Ann Coulter: Republican Party will Lose 2012 if Romney Runs

By Joshua Carpenter, Random Knuts
February 14, 2011  08:40 p.m. EST

Ann Coulter appeared on Fox to show her support for Chris Christie in 2012.  He is, Coulter aruges, the only republican that could win the 2012 election, likening him to Reagan.  Moreover, she adds that "...it is amazing that [the republicans] have won any presidential elections at all."  Further, she adds that the Republican Party has yet to introduce a candidate that even comes close to having enough passion to run for the presidency, nor have their been very many that have been 'manly' enough to be elected...meaning a candidate with boldness.  When asked about Romney, she admitted that unless there is a star that rises up in the Republican Party, Romney will get the nomination.  She then added that Romney will ultimately lose to Obama if that is the case.

The Phasing out of the Religious Right

By Joshua Carpenter, Random Knuts
February 02, 2011  01:35 p.m. EST

While fundamentalists are comfortable sitting in their pews singing hymns this Sunday, come Monday they may be singing a different tune.  The latest strike against the group often known as the "Religious Right" is a video of President George W. Bush's daughter, Barbara, speaking out in support of same-sex marriage.  A work in the making, the GLBT community has fought for over fifty-years to be given the same rights as heterosexual couples.

Contrary to what many fundamentalists would like to believe, the GOP is now developing a strategy for the 2012 election and they are not going to like what they see.  Although the Religious Right may be informed about those candidates that are in opposition to giving rights to homosexuals, they still have to consider the increasing sympathy shown by many Republicans toward homosexual rights.  Take, for example, Dick Cheney.  It was widely known that his daughter was in a same-sex relationship, but yet he assured the Religious Right of his opposition to the matter.  Now, Mr. Cheney has made it public that he supports same sex marriage. But he is not the only prominent person in the GOP making public statements of support.  An interview with Larry King has Laura Bush supporting same-sex marriage.  All of this should come at no surprise, it has been noted in national newspapers that the entire party has been growing sympathetic toward the movement.  More recent, but less known movements like GOProud that are both Republican and support same-sex marriage.

What does this mean for the Religious Right and do they still have a voice?  That is tough to say.  Especially if the definition of 'having a voice' is being provided with a candidate that will support the Religious Right on all accounts.  Although they have grown accustomed to this, their influence on the GOP appears to be waning and waning quickly.

If the Religious Right would want to be heard on this issue, the best chance they have is to push for a concerted interdenominational and religious effort that sends a stern message to the GOP telling them that unless they deplore same-sex marriage and abortion and push to allow prayer in school, no one will show up at the voting booths.  This is nothing new, prior to the 1960s many people of faith would not cross the religious with the political.  But with the efforts of Nixon and Reagan, POOF the Religious Right appears.

The reality of the situation is that a concerted effort of many denominations is unlikely.  And without the help of a well endowed political party the Religious Right is more than likely on its way out the door.  The increasing focus on postmodern thought, secularism and the belief that morality is relative rather than biblical will eventually lead to this group's demise.  And then the legacy of the Religious Right just might disappear into the future.

The Phasing out of the Religious Right

By Joshua Carpenter, Random Knuts
February 02, 2011  01:35 p.m. EST

While fundamentalists are comfortable sitting in their pews singing hymns this Sunday, come Monday they may be singing a different tune.  The latest strike against the group often known as the "Religious Right" is a video of President George W. Bush's daughter, Barbara, speaking out in support of same-sex marriage.  A work in the making, the GLBT community has fought for over fifty-years to be given the same rights as heterosexual couples.

Contrary to what many fundamentalists would like to believe, the GOP is now developing a strategy for the 2012 election and they are not going to like what they see.  Although the Religious Right may be informed about those candidates that are in opposition to giving rights to homosexuals, they still have to consider the increasing sympathy shown by many Republicans toward homosexual rights.  Take, for example, Dick Cheney.  It was widely known that his daughter was in a same-sex relationship, but yet he assured the Religious Right of his opposition to the matter.  Now, Mr. Cheney has made it public that he supports same sex marriage. But he is not the only prominent person in the GOP making public statements of support.  An interview with Larry King has Laura Bush supporting same-sex marriage.  All of this should come at no surprise, it has been noted in national newspapers that the entire party has been growing sympathetic toward the movement.  More recent, but less known movements like GOProud that are both Republican and support same-sex marriage.

What does this mean for the Religious Right and do they still have a voice?  That is tough to say.  Especially if the definition of 'having a voice' is being provided with a candidate that will support the Religious Right on all accounts.  Although they have grown accustomed to this, their influence on the GOP appears to be waning and waning quickly.

If the Religious Right would want to be heard on this issue, the best chance they have is to push for a concerted interdenominational and religious effort that sends a stern message to the GOP telling them that unless they deplore same-sex marriage and abortion and push to allow prayer in school, no one will show up at the voting booths.  This is nothing new, prior to the 1960s many people of faith would not cross the religious with the political.  But with the efforts of Nixon and Reagan, POOF the Religious Right appears.

