Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: Ethics

  • Psalm 119:109 – Risky

    Psalm 119:109 – Risky

    My life is in my hands continually,
    yet I do not forget your instruction.

    What I’d like to say, and first thought about saying was that it might be better to say, “My life is in my hands, so I don’t forget that you, God, are in charge.”

    The fact is, however, that we need to remember God’s instruction(s). I want to emphasize, as always, that it is not on the basis of keeping up with God’s instructions that we become part of the family of God. But we have a need to make good decisions at all times, and the time when we are most likely to forget what we have learned from God’s instructions is when we are most at risk.

    This morning, Jody had a problem with her heart. It scared me. I got very tense. I had a hard time making decisions. I forgot to pray. Part of the time I forgot to think. And it wasn’t even one of the worst moments we’ve had over the last few years. Talking to a few people helped me settle down. Praying helped settle me down. (I frequently note that prayer is much more about changing me than about changing my circumstances.)

    Now Jody is fine, though I’m still a bit nervous. But it was precisely during that time when I’m watching numbers related to her health and thinking they’re not going where they’re supposed to that I need to remember God’s instructions.

    Now you may be wondering where in the Bible I find something about how to deal with pulse rates, blood oxygen, blood pressure, and such things. No, there is not a book of “Cardiac Care.” The idea is to find a way of thinking, a way in which I can process problems. I then need to apply that way of thinking to various problems.

    We talk a lot about breaking bad habits. I think we need to talk more about developing good habits. Good habits set you up to do the right thing when the wrong thing happens.

    I recall reading in Jacob Milgrom’s 3 volume (2200 pages!) commentary on Leviticus, that the Torah has clearly been written as a teaching tool. (I paraphrase from memory.) I didn’t really understand that until I took a group of Christian young people to visit a Synagogue for their Religious Education, which was on Sunday morning. A Rabbi talked to the young people I had brought together with theirs.

    On this occasion, he chose to talk about the command that is found in Exodus 34:26(b) and elsewhere, “You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk.” This refers, of course to a baby goat. Not quite as astonishing. But yet you may ask why such a law would exist.

    Well, in Judaism, the Rabbi told us, this was where the rules on eating meat and dairy products together came from. The young people were generally mystified. What good is this rule? Why should anyone keep such a law? What’s the purpose?

    The Rabbi explained that this is a rule that tells us we have a choice in what we do. We are not subject to our passions in all things. We can choose to live one way and not another. I deduce that you put this rule into practice in order to become accustomed to doing things according to rules, that you have a habit of following rules.

    I think that’s the point of remembering God’s Torah, or instruction. When it becomes a question of life or death, when decisions are coming at you faster than you can handle them, when you don’t know the way out you have a way in which you think of things.

    I was discussing a decision with a friend some years ago, looking at two courses of action. Both appeared acceptable, but I was uncertain which one to take. Then ethics took hold and I suddenly saw that one of the courses of action would likely lead to things I knew were wrong. I hadn’t seen certain consequences. Suddenly I knew. Only one choice was in accordance with God’s instruction.

    What instruction from God will guide you at a moment of decision?

  • Psalm 119:72 – Value

    Psalm 119:72 – Value

    I value instruction from you
    more than thousands of gold or silver coins.

    If I were to write a list of things Christians say, but don’t really mean, this would be near the top. We like to say that we’re interested in what God has to say, but in practice, it’s not that high on our priority list.

    Psalm 19 says that God’s laws (after using a number of the same terms found in Psalm 119) are more to be desired than gold. I once suggested to a class that a good experiment would be to put a Bible and a gold bar on a pew and see which disappeared first.

    But that was not one of my smartest suggestions. The point is not having the book, but consuming God’s word in various forms.

    I was once invited to speak to a group of visiting youth who were accompanied by their youth pastor. At the end I invited questions, and once we’d discussed such deep theological issues as where Cain got his wife, things wound down. The youth pastor asked if he could put in a question. His question: “I’ve been studying the New Testament for around five years now and I think I’ve pretty much got it. What do I do next?”

