Saturday, May 30, 2009

On the Tea Parties in Particular and the Tea Party Movement in General:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

[Prefatory Note: This was originally written for another publishing medium on April 16, 2009 and published a day later. With a few revisions it is being presented in this medium at the present time. -ISM]

Honesty and the interest of disclosure compels me to admit at the outset that there are certain elements to this movement I do not agree with including but not limited to certain unsavoury elements which inexorably carry within them the seeds for potential destruction of the movement in general if they are not carefully monitored. (Of the latter I want no part whatsoever.) I will get to those factors in a moment. As a whole though, I was very pleased with the turnout at Westlake yesterday even though I ended up unable to get out of a lane directly going into the carpool lane onto the freeway in the opposite direction from whence I came and had to backtrack when looking initially for parking. (It was a rare navigating snafu and I will relegate it to a footnote{1} to continue with my previous train of thought.)

Anyway, I got my Independent self to Westlake late for reasons outlined in the first footnote and because I had to park west of Pike Place Market and trek up the hill about probably a half a mile. I did however wear my NRA hat which I have never worn downtown before but this seemed as good a day as any in lieu of the DHS "report" which I have posted a few bits on already{2} and will write more on at some point{3} but enough on that lest I tangent off onto another matter altogether. I arrived at the scene to a sea of signs and while some of them made my eyes roll{4}, there were others I agreed with and one in particular which made me laugh as it was from what appeared to be the token counter-protester there.{5}

The people who were there represented every strata of society from what I could discern -almost everyone was informally dressed. I unfortunately missed Bob Williams' speech due to the driving snafu and also got there shortly after Tim Eyman's speech. I did however in short order affix my name to one of his latest initiatives -another one dealing with tax rollbacks that is all I needed to hear. The speeches I imbibed via my eardrums were both interesting and inspiring. I found myself sensing that this was the start of something even bigger to come: the start of the counter-offensive as I told my amigo Tim by email this morning. As a quick aside, Tim attended the Phoenix rally with his wife Annette{6} and told me there was between 3000 and 5000 people there.

Though there are many positives there are also some negatives I should take note of. The first is a more benign sort in that I sense many angry over unconstitutional usurpations of power by the federal government are approaching this matter from a strict literalist reading of the Constitution. This is an approach which historically has not only not worked{7} and even the Founders in general who are being cited in its favour were not as restrictive on the application of the Constitution as many from the "Ron Paul school"{8} seem to want to be. But that is a more benign matter when it comes to proper political pragmatism. I believe before we can talk about the manner in which the Constitution is to be interpreted, we need to clear the field as much as possible of those who do not care about the Constitution except as a political tool to be manipulated when it suits them and ignored when it does not. We need a mutual frame of reference basically and until we are able to do that, those who differ on Constitutional application should stand united against those who do not care about the Constitution whatever pious lip service they pay to it notwithstanding.

The much more serious negative in my mind is the extreme conspiracy theorists. I wrote a post a while back for this weblog and also for another publishing medium which explains the logical and rational problems I have with this crowd{9} but beyond those arguments is the issue of credibility in general. The mainstream media would LOVE to paint these Tea Parties as being run by or primarily populated by those who advance really oddball conspiracy views because it is all the more easy to dismiss the credibility of the movement. And this is the part of the movement I want personally no part of but fortunately these sorts seem to be a minority at the tea parties so far and may it stay that way if this is going to be a worthwhile and effective endeavour for positive and long-lasting effect.

There is also is the downright annoying attitude of some of those whose methodologies approach what I call the "true believer" mentality. These are the people to whom politics is not the art of the possible but instead the art of demanding the perfect lest they refuse to participate at all. This could be in general but also on particular matters -be it their lack of participation a given agenda item, a given political movement, or whatever. I am one who believes that anything that can be reasonably foreseen to have potential positive effects and which has a reasonably feasible chance of working should be undertaken provided that it is not unethical. However, it never fails to surprise me how many will attempt to excommunicate from political communion those who do not share their views on issues to a near 100% degree if not darn close to it. And ironically enough, self-identified "conservatives" who do this often laud President Ronald Reagan as their model ignoring how often (i) Reagan balanced political philosophy with political pragmatism and (ii) how often Reagan said essentially that those who agree with him 80% of the time were not his political foe.