The reality of the situation is that a concerted effort of many denominations is unlikely.  And without the help of a well endowed political party the Religious Right is more than likely on its way out the door.  The increasing focus on postmodern thought, secularism and the belief that morality is relative rather than biblical will eventually lead to this group's demise.  And then the legacy of the Religious Right just might disappear into the future.

Unconventional Warfare: The U.S. Military's 500 Pound Gorrilla

The United States has successfully led the nation through the post-war era.  While being the economic powerhouse from post-1945 up to today, it instigated a military-industrial-academic complex which led to a culture of consumerism and a boom in technological capabilities.  The post-war era became the Cold-War era and now, after the cusp of the millennium had been broken, we have ushered in the information age.  Although the information age may evoke thoughts of super-smart defense technology, infinite-distant remotes or a pulling together of the world's population, there is still one fatal flaw in the policy and operation of the United States' military - the soldiers lack of a basic training in unconventional warfare tactics supported by the U.S. military's failure to fight and win unconventional wars against, at the most, semi-stable adversaries.

After World War II the military began to focus their tactical methods more on a "shock and awe" approach of invasion.  This is the United States military's modus operandi and it is why the United States is such a force with which is not to be reckoned.  These large scale, shock and awe-type strategies were used during both Iraq wars and during both World Wars.  They were also used in Afghanistan, Vietnam and Post-Saddam Iraq.  But the differences in modern warfare and the conventional warfare of the two world wars is simply in the fact that power is limited, but dispersed in a way that is difficult to be detected even through the best of methods.  This shift in focus from an organized modern-warfare state to a dispersed, covert state has led to a unique demand.  Prior to the World War I, the military operated predominately unconventionally.  But after the Second World War the world was introduced to a stronger political state because of a push for the protection of individual rights and a focus on nuclear physics which fueled big science. The Cold War did not help much either, as a fearful nation's over-speculation about the enemy's power over the U.S. led to a drastic increase in weapon production and technological change focused on the ideological and military power of an established nation-state.  The fact that many of the authors who write about world history define it through the Cold War only supports the fact that this focus on being more powerful than the enemy ruled the policy of the United States.  More significantly, it was the focus of preparing for an attack by established nation-states with stable political systems and economies that, ironically enough, led to the most significant weakness of the U.S. military.

Because the United States saw the most powerful threat of the enemy as being an operation from afar, it established political, military and diplomatic strategies, still in place today, which were built on the enemy being a geographically-identified force.  Politically it led to a greater focus on the rights of the individual.  This idea that an individual had basic rights that could be protected, whether they are a dissenter or patriot, necessarily led to opening up the option to dissent without public backlash – whereas in the past there would be public and governmental backlash.  And although not the proverbial glue that holds the ideology of nationalism together, there is an important role that barring one from the expression of their individual rights - whether or not freely chosen - plays in actively supporting their community, state and nation.  The current lack of political unity only supports this.

The fact that the enemy has become a part of many states instead of one has demanded a set of resources which are more spread out.  The Unites State's Ambassador is no exception.  Now, instead of conversing with a representative of the body with which the US desires to relieve conflict, there is no open method of communication because there is no formal state or place to do so.  Moreover, the fact that it is the policy to "not negotiate with terrorists" only exacerbates this problem.  The foreign relations with the enemy is important, but none so important than our defense and the simple fact is that since the change in training after the first and second world war, we have become incapable of successfully waging an unconventional war where, in the end, we are declared the winners.  This is supported many times over by failures in Vietnam and the dire troubles in achieving success in Afghanistan and Iraq.

So what's next?  How does a military, seemingly untrained in unconventional warfare (except for a few special groups), go about making up for 65-years of vital training.  There is no easy answer.  But shifting the public's focus on the individual as a part of a team is a good start and is already in progress.  There could be an increase in funding to Boy Scouts to increase interest in nature, although, this is questionable, given that current funding is in jeopardy due to their stance on homosexuality.  There could be a propaganda effort geared toward the elementary and middle school-aged children to evoke a passion for the outdoors - although controversial, it is not unheard of, just think of how the lesson that "George Washington never told a lie" affected views on honesty, or how textbooks of elementary children are so patriotic, instilling a sense of nationalism.  Whatever it is to be done, it needs to be done fast.  And the issue should be addressed because it is apolitical.  There is no need for major changes in defense spending because it is not the money that brings the problem into existence.  It is simply the method that is used to train our military.  But the only way that there can be a successful change is if those in charge admit that there is a gaping whole in the future defense system and there needs to be some sort of reform to combat such a terrible threat.  Otherwise, this will become a war on our own soil which will obligate the citizenry to become involved and only lead to critical complications of domestic freedoms which play a crucial part in the solidarity of the United States.

What constitutes a violation of US National Security?