    That one pretty much stunned me. I’ve been studying the New Testament, and the whole Bible, pretty much my whole life, and there’s no end in sight. There’s always something new. I’ve heard people who have been in the church for years say they don’t need to study or attend Sunday School class, because they’ve really got it all covered.

    So let’s change the question. Can you give up the money you’d earn in an hour of work in favor of learning from God? In this I include more than reading scripture. I include time spent meditating, listening to God. I include time spent in nature or studying science. Anything that is dedicated first and foremost to learning the truth.

    Is that truth more important than your bottom line? Will you give up money in order to know that truth? Will you practice truth, that is integrity by practicing what you know, even at a financial cost?

    This could be a serious question for someone who does not believe in God. Do you believe in learning truth and having ethics over your own living?

    We talked about hardship in yesterday’s post. The fact is that while hardship drives learning in many ways, most times we’ll skip the learning if we can cheat reality and dodge the hardship. Often this is accomplished my making others take our hardship for us.

    What will you prioritize today? Will it be absolutely genuine?

    (Featured image generated by Jetpack AI.)

    Some Books on Bible Study

  • The Ethics of Publishing

    One of our authors sent me a link to Christianity Today’s article Is Buying Your Way onto the Bestseller List Wrong?

    In the interest of honesty—and that’s what this is really about—let me note that I’m not playing in the same league as the folks referenced in this article as a publisher. I do work with publicity campaigns. I do market books. But the best I’ve done is to get a book temporarily onto the Amazon.com bestseller list for a very narrow category. That wasn’t even my goal in those few cases, but it happened. So I should be clear that few temptations of the level described here are ever presented to me. Nobody has offered to put one of my books on the New York Times bestseller list, and the costs involved simply reinforce what I already said: As a publishing enterprise, I’m not in this league.

    But the ethics of the situation seems rather simple to me. It doesn’t matter what the “everyone” is doing in the industry. It doesn’t matter if it’s standard practice. The tobacco companies had “standard practice,” and while it was legal at the time, it wasn’t ethical. It doesn’t even matter if the New York Times bestseller list is a game. What matters to me, and what should matter to any Christian writer or publisher, is whether our own actions are true and honest. We don’t live according to other peoples’ standards.

    When you write publicity copy, there’s always the possibility that one can disagree on what is honest. What does “the best book on ____” mean? I have even seen such hyperbolic claims in the prefaces to Bible translations. I try to avoid that kind of statement, both because of the question of truthfulness, but also from consideration for my own credibility. Even if I think I’ve found the best book on a subject, such subjective judgements are empty claims at best. I should think what I publish is good, but I can say that without resorting to empty statements or falsehoods. Even though we can disagree, I think that in most cases we do know what is right and wrong, and we know when we are rationalizing the thing we want to do.

    Ethicists have to study questionable instances in order to develop the proper principles. People in those equivocal situations need that kind of nuance. Rationalizers do the same thing, but for a different reason. They want to make simple look questionable. If you can make a truly simple decision look doubtful, that gives you cover.

    As Christians we should instead be looking for “whatever is true, whatever is honorable” (Phil. 4:8). When we find we have strayed off the path, we need to acknowledge and correct the error. I confess it would be nice to be a large enough player in the industry to have to worry about these things. I hope that if that happens, I will be able to uphold the appropriate standards, by God’s grace.

     

  • Syria: To Intervene or Not

    Religion News Service provides us with some comments by the experts on the ethics of intervening in Syria (HT: UM-Insight). Now I am neither a theologian nor an ethicist, so I wouldn’t claim to be able to parse all the issues in deciding whether an intervention is just.

    In fact, I find many of the comments by the experts substantially less than helpful. The final comments by Robert Parham of EthicsDaily.com.

    But even so my questions are simpler:

    1) Is it justified? Violence is so easy to justify based on someone else’s actions. In this case, innocent people have been killed. I don’t believe in initiating force, but I do believe one can use force to defend oneself or others. (Christians should consider deeply whether such action is justified on their own behalf or with the blessing of the church.)