The truth is, you need both philosophy and pragmatism if you can expect to be successful in any endeavour in life. Too often however, you have those more inclined towards pure political philosophy trying to narrow the tent too much while on the other side of the equation you have those who are far more politically pragmatic trying to widen the tent too much. What is needed between these two extreme tendencies is a more balanced approach. The political philosophers who have a map far too often do not know how to get anywhere on it. Conversely, the political pragmatists often excel in getting things done but lack a map to know where they are even going. It is my hope that these tea parties will in how they are organized and in those who participate in them can strive to find that balance required to make this movement a genuine success instead of a populist flame out of the sort that litters the political landscape spanning the centuries of America's existence.

Anyway, having noted these things, I must say it pleases me to see these gatherings which represent a true grassroots movement and not some bankrolled group of paid "protesters" or "volunteers" the way so many liberal movements{10} are. I am wondering if my idea for significant legislative reform long pondered over{11} and recently written on{12} can perhaps find some traction in this movement but that is a subject for another time altogether.

Notes:

{1} For those familiar with Seattle, I was stuck on the carpool lane up around Pine and forced onto the express lanes northbound. This resulted in me crossing Lake Union to the north, taking the first exit off, and getting quickly onto the University Bridge to Eastlake Avenue (along Lake Union) traveling under the I-5 Bridge from which I exited and coming back into Seattle that way. In short, it killed about thirty minutes of my day and made me an hour late to the tea party.

{2} Those bits were posted if memory serves in another publishing medium. I am probably not through berating that worthless pile of pig crap called a "report" yet. If I turned in a report in school with that much lack of source citation or complete lack of cogent argumentation for a given thesis, etc. I would have received an F grade. It must have been a Huffington Post staffer who ghostwrote it for Napolitano.

{3} I write things for various mediums and in a variety of contexts but usually what I write has some element of timeless principle to it which means it can serve a variety of purposes. But because the context of one posting may differ from another, sometimes a piece written for one medium needs to be reworked for posting in another medium, shortened, added to, etc.

{4} Mainly the ones that would seem to replace one Messiah (Obama) with another (Paul).

{5} I hesitate to post the slogans that protester used here because many may not understand what was being said and those who would understand would question either my prudence in posting them here or even why (perhaps) I know what they mean.

{6} Tim told me he did not get my voice mail when I contacted him because he was at the Phoenix gathering and he was talking with his mother and step father who were at a gathering in Monterrey.

{7} I went over this to some degree in a posting to this weblog earlier in the year:

Between Unconstitutionality and Unworkability (circa February 6, 2009)

{8} See my criticisms of this approach philosophically in the thread of footnote seven. With greater specificity on one issue (i.e. the constitutional requirement of declaring war), see this posting:

On the Constitutionality of Wars Undertaken Without a Formal Declaration (circa December 26, 2007)

{9} On the Problem With Conservatives Dabbling in So-Called "Conspiracy Theories" (circa March 18, 2009)

{10} I was informed by my very good friend Anna when we were talking about the tea parties that when she was campaigning for Senator John McCain she and some friends were approached by some of those "volunteering" for Senator Barack Obama asking them "how much was the McCain campaign paying you to volunteer???" or something along those lines. (This only confirmed my suspicions about the so-called "grassroots massive support for Obama and change" bandied about by that campaign and their willing and fawning sycophants in the mainstream media.)

{11} See footnote twelve. (This idea has been in my mind in some form or another for at least seven years.)