Everyone has an opinion.  And whether or not the opinion is true is not necessarily the most significant factor. The most important issue with an opinion is how well it can be disseminated into the general public.  Moreover, another important aspect of an opinion is how well it can change the public’s mind.  It can be especially damaging if it were to be false, persuading, and reach into the majority of the public.  This is such the case, more so today than any other time in history.  The world, brought so close through technology, has become an intimate place in which to live.  Someone from the United States could very much get to know someone in Germany without moving away from their keyboard or cell phone.  Like many of the advances within the world, not only can it be used for a positive impact on the general public, it can also be used for attack.  At the stroke of the keyboard, sensitive information can be sent to a community of people within milliseconds.  This is the method used by cellular and cyber-bullies as well as others who wish to do damage to larger entities like corporations and governments.  After the actions of some dissenters of the United States government, it became blatantly clear that many of the citizens within the United States do not know what national security is exactly and the steps necessary to secure the future of the largest, most powerful country in the world.  It seems that there is confusion with what information indicates foul play and should be publicized, and which information necessarily needs to be classified.  Most importantly, this culture which calls for government transparency is manufacturing a false sense of justice for the curious by counterfeiting value in the publicizing of sensitive information.

A country’s goal in national security policy is the securitization of those assets, at home and abroad, which guarantee the country’s longevity and are essential for that nation to attain those goals set by its people.  It is not necessarily an easy task securing resources vital to the operation of a country.  And often there are disputes – sometimes violent – over who gets what.  There are also agreements between two parties which lead a country to acquire resources non-violently.  Obtaining resources both violently and non-violently is dependent upon information.  The more informed the government is the better chance they have at controlling that resource.  This information does not just appear out of nowhere, nor does it come served on a silver platter.  It is provided by those people who lay their life on the line, to gather information in a foreign land that is, more often than not, unfamiliar to those working in it.  Although dangerous, this is often the case.  The informants pepper the urban landscape.  Some are recruited in-country, some brought to the country, but all are spies.  These people are often funded with money not traceable to one certain government, person, or company.  But this is not unknown.  As a matter of fact, this is something for which Japan is often noted.  Their equivalent of information gathering agencies, like the CIA and NSA, are those businesses within their country.  In addition to the U.S. government’s use of private businesses as informants, they also have governmental agencies in other countries.  Recruiting of informants for the goings on within the country happens with both businesses and governmental agencies in the U.S.  Although the government agencies are accounted for in the U.S. budget, the businesses which work with the agencies within each respectful country are not.  This is an advantage for the U.S. because it can enter a country by funding an opposition under the radar.  It is often done this way; it is not anything unavailable to the general public.

It should be obvious that the funneling of money to a coup that is set the overthrow or disrupt any foreign country is illegal, regardless if it is done through businesses or by any other means.  It is this very scenario which is the foundation of the United States’ national security policy.  Because of the means by which the government operates to implement and develop its national security policy, there are often many questions which arise concerning the morality of the U.S.’s operations.  Much of the public curiosity originates from the knowing of operations the U.S. was associated with in the past.  The causes for dissent lay in not knowing the correct context in which to view the operations.  This goes for past and present operations.  Dissenting without considering the context of the situation often leads to a mistaken view of the actual intent of the U.S. government’s actions.  And although the context can vary from situation to situation, there are certain situations that necessarily call for the publication of governmental operations.

First and foremost, any actions which violate the constitutional rights of any U.S. citizen in a domestic or foreign land, regardless if it is something necessary to keep the masses safe, should be publicized.  It is better to ask for forgiveness than for permission – especially when those you are protecting are unaware of the gravity of the situation.  One of the most publicized programs of this sort is “Program MKULTRA.”  This program was funded by the U.S. and sought to use U.S. and Canadian citizens to study the effect of many extreme measures (LSD, Isolation, verbal and sexual abuse, etc…) on the human psyche.  Another program, the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, was a study on the natural progression of syphilis in the human body.  This was preformed on impoverished African-American sharecroppers which were United States citizens.  But violent acts upon United States citizens is not necessarily the only carte-blanche situation that calls for the immediate publication of government covert actions.

There is a fine line between a major case of human right’s abuses and genocide.  The latter obligates the U.S. to intervene, the former does not.  Any connection of the state to genocide – or “the G-word” as it is known in the State Department, is a crime against humanity itself and any covert or overt programs are difficult to justify, even as an act of national security.  Moreover, a military or violent action against an entire culture of people, justifying it by national security, is considered immoral on many different levels as well as an international crime against humanity.  The repulsiveness of these actions is usually dumbed-down through euphemisms.  For example, in the Rwandan revolution between the Hutu and the Tutsi, the genocide of the Tutsi people was referred to as “bush clearing.”  By referring to the genocide as bush clearing, the seriousness of the acts of murder and rape calmed the public’s perception of the magnitude of the mayhem going on right under their nose.  This is a tactic often used by the Nazi’s in the holocaust, communism in Russia, China, and Cambodia and the Socialist Slobodan Milošević in Yugoslavia.  Therefore, because violations of international crimes against humanity – domestic or foreign – ultimately endanger the criminally acting nation’s civilians and the receiving nation’s civilians, the actions of the state that is violating international law should be publically known.  The problem with human right’s abuse being separated from genocide is one that can only be determined with a definition of both terms.  Most interestingly, the United States government, to the best of my knowledge, has failed to define either.  It is not surprising though, because if there were explicit definitions of the two, it would then obligate the U.S. to intervene in all future escalations – and that is a difficult and demanding responsibility.

