually produced a newspaper — the Nauvoo Expositor — which ultimately yet indirectly, led to Joseph Smith’s death.

 The Nauvoo Expositor printed only one issue. This issue contained not only a promise of undeniable evidence of polygamy in Nauvoo but also, a condemnation of Smith’s teachings regarding eternal progression. The notion that God was once a man was found to be particularly offensive.

 Fearing the full exposure of polygamy and angered by what he perceived as betrayal by former friends; Joseph, along with the Nauvoo city council ordered the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor printing press. This unlawful act eventually brought Joseph Smith into the custody of Illinois officials and it was at the jail in Carthage, Illinois that Joseph Smith along with his brother Hyrum, were killed by an angry mob.

 The doctrine of eternal progression did not die with Joseph Smith. Indeed, the doctrine was expanded and eventually directly linked with the practice of plural marriage by Joseph Smith’s successor Brigham Young. Young taught that the “increase” spoken of in D&C 132 and the eternal glory preached by Smith were literal progeny. Thus, the purpose of plural marriage was to have many children in an effort to increase one’s glory in the life to come. Young also taught that this procreation was to continue in the next life and that to inherit “Celestial Glory” mean to be empowered to become a god, create planets, and populate them with “spirit children” just as God had done before us. The Journal of Discourses, a compilation of sermons delivered by Church leaders in the 19th century Utah years, contains many speculations on the mechanics of this eternal process and it was these sermons which served as the basis for the 19th century doctrine of eternal progression. The third president of the Church Lorenzo Snow used a couplet which became widely used throughout Mormondom: “As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be.”

 In 1890 the Church abandoned the practice of plural marriage and thus was forced to reconsider the doctrine of eternal progression. After the discontinuance of polygamy, eternal progression was no longer related to the number of wives a man had but rather, became an expectation of future progeny in the Celestial kingdom.

 Throughout the 20th century, the doctrine of eternal progression became less emphasized (although not abandoned) within the Church as Mormon leaders sought to project an image more in line with traditional Christianity. In 1997, Mormon president Gordon B. Hinckley stepped back from speculation about eternal progression. When asked if he believed that God was once a man: Hinckley replied “ I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it … I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don’t know a lot about it, and I don’t think others know a lot about it.”

The doctrine of eternal progression has thus become a paradox. On one hand, it is the most distinctive and focal doctrines of Mormonism and yet, it may be the least understood doctrines of the Prophet Joseph Smith.

I saw Zero Dark Thirty the first weekend it was widely released. My expectations were such that I was caught completely off-guard by the film and its powerful message.

Prior to watching ZDT I was anticipating a highly patriotic film that would promote American pride by showing how, after nearly a decade of searching, the United States finally brought Usama bin Laden (UBL) to justice. I had read the reports from prominent senators who warned that the film promoted falsehoods regarding the effectiveness of torture (“enhanced interrogation techniques”) in obtaining key information that eventually led to bin Laden’s ultimate death at the hands of US Navy Seals.

Walking out of the theatre I wondered if these senators, and other critics, had seen the same film that I had. Rather than patriotic propaganda, I experienced a deeply disturbing and challenging film; a film that has stayed within my consciousness and caused me to critically reflect, not only on the role of the United States in the “War on Terror” but also on my own role and my own culpability. ZDT presents torture, yes. However, the film does not glorify these scenes. They are raw and difficult to watch not only because the torture itself is unsettling but also because of who is carrying out the act. Most significantly, however, is that (at least according to my memory after one viewing) not a single piece of useful information was show to have been gained from detainees using these methods. In fact, the intelligence that ultimately led to UBL was gained not from torture but rather, from treating a detainee with kindness while using standard tactics of deception to trick him into revealing information he (erroneously) believed the US already possessed. In other words, they key bit of information that led to UBL was obtained not while a detainee was being held down and “waterboarded” but rather, through the use of clever interrogation techniques.

ZDT does not show CIA operatives reveling in torture. It is shown as merely a job to be performed. The main character, Maya, is shown to be conflicted over torture. She doesn’t enjoy it but ultimately gives it her tacit endorsement due to her drive to find and kill UBL; an approach, it seems in the film, employed widely throughout the CIA.

In any case, this post isn’t really about ZDT. Rather, it is about the question the film raised in my own mind: Did Usama bin Laden win?

American Exceptionalism and the use of US Military Power

It is important that I first set the proper stage. I am a conservative (fiscally). I believe that in the aggregate, the United States has been significant force for good in the world. As such, I accept and promote a form of American Exceptionalism. I fully supported the invasion of Afghanistan and even endorsed the occupation of Iraq – a choice I have grown to deeply regret. What I am trying to convey is that I am not one who opposes the use of military force when it serves to protect vital US interests abroad. I am not one to oppose war under any circumstance. There are times when the US must be hawkish. ZDT has caused me to reflect, however, on the oft-overlooked importance of being a political dove.