{12} Another Idea For Federal and State Legislative Reform (circa March 6, 2009)

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Points to Ponder:
(On the Popularity of Obama and That of His Policies)

[W]hat will it take to wake these people up? Look at the polls, very few people like anything that Obama has done, yet they still say he is doing a good job. It's like owning a Corvette, in which nothing works, but it has a great paint job. ["Bigone5555J" -comment on YouTube (circa mid May 2009)]
Obama Vindicates Bush

Charles Krauthammer as he so often does hits the nail on the head in the above article. Hopefully this trend will continue and the Bush tax cuts will also be renewed and made permanent but that may be asking for too much. One thing is for sure though, if President Obama is an astute enough politician, he will want the economy to be doing well enough to assist him in running for re-election and letting those tax cuts expire will not aid him in that endeavour.

Monday, May 25, 2009

Points to Ponder:
(For the Fallen Soldiers)

"Our young friends -- yes, young friends, for in our hearts you will always be young, full of the love that is youth, love of life, love of joy, love of country -- you fought for your country and for its safety and for the freedom of others with strength and courage. We love you for it. We honor you. And we have faith that, as He does all His sacred children, the Lord will bless you and keep you, the Lord will make His face to shine upon you and give you peace, now and forever more." [President Ronald Reagan: Note Inserted into the Vietnam Veterans Memorial (circa November 11, 1988)]
I have little that I could add now or am inclined to anyway to what I wrote on the subject of Memorial Day last year. I will however at this point encapsulate the substance of everything in that note. This will be done by pointing out what I believe is an important (albeit secondary) principle that permeates my outlook on these matters; namely this:

If there is not something you are willing to fight and possibly die for, then you are not worthy to live.

That is my view in a nutshell{1} and though I see value in everything I said in the above posted material, at bottom the rest is mere commentary on that fundamental principle really.

Note:

{1} If you need a theological principle to anchor this to, consider Jesus' statement about how one cannot show greater love than by laying down their life for another.

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

dreams of me and you
hot weather drink in blender
margaritaville
[Written on 5/5/08]
Al Gore Rakes in the Green

Joseph D'Hippolito writes on the racket called "cap and trade" and the whole so-called "global warming crisis." It is pleasing to see his inclusion of information about Lord Christopher Monckton of whom we recently wrote on at this humble weblog.{1} As we see it, the more people know about people like Lord Monckton and those like him who fly in the face of the attempted snowjob on this matter, the better.

Note:

{1} My Views on Lord Monckton (circa April 26, 2009)

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

Points to Ponder:

Americans need never fear their government because of the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. [Gouverneur Morris]
Radio Host Savage Seeks Clinton's Help Over Ban

Here is a sample from the article before I comment:

Attorneys for the controversial San Francisco host of the syndicated "Savage Nation" radio show, say the ban is of a blatant human rights violation and formally asked Clinton on Thursday to demand that British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith "rescind the arbitrary and capricious decision" last week to "name and shame" 16 individuals, including Savage, who have been barred from entry into the country.

Smith made headlines - and raised eyebrows - when she included Savage on a list that also includes Islamic terrorists, Russian skinhead killers and neo-Nazis, saying that the individuals don't represent the United Kingdom's "values."

...

Savage - whose show reaches an estimated 8 million to 10 million listeners on nearly 400 stations nationwide, according to industry sources - told The Chronicle in an exclusive interview Thursday that "I've been very harsh on Hillary and Bill (Clinton) over the years."

"But precisely for this reason, she should take my case. It would show that she can rise above partisan politics," he said, "because Jacqui Smith is in violation of the European Union's laws themselves."


The bottom line on this issue is simple: though Michael Savage and Hillary Clinton do not agree on very much issue-wise, that he has been lumped in on the list with people who are murderers, terrorists, Nazi's and the like is blatant and vicious libel.

It is one thing to disagree with someone on issues (even stridently at that) but it is another to tolerate the smearing of other people for their views. A person who would not stand to see this happen to someone they did not agree with if (i) that person was not advocating violence and (ii) if they have any semblance of character.