So far, the justification for publicizing confidential government documents has been limited to the disclosure of violent acts against citizens of the United States for national security and violence against a specific culture or race because they are a part of the culture or race – regardless if they are in a foreign or domestic setting.  The final point which may justify publicizing confidential government documents is simply any actions a country takes which evoke fear or terror within other people or countries, but more specifically, those actions are being executed without the justification of national security.  And those acts employing a counterstrike should be supported by sufficient evidence, intelligence and information.  Moreover, the intelligence and information is the most important part of these counterstrikes because they hold the keys to the knowledge needed to accurately and successfully defend the country and attack the enemy.  But the most important issue does not end with the obtaining the information, it must be conveyed in a way that is unknown to the enemy.  And regardless of the efforts of the Ambassadors for the U.S., a breech in the confidentiality of the method information is sent to the White House proves disastrous to any foreign relationship, regardless of how strong the relationship was when the line of communication was perceived as secure.  Therefore, any information disclosed to the general public at the expense of national security, should, in fact, be seen as an attack, not only on the confidentiality of our information, but more seriously, as an attack on the United States itself.  And because the information available to a sphere of people unfamiliar with the context of the confidential material - including those in the host country - it should, more importantly, be seen as a lingering threat needing to be taken out, immediately.

The Gospel According to Glee

I am one of those who likes to sit in my living room with my laptop and “watch” television. Although I may not catch the show or movie in its entire detail, most of the time I do pay enough attention to know what is going on, in case my wife asks what just happened, as she often does. A few of Tuesdays ago, we sat in front of the television. We both were writing, as is often the case, when Glee came on after The Simpsons. Instead of simply acknowledging it was on and going back to our merry authoring, we were a little more attentive. This week was…well, different. In the midst of that particular week were the highly publicized suicides of homosexual teens. These events, atrocious as they were, helped shed much needed light on the ignorant act of bullying. It was something that I could have probably guessed was happening, but in my fairytale world of princes and thieves, I conveniently disregarded it as being their problem, whoever they are. Because of these events and the media’s focus on Glee, my wife and I were interested in seeing how that particular episode, “Grilled Cheesus,” would unfold.

Although important, I am not writing to address the ignorance of those who are intolerant, nor am I writing to condone or condemn a particular lifestyle. The issue of focus has to deal with truth. Not a truth that is particular to any one belief, but one that clarifies the message each of the many world philosophies attempt to communicate.

There is a certain point when a belief in one’s lifestyle compromises the belief of another. And although the current evangelical belief maintains that the United States must disallow laws which do not glorify God, it seems to be forgetting their doctrine of free will. Although there has been a great debate since the beginning of the role of free will in the obtaining of salvation, an overwhelming majority of evangelicals believe that, outside of salvation, we have free will to choose whether or not we honor God with our lives.

The philosophy that wishes to establish a semi-theocratic government actually suppresses all other belief systems and, therefore, by necessity, suppresses their own belief through the backlash of their adversaries. On the other hand, if there were a law which mandated that, from this day forward, all marriages can only be between two persons of the same sex, throwing out the thought of heterosexual marriage, there would be a need for those who believe that same-sex marriage is wrong to stand up, be heard and show why it is wrong. Because of this filter of truth through reason, society could only truly glorify God when the majority of the people have the freedom to do so by their own choice. Without that filter of reason, there tends to be more intolerance.

Intolerance is the point at which one lifestyle hinders another lifestyle from practicing its belief. If the Christian’s goal is to use the country to glorify God, they need to be aware of the paradox with making non-believers glorify a God in which they do not believe. Rather than developing an approach that suppresses society, why not focus on presenting a message in a way that lets the country choose to glorify God? If society’s goal is to allow many lifestyles to coexist, then those lifestyles must be portrayed accurately.

The fact that two people tolerate one another does not necessarily mean that they accept each other’s beliefs. Tolerating another's belief without debate is not in itself a problem, but it does severely suppress the truth. For that reason, a point should be made to debate these disagreements in a civil fashion. But, more often than not, this does not happen in our society.

Many have gotten too comfortable and are not willing to even debate their beliefs. When considering today’s society, it seems the debate has turned ruthless and disrespectful. This can lead to many destructive situations. It could cause a one sided debate where one debater screams to overpower the other. It also may lead to the following of an ideology which fails to question the primary motive of those who tell their followers what they want to hear.