In the final scenes of ZDT as Maya stands over the body of UBL – in order to positively identify him – she is not overcome with joy, happiness, or feelings of triumph. I contend that Maya was likely contemplating the question: “Was it all worth it?” A poignant and difficult question to be sure.

I have begun to ask myself: “Was it all worth it?” Is the United States safer and better off because UBL is now dead? Probably. UBL’s death likely caused a serious disruption to Al-Qaeda’s plans and communications. Of that, I am glad. However, I wonder if we, as a nation, lost more than we gained in the pursuit not only of UBL, but also of this global network of Islamic extremists hell-bent on killing Americans and Jews.

Could UBL have asked for a “better” US reaction than the one produced by the 9/11 for purposes of reinforcing his ideology and promoting widespread anti-Americanism? Unfortunately, I believe that the United States played right into his hands. I played right into his hands.

Before 9/11

Consider the position of the United States before 9/11. We were economically vulnerable but nevertheless ran budget surpluses. In large part, President Clinton had kept the US out of long-term “foreign entanglements.” During the first 8 months of the Bush presidency it seemed that Bush would continue to promote the US as a “humble” participant in world affairs.

Prior to 9/11 civil liberties were largely intact (although such liberties are never really permanently secure as they must continually be monitored and promoted).

Before 9/11 we, as Americans, had no need for public discourse regarding (the very Orwellian term) “enhanced interrogation techniques.” Torture went against the moral fabric of the United States and not subject to debate because its inherent immorality was patently obvious.

Unfortunately, Usama bin Laden tapped into American rage by attacking us on our own soil in such a brutal and spectacular fashion. The evening of 9/11/01 we were all angry, confused, and sought swift justice. It is this passion that led the United States to pursue policies which have damaged America’s moral authority and position of strength within the world.

Where are we now?

Over ten years on where does the United States stand? It is my belief that we are, without question, worse off than we were before the attacks of 9/11 and that we, because of our shock, dismay, horror, and ultimate patriotism and sense of justice, gave UBL precisely what he wanted. UBL could not have planned it better as, it seems, we fell squarely into his trap.

Certainly not all of our current problems stem from 9/11-related actions and activities. The financial crisis has hurt us a lot and both Presidents Bush and Obama should be credited for their swift and prudent action to stave off catastrophic economic impact. Yet, I cannot help but wonder if our economic recovery may have been more swift and extensive if war-related resources had been available for use domestically.

Whether intentional or not, UBL dragged the United States into conflicts sure to further enflame tensions in the Islamic world. For years, UBL characterized the United States as the “Great Satan” who occupied Muslim lands. Regardless of our good intentions, we were drawn further into the islamic world where every bomb dropped and each bullet fired had the potential to create, within its victims (innocent or not), a seething hatred of the United States. Hatred, among other things, breeds terrorism. It is impossible to know exactly how many Iraqi citizens were killed during the US occupation but we do know it dwarfs, by orders of magnitude, the 3,000 victims killed on 9/11 as well as the number of US troops killed during combat. I have absolutely no doubt that many Iraqis are grateful for the right to vote and the slowly emerging stable democracy. I do wonder, though, how many Iraqi mothers would trade the life of one of her children for this right. Regardless, a very high price has been paid by the Iraqi people to be rid of Saddam Hussein.

Rather than strengthen our military presence presence and ability to secure vital national interests abroad, we are now in a situation where both Russia and China are testing how far they can push us before we’ll react. The current situation in Syria is a prime example. Russia is exerting significant force while, for quite a long time, we simply looked on. China is threatening Japan most likely in an effort to see how far the United States will go to protect her allies. This doesn’t bode well for Taiwan. We have shown ourselves to be weak and other are seeking to take advantage.

The so-called “Arab Spring” has not produced the naively-anticipated democracy, but rather, instability verging on tyranny.

The United States now runs a massive budget deficit. Again, not all of this can be attributed to 9/11-related activities as a big chunk came as a result of less tax revenue during the recession and borrowing to save certain banks etc… But borrowing massive amounts of money to wage an expensive war in Iraq – a war from which we have seen no oil (i.e. economic benefit) and no (at least as far as I can tell) improvement to our vital interests in the Middle East – has taken its toll both in dollar terms but most tragically, in the loss of both American youth and innocent Iraqis.

Our civil liberties have eroded before our eyes. Prior to 9/11 there would have been uncontrollable uproar had the congress and President made it “legal” to arrest and hold American citizens  without representation and without trial. Both Bush and Obama have pursued this, and similar policies and should be ashamed at how they have trampled upon the Constitution. Even “enemy combatants” have a right to a military tribunal and representation. Of course, all this time we have hypocritically lectured Russia and China on human rights while violating the basic civil rights of both American citizens and those who fight against the United States. I am ashamed of our actions; even more so because I have been complicit in these great moral failings.