It is the hope of this writer that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recognizes the principle of respect for freedom of speech in reality by standing by someone whose speech she would not agree with and not just in theory and for those for whom she agrees with. Again, right and wrong cannot depend on who agrees with you but instead on the objective nature of a position intrinsically if we are to believe in anything at all. This is something that a lot of people these days do not seem to realize but it is nonetheless a principle that once again requires being mentioned as well as defended by those who take concepts such as reason, logic, ethics, and principles seriously. I hope on this matter that Secretary of State Clinton does the right thing and stands for free speech and against defamation of character.
Gingrich: Pelosi 'Lied,' 'Despicable,' 'Dishonest,' 'Vicious,' 'Trivial'

To follow up on the Pelosi matter which has been in the media in recent days, we have former Speaker Gingrich giving urrent Speaker Pelosi a much deserved reaming for either lying and/or being incompetent. The law of non-contradiction is in play folks so take your pick because based on the evidence{1} she is cannot escape being at least one or the other (if not both) at this point.

Note:

{1} Certainly CIA Director Leon Panetta by all appearances as we noted recently has the goods on Pelosi and more than reasonable evidence that she is lying through her teeth about this.

Sunday, May 17, 2009

Obama Breaks Major Campaign Promise as Military Commissions Resume, Says Amnesty International

Depending on who you ask (and when you asked them), there had been between seven{1}, eleven{2}, and eighteen{3} promises broken prior to this one already. Meanwhile the O-bots will continue to treat this guy like he can change water into wine and complain that Bush is the embodiment of evil.

The disturbing truth is, President Barack Obama has shown more of a wanton disregard for campaign promises than any president I have ever witnessed and at times with promises that he could very easily have kept at that!!!

Say what you will about someone like Cindy Sheehan{4} but at least when President Obama broke his promise to get all the troops out of Iraq in sixteen months{5}, she did not hesitate to call him a "war monger" much as she has his predecessor. At least she is showing consistency on this issue and not giving President Obama a pass where she would not give one to President Bush. Would that more of the O-bots have a concern for consistency but I digress.

Notes:

{1} Obama's Broken Promises (circa February 17, 2009)

{2} Obama Racks Up a List of Broken Promises (circa March 12, 2009)

{3} 100 Days, Almost As Many Expired Campaign Promises (circa April 29, 2009)

{4} And Lord knows I have from time to time in years past.

{5} A promise I might add that I am glad he has broken.
Unable to sleep
Thinking of the one I love
Got the midnight blues
[Written just now]

Saturday, May 16, 2009

U.S. Attorney's office tells employees not to log on to Drudge Report

Oh brother. Look, I have been accessing The Drudge Report for probably ten years from a variety of computers and have never had a problem. This has all the earmarks of attempts to curb the rights of people to access whatever information they want at work that is not in violation of basic workplace ethics.{1} The attempt to blame ESPN for the same thing is also pretty lame because I have been accessing their sites at least as long as I have The Drudge Report with nary a problem there either.

Maybe these offices need to utilize these newfangled devices called "virus protection software" and "firewalls" that someone such as myself who is no computer tech sort utilizes. I have to admit that a story like this really makes me wonder about the quality of intelligence of those we hire for federal positions even more so than I already did{2} but enough on that for now.

Notes:

{1} I mean, it is not as if they were looking at porn at work

{2} This is not rocket science after all.
Panetta to CIA employees: We told Pelosi the truth

The whole article has to be read and for those who want to know where I stand on the matter, I will tell you but observe her body language in the clip above.{1} Also, here are some offhand comments I made in another publishing medium in recent days:

[I] wonder if Nancy Pelosi knows what the underside of a bus looks like... [5/14/09 @1:14pm]

That one was amplified by this clarification:

[I]t is amusing to see and hear Pelosi's pathetic ass kissing of the president. Folks, SHE KNOWS she is next to be thrown under the bus and to watch her struggle to try and avoid it brings me no small amount of schadenfraude :) [5/15/09 @9:06am]

One of two things are going to come out of this and one of them is not greater power and prestige for Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Basically, she will either have to resign her position in the Congress or if she survives she will become a major kiss ass rubber-stamp for the president's agenda beyond what she even is now. Either way though, she has lost any remaining pretense of credibility she may have still had{2} in the eyes of anyone with a normal intact functioning brain. Heck folks, when Bob Beckel of all people on the Democratic side says that someone in his party is a liar, you know they are in more than a bit of trouble.{3} To paraphrase the late Gorilla Monsoon: "stick a fork in her, she's done!!!"

