Is democracy everything it is cracked up to be?

This post will probably get me labeled as “unamerican”, but if we can’t express views challenging the established order, then what good is liberty?

This year marks the 225th anniversary of the Unites States Constitution. For its time, it was a remarkable document. It established a government where leaders were elected by the people. Furthermore, at its passage, in included a list of rights to be enjoyed by the people. I will contend that the real basis for American liberty are these amendments, and not the body of the Constitution itself. 

What do I mean? That the ability to elect our national leaders by the general populace is not necessarily a good thing. As long as the rights guaranteed  by the Bill of Rights are maintained, it is not of vital importance that our leaders be directly elected. When it comes down to it, our elected leaders are not necessarily the most most qualified or most suited to rule. Our elected leaders are the most charismatic and the best salesmen. Who ever is best at persuading the public is who gets the job, not the man (or woman) best suited to the job. I still believe among the other problems with our current president, Obama was woefully unprepared to be the Head of State for the world’s only remaining superpower. 

Another problem with the democratic system is the “majority rules” mechanic. This works fine for local issues. If you want to levy a  tax, ask the people. If you want to make improvements to the local infrastructure, ask the people. If you want a union in your factory, ask the workers. But lest be honest, the majority is not always right. Do you trust the guy who works at MacDonald’s who can’t get your order right to weigh the issues enough to choose the president? 

Do I have an alternative? Not really, short of the Untied States joining the British Commonwealth. But I do know that what we have in place in the United States does not seem to be working, not when the government can use unelected officials to issue mandates not voted on by congress to strip away our liberties. I really don’t have a solution yet, but I do see a problem, and it is somethig we should all be concerned about. 

A Matter of Opinion…

In our interactions, both real and virtual, we share our ideas–our opinions. All to often, when a disagreement arises, one side or the other tries to end the discussion with a simple statement: “Well, that’s just your opinion.” There is nothing wrong  in itself with recognizing a difference of opinion, but when it comes down to it, there are different kinds of opinion, which carry different weights. In other words, not all opinions are created equal. 

Now there is the opinion that is a purely emotional response, of which there is no true wrong or right opinion to hold. For example I love mint chocolate chip ice cream. I also hate Chipotle restaurants. I have a friend that is the exact opposite. She does not like mint chocolate chip ice cream, and for some reason she really loves Chipotle. (My apologies to the restaurant chain…it just isn’t my thing.) So which of us is right. We are both right and neither one is right. It is not the kind of thing that is linked to any kind of knowledge of truth. When most people use the word opinion, this is the meaning that they intend. Unfortunately, it is inappropriate to simply discount all differences of opinion as merely emotional responses to the issue at hand. There can be informed opinions, and informed opinions can lead to knowledge, provided they beliefs they represent are justifiable beliefs.

What is meant by informed opinion. We have all seen courtroom dramas where either the prosecution or defense brings in an expert witness to offer testimony. Generally, what the expert testimony consists of is the expert giving their opinion about what certain facts in the case imply. Now if all opinions were equal why is this expert opinion needed?  Another example is when a doctor gives a diagnosis and recommendation for treatment. It is then quite common to get a second opinion. The opinions of experts carry weight and lead to knowledge. Why? It is because they are specialists in their field, and their opinion is informed by their specialized training. 

SO how do these two disparate kinds of opinion factor into your interpersonal communications? Well if you are talking about which is better Star Wars or Star Trek, or why bacon is the best food in the world, it is easily the emotionally form of opinion. But if you are talking to someone more learned in a specific field than you are, then it is would be wise  to consider taking a position of deference until you can learn more.  Recognizing this can also help in identifying proper vs. improper appeals to authority. St. Thomas Aquinas is a recognized authority in theology and philosophy. Thomas Jefferson is not. (on a side note: an appeal to authority should never be the entirety of your argument, but can be used to help bolster your argument, if used correctly.) 

I do hope that I was successful in shedding at least a little bit of light on these two different kinds of opinion, and perhaps we can be more cautious in saying things like “well, thats your opinion,” particularly when the opinions are not of the same weight. God bless. 

For the Music Lover

Quite some time ago a friend of mine posted a video on Facebook. It was believe it or not a pair of Identical twins playing Journey’s “Don’t Stop Believing”…on HARP.

My initial response was like “How can this be? This should not be done!” But I was wrong. It should be done! And I am not alone in thinking this. “Don’t Stop Believing”, at the time pf this post, has more than 200,000 views. You may think “Meh. What is the big deal?” They also covered Led Zeppelin’s iconic “Stairway to Heaven”, approaching 900,000 views.

They have also covered Bon Jovi, Iron Maiden, The Rolling Stones, The Beatles, Blue Oyster Cult, and Guns n’ Roses, only to name a few.

They have  a Facebook page, maintained by them, as well as a fan operated fan club page.

Now, I have no training in music,and I am not a music reviewer, but I know what I like when I hear it. This is good music. In addition, they are very appreciative of their fans. I had the opportunity to see them perform live at Cleveland’s Ghoulardifest, and besides putting on a good performance, they really enjoyed interacting with fans , both before and after the performance.