9/11 caused America to make bare its soul. Certainly we must honor the sacrifice of those who served in the military. We also must credit President Bush for being an incredible leader in the months following 9/11. Yet, the senseless murder of 3,000 innocents put us on a track where we abandoned core principles that make America great.

Hindsight Is 20/20

Hindsight, of course, is always 20/20. Therefore, I will not attempt to say what the United States should, or should not, have done to fight the War on Terror. Certainly, we had to do something.

Hindsight is also a great teacher.

A Patriotic American

Despite what I have laid out above, I am an incredibly proud and patriotic (not nationalist) American. The American people are industrious, kind, and generous. Whatever our failings, we can do better. As and American, I can do better. I must do better.

After much reflection I have decided that there are a few key moral principles which I have largely ignored over the past decade. As such, I am recommitting myself to the ideals that have enabled the United States to be an incredible force for good; a beacon of republicanism which protects our natural rights and liberty.

• I will oppose any war of preemption but support a disproportionate and devastating military response to anyone who attacks the United States
• I will vigorously oppose President Obama’s policy, carried over and expanded from the Bush years, of detention policies that violate not only the Constitution, but also our most basic human rights.
• I will support efforts to ensure enemies of the United States are brought to justice but I will also oppose any violation of basic human dignity and natural rights.
• I will speak out against any long-term foreign entanglements that unnecessarily cripple the United States.

America is still great despite her failings. We can, and we will return to the most basic principles of our founding. By so doing we will become an example to those who suffer under tyranny, showing them that they too have unalienable rights bestowed by their creator. President Reagan called upon the United States to become a “city on a hill.” I will do my part to continue this steady climb.

Despite her shortcomings, America is my home. There is no other place I’d rather be. Consequently, I will promote a collective morality by learning from past mistakes and promoting the radical ideals that have, and should continue, to characterize the United States of America.

Did bin Laden Win?

So the question remains: Did Usama bin Laden win? I suppose it depends on how we define “winning.” If bin Laden’s goal was to spur the United States into dangerous foreign war while abandoning core American values in the process he most certainly has won. No question.

If, however, we define “winning” as expanding a global network of Islamic radicals for the purpose of terrorizing innocents in the West and elsewhere, then UBL was less successful. Yes, Al-Queda and other groups still operate and carry out cowardly attacks. However, the CIA and military intelligence — by working with our close allies such as the UK — have seriously disrupted terror organizations and have, at least on a few occassions, stopped mass murder before it could be committed.

Regardless of how we answer the question it is time for America to reflect on the past 10 years. We did much good but we also paid a very high price.

Over the weekend I spend some time exploring a friend’s blog. If any of you wish to be challenged, philosophically and intellectually, I strongly suggest an extended visit. to The Servile Conformist

One particular series of posts caught my attention.  I must admit that when it comes to formal logic and even a strict philosophical discipline I am a lightweight. My strengths are in practical ethics which generally do not require formal philosophical or logical proofs. I mention this because it was very difficult for me to follow the technicalities of the exchange between Patrick Mefford and Chris Bolt. But that’s not the point. Go and read the exchange. There is plenty to learn even if much of what is presented flies over your head as it did mine.

In reading these posts I was struck by several things: 1) Patrick’s willingness, as an atheist, to substantively engage Christian apologetics. Patrick was incredibly charitable to the Christian position and gave it serious consideration. 2) How thoughtful the underpinnings of this particular Christian apologetic actually are. I may not agree with Chris Bolt but the guy has chops. He’s no lightweight. Chris would demolish me in any formal debate setting and I consider my ability to build and articulate arguments to be fairly strong. 3) The similarities between how Chris responded to Pat and attempted to marginalize his argument by focussing on specific minutia; all ill order to avoid the larger issues (a particularly odd misdirection was a discussion of Pat’s use of Greek where Chris uses this as some sort of platform from which to launch an attack on Patrick’s implied arrogance). Chris was very effective at misdirection. Patrick posits that Chris did this for an “audience” and I think this is very likely true. Chris was trying to prop up his own apologetic in the eyes of sympathetic readers by trying to discredit Pat. This all felt so familiar ….

Anyway, I was fascinated by how Chris used similar tactics to those employed by some old FARMS contributors — I’m thinking of Russell McGregor in particular who is the master of misdirection. (A great rebuttal and expose of McGregor’s, frankly pathetic, tactics can be found here).