Notes:

{1} While not an expert on body language myself, I am nonetheless reasonably informed on the matter and that Pelosi is lying on this matter is crystal clear when you look at what her face say -to the extent that her heavily Botoxed face can be read of course. (Pay particular attention to her eyes.)

{2} However small it was.

{3} I say this because Beckel defends a lot of stuff that no one who was not a party ideologue would even attempt to defend.

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Wanted: A Fighting Party

Pat Buchanan as I have often said is a streaky shooter -when he is off he misses by a lot but when he is on, it is usually from downtown and nothing but net. This article belongs to the latter classification.
On the Issue of Good and Bad Arguments in Apologetics or Elsewhere:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

[Prefatory Note: The substance of this material was written on May 3, 2009 when I was made aware of it on a discussion list I occasionally involve myself with. Below is the material as it was slightly redacted and revised for an email circular sent out on May 9, 2009. -ISM]

I very rarely do apologetics stuff at all anymore for a variety of reasons. However, here are my thoughts on the arguments made by Ben Douglass, David Palm, and Nick E and positions they have taken on the thread that were sent to myself and others for comment -musings written on the morning of May 3rd when waking up so any deficiencies it contains I apologize for in advance.

I want to note at the outset though that I believe what Ben, David, and Nick have offered in principle is a good thing because if there is one thing I am really tired of (and feel like a broken record in reiterating) it is a lack of ethics so often taken by apologists in general of all stripes. Presenting this kind of thread on their part is helpful because it makes the point that yes there are bad or not so wise arguments that can be made by Catholics in arguing against Protestants (or anyone else) rather than closing one's eyes and pretending that any argument made against Protestants by Catholics is good and any argument made by Protestants against Catholics is a bad one. Ben, David, and Nick by publishing such an article and not following the unfortunate mainstream apologetics trends are doing a great service to authentic dialogue but without further ado, onto the individual arguments and conclusions themselves...

On Argument #1:

I agree with both the argument and the conclusion they draw. I was for those who have forgotten making the argument against 20,000 plus "denominations" as far back as late 2000 myself on Steve Ray's board and telling others not to do so. (Some listened, most others continued making this mistake, others still thought I was wrong to admit that Eric Svendsen actually had a valuable point to make on this matter that others ignored at the risk of looking foolish.) The original source of the thousands of arguments was some David Barrett fellow circa 1982 and he posited about 23,000. But if his methodology is looked at and taken literally with Protestants, consistency demands the same be done with Catholics and to do so would have rendered hundreds of Catholic churches because it counted religious orders, and dioceses and other such things as individual "churches." In the interest of internal and rational consistency you cannot have it both ways.

Argument #2:

I agree with their argument as a rule. I only use the term "anti-Catholic" when dealing with people who have an obvious and deep-rooted hatred for Catholicism or what they perceive the latter to be. I prefer to refer to Protestants as "groups" because Catholic theology -particularly when viewed through the lens of Church as communion or what is called communio theology -which since the Second Vatican Council has been the manner in which these things have been and will be viewed{1}- theologically distinguishes between those properly called "churches" and those which are not.

Argument #3:

I most definitely agree with them on this one.

Argument #4:

I was saying this years ago myself -again we agree.

Argument #5:

I have used variations of the argument they made myself in years past.

Argument #6:

They are right that the argument does not suffice all by itself. But as one of a number of things gathered together to demonstrate a pattern of extra-scriptural appeal, it can be quite useful.

Argument #7:

See my response to argument #6. They are right that this one is even more tenuous by itself (one reason I never had recourse to it myself) but with the right qualification it could still be used. Certainly that St. Paul did not appeal to the Scriptures alone to make this argument shows that one can appeal to other sources and not just Scripture as some Protestants claim for example.