The classic case of an evangelical church begins with a doctrine that believes in a literal translation of the bible. In other words, they believe that the creation of earth happened in seven days, Adam and Eve were real people, and the earth is 5,700 to 10,000 years old. Evolution is sometimes accepted, but only happening within a species, and never morphing into a separate species. The evangelicals also believe that America’s founding fathers intended the country to be an entirely Christian country. Although academia debates this concept and accepts that America was founded on many secular writings and non-Christian beliefs of the founding fathers, they disagree with much of the evidence that says differently. There is an immense amount of both political and ideological conservatism within this group. Even if logic contradicts their interpretation of the bible, they still stand firm and refuse to change what they believe.

There were many controversial topics that surfaced during Glee’s “Grilled Cheesus.” The most obvious one to address would be the separation of church and state. The episode sets up the issue by the cheerleading coach, Sue, recruiting a fellow atheist, Kurt, to file a formal complaint on the Glee club for singing religious songs. It is evident that an evangelical would probably find it obligatory to focus on the separation of church and state. But, as long as Christianity is allowed to be preached and practiced, they have more than enough freedom to do what they are called to do. And if the general public does not accept the message, there isn’t anything that can be done. Forcing others to accept a message isn’t biblical. It is biblical, though, for a Christian to assume that their message will not always be accepted by others.

So, if the separation of church and state is not the most significant topic of the episode, what in Glee should be addressed? Kurt was invited to church by Mercedes. Mercedes attended a charismatic, evangelical church, as previously described. Before her amazing performance of “Like a Bridge over Troubled Water,” she began to talk to Kurt. In front of the entire congregation, Mercedes singled Kurt out and explained that she knows people sometimes believe in different things. She then proceeded to console him by telling him that it is cool he had his own opinion about ‘religion’ (“to each [his] own”), but he had to believe in something. Adding to the inconsistency, the members of the congregation shook their head in agreement.

I am not trying to debate whose belief is right, or whether or not there is a God. I simply disagree with the false portrayal of the evangelical church as a new-aged and further evolved Christian church. Moreover, it isn’t the way the scenario raveled out with which I disagree. It is that a basic foundation of the church’s doctrine, evangelizing, was missing. Am I objecting to the liberation of a conservative movement? No, because I am a part of the movement to liberate the conservative. But I am objecting to the fact that the evangelical church was portrayed in a way that is contrary to its identity. Glee’s script implies that this particular movement tolerates the belief in the antithesis of Christianity. This is absurd. And it should be seen as absurd to both Christians and non-Christians alike. Fundamentalists, all too often, do not tolerate other belief systems, period. Mercedes’ line “…you gotta believe in something” would not be something you hear in the type of church portrayed on the show. And the congregation agreeing to the validity of Mercedes’ line wipes away any inkling of truth that the portrayal might have showcased.

So, could the writers have represented the church’s real beliefs with tact? Of course it could have. The writers of the show are very talented as evidenced by their show holding a top spot on Fox. I am sure they could have developed something which could have correctly portrayed the church in the correct light. But they didn’t. Why? Is it because they did not know better? I doubt it. Christian fundamentalism has spread far and wide throughout the country. Or was it because they did not want to offend their viewers with a message that claimed to be the one and only truth? Indeed. Christian fundamentalism is considered so radical compared to the larger society that it cannot be both purely portrayed in its entirety and accepted by the secular world.

This episode obscures the real identity of evangelical Christianity. It may not be obvious at first, but it should be a concern for both the Christian and non-Christian individual. The evangelical church adamantly maintains that its God is the only God, and no others are beside or above Him. To the non-Christian, portraying the church like this is to their benefit. If a group claimed to know the absolute truth of life, then it is more likely that they will be subjected to scrutiny by those investigating their claim. If the non-Christian community’s beliefs are correct and there is no more truth in this religion than there is in others, then it opens the door for those of the Christian faith to be subjected to more investigation. The writers of the show may have dodged a little controversy, but neglecting to portray the evangelical church in a true light may have had negative implications relative to their intentions, which was, essentially, to bring society as a whole closer to the truth.

Earmarks, Terrorism and the Preparedness of our Local Law Enforcement

Since the attacks on September 11^th there has been a dramatic shift of focus on terrorism in and outside of America.  Since that national tragedy, a mass construction plan of thirty-three building complexes has been initiated – totaling 17 million square feet of space of which we are aware – specifically focused on top-secret intelligence. Moreover, with a federal government drawing from an undisclosed budget and a force of some 854,000 people with security clearance, it is not hard to believe that this focus on terrorism has been well concealed from the public, and hopefully the enemy’s, eyes.  But, even with all of this grandiosity, can America really say that it is as safe, or safer, than before?  More specifically, looking at the periods before and after 9-11, has the drastic increase in funding and resources led to better prepared local law enforcement and does this focus on terrorism affect their ability to keep their locality safe?