Additionally, I noted the difference between the apologetic approach of Chris Bolt compared to approach of Mormon apologetics (speaking broadly). Chris’ apologetic was firmly rooted in philosophy and logic and would make even the most thoughtful of the “New Atheists” like Sam Harris sweat. Conversely, Mormon apologetics, traditionally, has been rooted in history, archeology, and in arguments for plausibility. The new Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture is continuing on in this tradition even as BYU’s Maxwell Institute moves towards Mormon Studies as an academic enterprise.

This is not to say, of course, that there are no philosophical explorations happening within Mormondom. The attorney Blake Ostler has contributed to these type of efforts which are rooted in philosophy and logic. I haven’t read Ostler extensively and can’t comment intelligently on its value. However, I have heard good things from those who have read Ostler.

All of this has caused me to reflect on the place of philosophy in Mormon apologetics. I suppose that Mormonism can rely on broad Christian apologetics to defend meta-concepts like the very existence of God and focus, as it has done in the past, on presenting apologetics that support Mormon-specific truth claims such as the pre-existence of humankind, the potential for humankind to become like God etc…  concepts with significant philosophical and moral implications.

In any case, I believe that traditional Mormon apologetics should continue to provide plausible cases for Mormon-truth claims rooted in the tangible. However, I would like to see more arguments exploring the philosophical, moral, and theological aspects of Mormonism.  Perhaps some day I can contribute. I wrote a post exploring one aspect of Mormon theological ethics last year and hope to continue the exploration. But, as I mentioned above, I am not a philosopher and lack the skill to explore Mormon issues in the same way Chris Bolt approaches Christianity.

There are plenty of Mormon philosophers out there. I’d like to see some of them become more involved in the apologetic exercise.  

So many interesting questions to explore …..

When considering where to pursue graduate-level education in religion a significant factor was how “friendly” the program was to religious believers. Some of the programs I looked at were, by reputation and by their own admission, biased against belief; against faith. I eventually chose Yale Divinity School because of its academic reputation but also because of the vibrancy its community of believers.

Every morning at 10am worship services were held in Marquand Chapel where students from a variety of religious and cultural backgrounds gathered to sing hymns, listen to sermons (by faculty, MDiv students, or invited guests), and most importantly, hold fellowship together.

In my various classes (which mostly consisted of seminars) I studied the basics of Biblical interpretation utilizing “scientific” or academic methods or theories such as the Documentary Hypothesis. Study of the New Testament included analyzing the theoretical Q source and identifying the biases inherent in each of the Gospel narratives. Yet, through all of this, part of each discussion was the importance of the text in religious practice and faith. Discussions of belief were not forced or obligatory additions to an otherwise strictly academic discussion. Rather, elements of faith, religious practice, and belief were interwoven and sprung organically from student and professor interaction.

Lest I paint a misleading picture, allow me to say that Yale Divinity School is not the Fuller Theological Seminary; a school much more conservative in its theology and Biblical approach than YDS. Fuller appeals to a more conservative (theologically) students or individuals seeking ordination. This is not to say, of course, that YDS was in any way an unwelcoming place for religious conservatives. Mormons and Evangelicals were a vibrant part of the community and their perspectives were always welcomed as part of the larger dialogue.

The presence of believers in religious studies is essential because it helps prevent religious studies from becoming a form of anthropology. With the presence of believers, religious studies explores not only the “what and why” of religion, but also its meaning to individuals, communities, and nations.

Of course, believers who choose to pursue religious studies should not view the experience as one to meant to simply confirm what they already believe. Rather, the academic study of religion does not  destroy faith, but challenges it; forcing students to examine why religious belief is (or is not) important. If a believer exits religious studies with the same understanding of their own faith as when the began, they have missed out on an important aspect of the academic study of religion; building and enhancing faith.

I entered YDS a believer and left YDS a believer. Many of my core assumptions has been challenged and, as a result, refined. Some beliefs were dropped altogether while others were adopted to take their place. In the end, I left YDS a more committed Christian than when I had entered.

Of course, given that the academic study of religion plays by the “rules” of academia meaning that answers or explanations such as “God said/did it” simply don’t hold up. I recall that my first paper at Yale dealt with the question of how moral questions should be discussed in the public square by religious believers and non-belivers alike. I struggled with the paper for weeks trying, in one way or another, to find a rational basis for “legislating morality.” I eventually found my answer — albeit not the one I originally expected — in the writings of Hebrew Bible pertaining to covenant formation.

I have heard some express concern that religious studies should be avoided by true religious believers because it will challenge and undermine their faith. While I certainly agree that faith will be challenged, I believe that religious studies can serve to strengthen faith and religious conviction by forcing believers to develop a defense which outlines the reasons for their religious faith (1 Peter 3).

For believers to withdraw from religious studies would also rob this academic exercise of vibrancy and relevance. Believers keep the study of religion firmly grounded in practical issues of pastoral care and practical theology.