You can download their music from iTunes, or if you are more old-school, like I am, you can order their two CDs, Harp Attack and Harp Fantasy online. Clicking on the title will take you straight to the website.  I have both, and they are definitely worthwhile purchases.

Finally, you can hire them to perform at your event!

I hope you will take the time to give them a listen, and I do apologize for this post. It really isn’t the kind of writing that I specialize in, but I just did it to express my love and appreciation for these two very talented musicians!

A Consistent Life Ethic

Today is the March for Life. Less than a week ago, there was a botched execution by lethal injection in Ohio, AS we speak, soldiers are putting their lives on the line in wars. Occasionally the “right to die” shows up on the news. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, life is sacred: 

“Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being.” CCC 2258.

According to the Fifth Commandment, we are not to kill. That would seem to cover not only abortion and euthanasia, but also the death penalty and war. Are we to be absolute pacifists? Are we forbidden from taking a life under any circumstances? The answer is can not be answered with a simple “yes” or “no”.  

A degree of elucidation in required to fully explain the position of the Church. The key to understanding the distinction is the concept of self-defense. Those things which can be justified, that is, war and the delth penalty, are bound up in the idea that all people have a right to legitimate self-defense (As an aside, this could also be examined to inform the individual conscience on gun rights, but that is a different post altogether). In short, individuals and societies have the right to preserve their own lives. Abortion  is not preserving life. Euthanasia is not preserving life. However both war and the death penalty may be avenues of preserving life. 

There are those absolutely opposed to the death penalty, and though my view on this issue is more restrictive than most, I concede that at times it is necessary. Their argument is basically that all human life is sacred, and it is not our prerogative to end a life. This is true, but only to a point. In most cases, the death penalty is not needed. We must first reflect on why criminals are separated from the general population. Punishment is one reason, but  not the primary reason. More important than punishment is correction. In my state, the department that oversees parole, and prisons and whatnot is the Department of Corrections. Their mission is to not simply punish criminals, but prepare them to rejoin society in a productive capacity. While this rehabilitation is being done, society is to be protected from them. When we shift our view that the penal system is primarily about punishment, and less about penance, then our legal system will fail. The death penalty then, is not acceptable only by virtue of what the perpetrator has done, but may be acceptable if there is no other way to protect society.  

What about war? in light of the fifth commandment, how can war possibly be justified? Truly is is very hard to justify a war, and I have annoyed (if not outright angered) more than one “patriot” by suggesting that most of the wars the United States got herself embroiled in do not pass muster as a just war. There are four criteria that must be met:

1. All diplomatic avenues must be exhausted, that is, every attempt at resolving the conflict peacefully must have been tried, and all efforts have failed.
2. The evil that comes about due to the war must be less than if the war was not waged.
3. The war must be in defense of one’s own nation, or a weaker nation requesting aid.
4. There must exist a reasonable chance of winning the war. 

A war can be justified only if all four criteria can be met at one and the same time. As a result, I am generally a pacifist. The American Revolution was justified. The War of 1812 failed on points 1 and 3. The Mexican War failed on point 1 and 3. The Civil War failed on point 1. The Spanish American War failed on point 1. World War I and World War II were both justified. Korea and Vietnam failed on point 2. The First Gulf war was just, as was the recent war in Afghanistan, but the more recent Gulf War (or Operation: Iraqi Freedom or whatever you want to call it) failed on the first 3 points. So yeah, most wars are unnecessary. (Note: these are my own personal prudential judgments, we can disagree on any or all of these, and still be faithful Catholics.)

Previously, I said that everyone has the right to defend their own life. That does raise a question form the “pro-choice” camp: does that not, then allow for abortion in the case that the mother would die without one? The short answer is “no”. This answer demands an explanation. What we need to look at is what we mean by “direct abortion”. A direct abortion is a procedure such that no effort whatsoever is made to save the life of the child. That is, the intent and purpose of the procedure is exclusively to kill the unborn child. If a prcedure is done that removes a diseased or improperly functioning organ, yet every effort is made to ensure the life of the child, even if chances of survival are very small, this is not a direct abortion. Yes, some may say I am splitting hairs, but it is also the best way I know of to explain the distinction. (If anyone has a better explanation, i welcome your comments). 

Lastly I am going to address euthanasia. Extraordinary treatment can be refused, provided the intent is not to directly cause death. Feeding tubes cannot be removed. The patient cannot be denied water. Medical care can be discontinued if it is understood that death is inevitable, but not willed. 

There you have it a brief (very brief) rundown of the Church’s teachings on some major life issues. The key is protecting as lives of as many people as possible, and protecting the lives of the innocent in particular. This has been my first blog in a while, so I know the writing leaves a bit to be desired. I will be writing agian soon, so until then God bless you and yours!

P.S. Nest time, I promise it will be on something a little bit lighter and more fun!