Although many of the duties of keeping the nation safe from terrorism have been passed down to the local law enforcement, there are certain vital issues which substantially weaken the prevention or response efforts asked of the local law enforcement officers. Firstly, the literature passed down from an ambiguously structured web of agencies, the federal government, is vague, at best, but it does send a general message of what is expected of the local law enforcement agencies:

·         “Prevent terrorist attacks within the United States

·         Reduce America’s vulnerability to terrorism, and;

·         Minimize the damage and recover from attacks that may occur (Jr. 2007)”

Because the algorithm which determines the funding for each city is biased toward lower populated areas, there is often a misallocation of funds, giving more money to those in the lower populated areas than those in the more populated like New York and Washington D.C. which are perceived to be at a higher risk-level for terror attacks.  In academia, determining which type of attack that is most probable is often widely debated, therefore, adding even more ambiguity in local law enforcement prevention and response planning.

            The important gaps that local law enforcement have to deal with boil down to a complete lack of knowledge and understanding, within the federal government, of which determinants efficiently disperse funds.  A good way to address these gaps is by considering the needs and priorities of the local law enforcement agencies, as opposed to just throwing some money at the agencies, saying “protect the people.”  Focusing on this general topic might help identify those variables that play a significant role in local law enforcement prevention and response.  Although the only information available on this comes from a study focused on local law enforcement in South Carolina, there are still some important points that may add to a fuller understanding of the post-9/11 threat of terrorism with which local law enforcement agencies have to deal. 

            The findings of the study highlighted several predictors which substantially indicated local law enforcement’s preparedness of preventing and responding to terrorist attacks.  A few of the variables were, well, predictable.  Agency size played a significant part, as did the accreditation status of the agency.  The presence of a SWAT team played a large part, but this could be contributed to the size of the agency.  Interestingly, agencies that were oriented toward technology played a significant role in local agencies preparedness.  More prevalent than the programs that local law enforcement may have and/or be involved in; federal funding is the key variable and, by far, held the most significance in predicting an agency’s preparedness.  Keeping these findings in mind, the raw, unanalyzed data should provide answers to some questions the author didn’t ask, nor answer.

            The primary concern is for each municipality to be prepared. Looking at funding is only one way to spur questions which would prove to be beneficial in determining the preparedness of local law enforcement.  Pork-barrel spending is often a scapegoat for misallocation. Legislators that earmark legislation for the companies of their localities often cause an overfunding or underfunding of the local law enforcement.  Since pork-barrel spending is often used to send funds to a specific constituency, can the primary predicting variable for terrorism preparedness really be the amount of federal funding an agency receives? I don’t believe so and the author of the study certainly didn’t account for it in his analysis. To account for such a flaw, a contrast of total funding received relative to other agency’s funding might be warranted.  Moreover, identifying the localities that are overfunded and keeping those representatives accountable would also lead to a better distribution of funds.  On the other hand, this misallocation could also be misperceived and could turn out that local law enforcement agencies are working with the legislator’s constituency at a reduced cost.

            The significance of looking into whether there is a connection between pork-barrel spending, the legislator’s constituencies and terrorism preparedness is to establish if the underfunding of law enforcement agencies has any connection with agreements made with private companies by legislators. Once the earmarking issue is thoroughly investigated, then it can be better determined whether this misallocation is due to a flaw in the system or last minute additions to legislation.  Moreover, if there is a significant connection between underfunded localities and cheaper prices, then this may not be a matter of misallocation, but overfunding of the entire system.

Works Cited

• Jr., William V. Pelfrey. "Local law enforcement terrorism prevention efforts: A state level case study." Journal of Criminal Justice, 2007: 313-321.

• "Post documents growth of intelligence since 9/11." Associated Press. July 19, 2009. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100719/D9H21JGO0.html (accessed October 5, 2010).

Is the Church the Cause for the Moral Degradation of American Values?

           

Choosing to live a new lifestyle is often a conscious decision.  There are many areas in which a person shifts away from the established norm to partake of the fruit, forbidden or not, that is perceived as superior.  These paradigm shifts are not arbitrarily made.  At the least, a responsible adult capable of making rational decisions would be well-informed about the lifestyle they wish to adopt before they begin to think about whether that lifestyle would be beneficial to them.  This same principle can also apply to those that choose to follow a particular religion.  In order to have a full understanding, they should not only seek to understand the moral life that particular religion demands, but the context of the religion, the basic theological underpinnings of its texts and the way in which it evolved over a period of time.

Those who identify themselves as fervent disciples of Christianity often take for granted the logic and reasoning that have been worked through to rationalize their belief.  Knowing what your religious texts say means nothing if you do not understand the basic moral rationale for which it stands.  Knowing the parable is useless if you don’t know its purpose or the context in which it is written.  In order to determine its context, there must be an evaluation of the text.  This is the foundation of a subjective analysis which can ultimately lead you to develop an argument that holds up to the scrutiny of peer review.