Argument #8:

I do not to some extent agree with this argument because there is a principle those verses convey which also applies when it comes to biblical interpretation. I agree with the writers that this argument can be overused; however, just as the prophecies of Scripture are not matters of private interpretation, neither is the proper meaning or meanings of scriptural passages to be incontrovertibly ascertained in like fashion. The argument works but it is not as broad in scope as many may presume.

Argument #9:

I agree wholeheartedly with argument nine and its conclusions. I doubt any source of the ancient world is as well preserved as the Bible is and while there are some areas "where the original text is indeterminate", as a rule this is not an issue and considering how many sources replicate the same overall texts, again no ancient source I am aware of has nearly as much manuscript integrity as the books of the Bible do.

Argument #10:

I disagree with argument #10. An argument to be given probability of truth cannot be internally contradictory and the same goes with a method of interpretation. If the Protestant arguments of that fashion against 2 Maccabees are valid, then they must accept that the same arguments against Samuel and Chronicles as likewise valid. (Meaning that if the arguments prove the lack of inspiration to Maccabees then the same is the case for Samuel and Chronicles.) But if the person would seek to defend Samuel and Chronicles by various and sundry nuances or exemptions from such a critique, then they undercut the very arguments they used against Maccabees and therefore they must be forced to admit to that. Failing that, their inconsistency must be pointed out for what it is to their discredit though if at all reasonably possible this should be handled delicately.

Argument #11:

I agree with argument #11 to a point. James ii,24 is not a magic cure-all for everything pertaining to the issue of sola fide. However, at the same time, it works well oftentimes because of the ways which Protestants have to jump through hoops to try and claim the text means other than what it says when taken literally. I was able to convince Tim Enloe in years past that the manner in which we understand grace and works was well explained in a passage of Augustine{2} and I agree with Ben, David, and Nick that other arguments are also necessary to drive this point home more firmly. But that does not mean the James ii,24 argument has no merit particularly since it specifically contradicts the sola fide original idea -so much that Luther added the word "alone" to Romans iii,28 and then disparaged the Epistle of James and insulted the writer for not saying what he thought it should say. (Something that would be quite odd for Luther to do if he did not see a serious disconnect between his view and the words of scripture in this passage.)

Argument #12:

Pointing out that Christians should give priority to the words of Jesus of those of Paul is not a bad argument when done correctly. If it is done as an expedient to dismiss the words of Paul then it is bad but if it is to establish a kind of "canon within a canon" then it is not bad because Protestants do this themselves much as anyone does. (In the case of Prots, they place Romans and Galatians seemingly over every other epistle in priority. Catholics used to with the Old Testament do this with the so-called "Deuterocanonical Books.") It is not completely honest to claim that different sides do not place certain works in a priority over others. For this reason, to point out that Catholics often put the recorded words of the Son of God over those of his apostles and adopted apostle is fine. However, once that is done, then showing how Peter, James, John, and Paul's words harmonize with those of first Jesus and then of Catholic theology is the next step. I did this years ago in apologetics arguments and also in an essay I wrote nearly a decade ago on justification by faith but that is another subject altogether.

Argument #13:

I never tried to or thought about taking the approach that they outline in this argument so I cannot comment much. I will say in perusing their argument that I do not disagree with its internal logic but I also do not think you need to make that kind of argument anyway: it is too technical and you run the risk of hanging yourself in the process. I have seen a lot of apologists make arguments or debate in areas they have no business debating on. I say this not just out of an opinion on the matter but because objectively certain arguments or doctrines require presuppositional arguments or doctrines to be held before they can be solidly advanced. In my mind, debates should be confined to the presuppositional arguments or doctrines and not on those which extend beyond it until and unless there can be an agreement reached on the latter ones. (I went over this on discussion lists in years past when discussing what topics Catholics should and should not debate with Protestants publicly.)

Argument #14:

My points about argument #13 apply here as well.

Argument #15:

There is a reason Protestants cite Ephesians ii,8-9 and leave out verse ten and it is because verse ten quite clearly contextualizes the first two verses in a way that leaving it out does not do. I went over this in greater detail in my essay on justification both amplifying the tenth verse and also explaining why the three taken as a whole cohere well with Catholic theology. I would have used the same St. Augustine argument I used to persuade Tim Enloe in that essay but I was trying at the time to do as little exegesis from scripture as possible while presenting passages with more contextualization than they commonly received -from not only Protestants but also Catholics.

Argument #16:

This argument has its value but needs to be approached more carefully than many presume. For example, the writers are correct that some saw it as a justifiable gloss on the text but the concept of "faith alone" that preceded the sixteenth century (yes this concept did not completely fail to predate Luther) was one that included all the theological virtues combined. This was presupposed in its usage but generally, faith was distinguished from hope and charity as distinct virtues. I note this because Luther appeared to interpret faith as being literally "alone" -and by his commentary on one of St. Paul's epistles (I think Galatians but cannot remember: have not done this stuff in a while so I apologize for the lapse) he disparaged charitable works so much that it was made evident that he viewed sola fide as exactly what it says. This made his appropriation of the concept a "theological novum" as Anglican scholar Alister McGrath pointed out years ago.

My point of difference with Ben, David, and Nick on this is that I view this as more than a mere exegestical error on Luther's part. Part of the reason is that those who are involved with a great deal of their resources (time, energy, money, etc) selling a particular concept, product, etc. can at times become so intent on seeing their idea/creation/product accepted by others that they tend to lose their objectivity. The same principle is at stake with the sola fide position -it was the basis of a so-called "reformation" and therefore a lot is invested in it by its apologists/advocates. This is therefore not a matter to take lightly not that Ben, David, and Nick are doing this of course.

Requiring those who advocate for a position or idea to be consistent is not a bad argument at all but instead it is at the very heart of respecting reason and logic. I do not want to appear to accuse the writers of the article of not wanting this mind you but instead to outline the principle behind why I do not agree with them on this point{3} to at least some extent.

Argument #17:

Considering how many Protestants respond to those who previously claimed they were "saved" and "secure" who later on fall by saying "they were never saved to begin with", I am not so sure I agree with the writers on this point. Consistency is a powerful and valuable tool in the arsenal of anyone who strives to make use of the natural lights of reason and logic. It therefore stands to reason that if someone could claim to be "saved" and "secure" at one point but later on (if they fall) are claimed to be "never saved to begin with" that they cannot (and should not) be allowed to have it both ways. I can agree with the writers that this argument is more complex if properly applied and I reiterate at this time my comments in the last paragraph of my argument #16 response -in substance{4} anyway.

Argument #18:

I agree with them 100% on this one. Do not expect more out of sources than what they are and always disclose to the extent you are aware of it the reliability or lack thereof of the source you cite.

Conclusion:

Those are my thoughts on the article. Basically I agree with nine of them (arguments 1-5, 9, 13-14, 18), agree to some degree but have issues with part of them on five (arguments 6-8,11,16), and disagree with them for the most part or completely with four (arguments 10,12,15,17). I admire though the clarification that Ben, David, and Nick put at the beginning of their piece and I make the substance of it my own in concluding this "counter-missive" of my own -so I will quote them at this time in a final footnote{5} and hope this response is of assistance in some way or another.

Notes:

{1} This is a complex theological subject matter which I went over in years past in outline form for those who are interested:

An Outline of Various Church Models Throughout History (circa November 23-24, 2003)

{2} One thing that's always interested me about Shawn's position is his notation of Augustine's doctrine of merit being that God crowns His own gifts in us. [Tim Enloe (circa April 15, 2007)]

{3} If Ben, David, and Nick are merely trying to say that this argument can easily be overdone and taken beyond the point to where it is useful then I agree with them wholeheartedly. If they are trying to say it is not a good argument at all period then I do not.

{4} Namely, the part where I noted this:

"Requiring those who advocate for a position or idea to be consistent is not a bad argument at all but instead it is at the very heart of respecting reason and logic."

Again, I do not accuse any of them of failing to follow this principle -indeed the principle behind their article to a certain extent presupposes it.