It seems that Christian theology has lost this today though.  If there is a dispute, then it’s suggested that the disputers break off and start their own denomination.  American Christianity is often plagued with this denominationalism.  This lax of focus on publically debating the truth is what has led to the Christian’s over-acceptance of pluralism.  The over-acceptance of pluralism that spurred from denominationalism has made the Christians of today complacent in their desire to evaluate the logic behind their religious and political beliefs.  This negligence of striving toward truth in the church has now seeped into the political realm through the Christian church’s adoption of the political conservative movement.  The ideology of political conservatism has set its very strong roots in the Christian church, allowing a focus on practicing doctrinal truth to be muted by the screaming of the politically conservative news hosts.

This political activism that Christianity has become a part of states that the cause of the increasing immorality in this country is with a government that passes laws which support the granting of freedoms for lifestyles outside of Christian morals.   This, they say, is the cause of the degradation of the American moral values which were originally supported by the Christian principles of our founding fathers.  But is the issue really with a government that passes laws which allow the expression of a lifestyle a person chooses to live?  If not, can all civil views be given the right to practice and the country still be a country that lives by Christian principles?  Although the current conservative thought disagrees, it is hard to argue with the fact that it would be a better measure of how holy a country is if the country abides by Christian values even when rights are given to those whose lifestyles are contradictive to Christian belief.  That is, if the primary goal of the American Christian church is to truly honor God with their actions.

The God Given Freedom of Lifestyle

All the major theologians including Jean Calvin, Martin Luther and Augustine of Hippo, believed that we have freewill in our decisions, not considering salvation.  The freewill debate that started with Pelagius and Augustine of Hippo in the 4^th century was about the ability to choose one’s salvation and not the ability to choose the actions which please God.  As a matter of fact, the bible says that after salvation we are a new creature.  Therefore, since we are a new creature we begin to make different choices.  Consequently, new believers change the way in which they choose in order to reflect their understanding of God, seasoned believers consciously work to continually make choices that reflect their better understanding of God, and sanctified believers work to make choices that reflect a complete understanding of God.

Knowing that there is a change from the old to the new creature and that the choices we made after salvation are made from our own freewill, can we really say that mandating others, against their freewill, to obey theocratic-like laws will lead this country to honor God?  Moreover, are we so ignorant to think that the law directly reflects the holiness of a country?  Or is it a better measure when the holiness of a country is directly reflected in the actions of its citizens?

The conservative movement that America has experienced has demanded that laws be in place in order to honor God.  But was the law not formally written after the fall of Adam?  Did the law not always pertain to a nation of people as opposed to a people within a specific geographical space? And was the New Testament not written and canonized after the Jews and gentiles decided to adhere to the idea of Christianity?  The disease that’s leading us into immorality has not to do with the lack of laws which glorify God.  It is simply a symptom of the bigger problem.  The disease is with a faltering Christian force that is more concerned with political action which mandates others to live like a Christian instead of spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ in a way that society can truly accept.

Congregational Complacency

A common belief of the conservative movement today is that society’s work ethic has diminished.  They believe that we are lazier today than those who were our age now, a decade ago.  And ultimately, this is seen as the poor, more so than those who aren’t, taking advantage of government benefits.  But why would those that claim to be Jesus’ followers be so concerned with assisting a population for which he so adamantly taught us to care?  It is simply because the conservative ideology has forced the Christian to become so complacent in their own political view that they refuse to question whether those views parallel Christian theology.  Moreover, their energy is spent more on nurturing the plants of the bad ground than sowing the seeds and fostering the crop of the good ground.

This same church is itself knee-deep in slothfulness.  A good example of this can be seen in 2^nd Thessalonians.  The Thessalonians became lazy.  Because of a misunderstanding of Paul’s first letter to the church, they believed that the second coming was in the very near future.  They ignored their jobs and actively looked for apocalyptic signs.  This, ultimately, led to the entire town being filled with what Paul considered “idle busybodies.”

So, is this any different than the current Christian church in America?  I don’t believe so.  The primary example being in the way the church is so overwhelmingly concerned with the second coming that any military action of the US government is justified only if the US supports Israel.  But even if this is the eve of the apocalypse and the US continues to support Israel, does that necessarily mean that all the actions of the government are justified?  No, because nothing, country or individual, is morally exempt.  The preoccupation with the second coming isn’t the only similarity to the church of Thessalonica.  The church has become dangerously complacent. 

We, as Christians, have become complacent and lazy in our ministry.  It’s not that we are lazy and resist working to support our families.  The American worker, on average, is not lazy and takes tremendous pride in earning the money to support his or her family.  The American Christian isn’t afraid to work for money and that’s the issue.  American Christians are not willing to give up their time to serve others unless they earn a wage.  This has led to the fact that they have become lazy in their ministry.  Instead of being consumed with ministering and serving our communities, which necessitates a personal accountability, we are consumed with passing legislation which makes it appear that our society exudes Christian values all the while basking in our ever-available leisure.  We have justified a trade of local community ministries and personal accountability for global ministries that offer little personal accountability.  The American Christian has traded a week’s worth of God’s work for a week’s worth of something else we would rather be doing.  We have traded the message of humility for a message of national religious pride.  We have shifted from an intimate person-to-person witness for a dull impersonal message from a televangelist.  We have switched progressivity for complacency.