{5} To reiterate their introduction at this time:

The following is a list of arguments against Protestantism which, in our judgment, Catholics should not use, either because they are not true, or because, while they might be true, it is impossible to prove that they are, for a plausible alternative explanation of the data exists. This is certainly not a complete list: it is merely one missive fired for intellectual honesty. Neither is it an infallible list: it is possible that one or more of these arguments might be saved. [LINK]

Tuesday, May 05, 2009

Revisiting the Subject of Argument by "Expert Opinions":

I have written on this subject many times before but for the sake of time constraints will limit myself to only three such references chosen at random from the archives of this weblog.{1} In the meantime, as this matter comes up from time to time when engaged in arguing a position with people, it seems appropriate to revisit it at various intervals and I intend to do that now courtesy of something I wrote last year in the combox of someone else's weblog and saved for a possible later posting. Without further ado...

So often major discoveries have been made by “non-experts” who have not limited themselves to what the “experts” have said cannot be done. The example of the Wright Brothers vs. the Esteemed Lord Kelvin of the British Royal Society of London for the Improvement of Natural Knowledge is only one of many examples. And as you will see if you read Lord Kelvin’s file on Wikipedia, he was a brilliant highly credentialed man and an inventor/innovator of his own right. But in some areas he had some blind spots -the statement he made on the impossibility of machines heavier than air flying (made in 1895) was one. He also claimed in 1897 that “radio has no future” which we all know is patently false. Then there was his 1900 claim that “[t]here is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement” -a statement made five years before Einstein’s famous 1905 paper on relativity was published.

I note this example because Lord Kelvin was a physicist. And he is far from the only “expert” to have been seriously disproved in one or more areas within their own fields of expertise by upstarts without their credentials or pedigree. I posted back in January of 2007 in one of my “points to ponder” threads a slew of “experts” whose “authoritative pronouncements” were later disproved by non-experts. This is why opinions and conclusions should never be accepted uncritically by anyone regardless of their “expert” status. [Written on August 25, 2008]

Note:

{1} Here they are in order from most recent to oldest:

On the Appeal to Authority and Distinguishing Between Valid and Invalid Usages Thereof (circa March 8, 2007)

Points to Ponder on Logic Being a Special Preserve of the Learned (circa February 11, 2006)

On Proper and Improper Approaches to Argumentation (circa May 14, 2005)
'El no habla': Obama jumbles Cinco de Mayo salute

They called President Bush a "dummy" when this sort of stuff happens. I wonder if the late night comedians will mock President Obama mercilessly over this or if they will ignore it. The late night comedian presidential double standard -much as with the mainstream media presidential double standard- undoubtedly will continue.

Sunday, May 03, 2009

Briefly on Ethics and Modifying Past Posts to This Weblog's Archives

Though I do not delete things from the archives of this weblog, there are at times modifications made to older threads. When said modifications are in the area of either fixing spelling mistakes or grammatical glitches, I do not say anything about it but when major additions are made to something, it is my custom in the thread so revised to note these things in the form of an small update or clarification of some kind.

With that in mind, I was perusing a thread written years ago today before sending a link to it in an email circular because I needed to remind myself of what I wrote then so I could be prepared if necessary to defend it. In doing so, I noticed that I overlooked in the sequence of sources one document I was to deal with in a commentary in the month following the original publication of that series. I do not intend to link to it here or even to the series in question but I wanted to note here that as is my wont on this weblog when changing past postings beyond simple grammar or spelling fixes that I added a couple of citations from the previously overlooked source at the very beginning of the post involved, wrote some necessary segues to integrate it fully into what I originally wrote, and have linked this clarifying note to the beginning of the aforementioned modified thread in the interest of greater clarity on that matter thereof.

My notation of these actions in a brief musing at this time is in the interest of disclosure. I view as ethically necessary to clarify a principle I have always followed but not to my knowledge ever said much explicitly about at least publicly.

Friday, May 01, 2009

Points to Ponder:

No morn ever dawned more favorable than ours did; and no day was every more clouded than the present! Wisdom, and good examples are necessary at this time to rescue the political machine from the impending storm. [George Washington]