It is hard to believe that with the passion the church has in serving God that the contradictory life we lead is intentional.  It is as if the church has been misled.  There has been such a break from the foundation of Christianity – love – that it has turned into hate.  This hate is justified by the church’s delusion that denying civil freedoms and mandating people to accept the Christian lifestyle is somehow a step toward holiness.  But passing laws that reflect Christian values is not the answer.  It does not correctly represent the way in which the nation is truly living.  In fact, it makes it easier for the Christian individual to live in society and it gives the Christian individual a social status.  Consequently, this oppresses non-believers, forcing them to consent to a lifestyle against their freewill.  This process is the literal converse of how God created the world to operate.  God gives believers the freewill to choose their lifestyle and does not force us to serve Him.  The establishing of a theocratic-morph only supports the claim that the church has become and is becoming dangerously complacent.

So, how could a country give its people the freedom to live the lifestyle they want and also honor God at the same time?  This can only be done with a complete paradigm shift of the Christian community.  First and foremost, the church needs to educate their congregations in logic, the interpretation of biblical languages, the interpretation of biblical context, theology, history and other subjects which demand critical reasoning.  This is the largest deficit the church has to overcome. Secondly, there needs to be an intense focus on the community which would require the joint effort of each and every church within that community.  Finally, there needs to be a new focus on the striving for doctrinal truth by means of inter-congregational, inter-church and inter-denominational debate that is civil.  This country’s focus on Christian values will only be truly shifted when the work of the Christian church and individual has impacted America with the gospel in such a way that it is truly accepted.  And if we are honestly concerned about being a country that honors God, the decisions that are made to follow Christ by those with lifestyles contradictory to Christian values must be made without any essence of forced conversion.  It is only when people have truly chosen to live by Christian values that society will begin to reflect the acceptance of Christianity and not by the establishment of any law.

On the Education of the Congregation

The dire need for Christianity to step up education especially applies to those who wish to be socially or politically active.  As Christians, we seek to proselytize the gospel.  Knowing what the bible and other religious texts say is important.  But if you want to argue with those who don’t believe in its authority, it’s just a waste of both of your times.  Using the logic behind the bible is the key for Christians, but it is impossible to do if you try to use the bible as a literal interpretation.  Literalism should immediately be discounted once the creation story, and the multitude of support against it, is considered.  The bible’s literal interpretation is not only disputed by science, but, interestingly, all the major Protestant theologians, including Arminius and Zwingli, of the Reformation.  Moreover, the majority of the early fathers, which provided the foundations for Christian theology, did not believe in take all scripture literally.  Further, even Ancient Judaism saw the first six chapters of Genesis to be strictly used for theological purposes and not as a historical reference.

Biblical literalism is what separates the evangelical Christian from witnessing and debating in a logical and rational manner.  And because there is more evidence that the bible should not be taken literally than there is that supports it, as well as ongoing findings in science which also supports it, this topic would be a good starting point to truthfully and subjectively address in a debate.  Generally speaking though, the debate is an important component that the Christian church of America has never used to the extent of its European counterparts.  Why have these debates stopped with the establishment of America?  Are we so proud to think that we have reached a true interpretation of the Word?  Why have we quit questioning our theology or setting it up to subjectivity?  The Reformation was a turning point in Christianity, but it wasn’t the ending point of theological truth.  Not questioning existing doctrine and positing new approaches is just another way to keep a church already complacent in ministry complacent in understanding its own theology.

Conclusion

It is often thought that the degradation of America over the years is because the government has become tolerant of lifestyles that contradict Christian values.  But the lack of focus on the part that the American Christian church plays in the moral degradation of the country should, itself, be seen as a red flag.  I can’t help but think of the message in Matthew 7: 5 – “You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.”

We, church, are hypocritical, comfortable and lazy.  We are afraid to allow those of society to choose the lifestyle they wish to live because we are too complacent in our locality, not wanting to put in the effort that matches those efforts that came before us.  We have gotten too used to justifying our own ministry as the supporting of others who minister in our stead in faraway lands.  Aside from the controversial debate with salvation, the only way for anyone to truly choose the daily actions a Christian lifestyle demands is when they have the complete freewill to do so.  And ultimately, the only way to know that a nation has truly chosen to honor God is when they do so in an environment that allows them to do so willfully.  Therefore, legislation that gives others the freedom to choose lifestyles which contradict Christian values should be seen as progress for the Christian because it is a step in the direction to ensure those who decide to follow Christ do so freely.  And it is only when the nation, as a whole, freely chooses to adhere to Christian values, and is seen doing so, that it can be accurately said that this country truly honors God.