    2) Will it be effective? In other words, will the situation that results be better than the situation in which one intervened? This is where I think that most attempts to justify violence fail. “He started it!” is a good playground excuse, even justification, for violence, but how often is the resulting situation actually better?

    I think it is on #2 that the Syrian mission fails. We may be able to make a point, but will Syria be a better place when we’re done? I simply don’t see how we can make Syria a better place through this action. We can justify it on the basis of saving innocent lives, presumably in the future, but what basis is there to believe that less people will be killed because we intervened?

    As an American, I will add one more question: Is it legal? President Obama is seeking the permission of congress though he has claimed, incorrectly in my view, that he doesn’t require that permission.  I think he does require such permission, but presidents have been eroding the war powers of congress, and congress has failed to defend their legal prerogatives. Are such legal issues important? I think they are. They allow us, as a nation, to take responsibility and make decisions. They limit the powers of the executive to make these unilateral decisions without adequate discussion. Now if congress will just ask, and duly consider, the ethical issues involved.

    I served in the United States Air Force. There were times when my government chose to go to war when I didn’t think there was justification. I expressed that view at the ballot box, and as an airman carried out my duties. I think the legal justification and procedure is extremely important. Our servicemen and women don’t (and in my view shouldn’t) make an ethical choice each time their government sends them into action. Those of us who are not in that position owe it to them to give thorough consideration to how justified and effective their actions will be before we risk their lives.

    In this case, I think there is good justification for action under my first question. I don’t think it’s possible for this intervention to actually be effective, i.e. to make the situation better. When I weigh my votes in the next election, I will count support for this action by my elected officials as a black mark against them.

    Note that I don’t think I’m expressing the Christian view. One can justifiably disagree, for example, if one simply thinks this can actually bring an end to the suffering. In the meantime, the church should be in the business of reconciliation, which I can support any time.

  • Evolution of a Moral Sense

    One of the interesting things I’ve noticed over the years is that scientists who are also believers often tend to resolve theological issues in ways that make the theologians uncomfortable. I can’t call myself a professional theologian, because contrary to what most church members seem to think, theology and Biblical studies are different fields, and indeed are each subdivided into a number of fields themselves.

    On the Panda’s Thumb today we have a post on the evolution of altruistic behavior in robots. This is a remarkably interesting post, referencing recent research, and adds to the mounting evidence that many things we might regard as purely spiritual do, in fact, have material causes. In this case we’re dealing with altruism, but the issue goes deeper into the question of right and wrong as opposed to simply beneficial or not for one’s personal survival. That Humanist provided some additional valuable references and pointers.

    In the comments, there’s a brief exchange over Dr. Francis Collins’ view that morality is something provided by God, which does not result from evolution. Now I’m not going to engage Dr. Collins’ viewpoint in detail. In fact, his book The Language of God is sitting on my “read real soon” shelf, and I plan to blog my way through that reading, so I will respond then. (Out of the references provided in those various blog entires, I recommend this one from TalkReason.

    But the notion that human morality strictly separates us from the animals and that the common elements of human morality point to a God who proclaims morals is one I have encountered before. When I returned to faith after some years away from the church, one of the arguments for the existence of God that impressed me and stuck with me was this argument from universal morals as presented by C. S. Lewis in Mere Christianity. Don’t get me wrong here. I did not think this proved that God exists, but rather that it pointed in that direction on balance.

    (more…)

  • A Note on Evolution, ID, and Ethical Behavior

    No, this isn’t going to be an extended discussion of the ethics of intelligent design advocates, though one of their number does come into it.

    One of the frequent charges made against evolutionary theory is that it undermines the basis for morals. Various anti-evolutionists have blamed evolutionary theory for everything from the holocaust to bad behavior in schools. It’s interesting that the only people who are saying that if evolution is true there is no basis for morality are the anti-evolutionists themselves, and thus they would have only themselves to blame if some young people took it to heart.

    I saw this kind of argument again today when I read a portion of the Kitzmiller v. Dover transcript (HT: Austringer, who actually quotes two more examples than I do). I normally don’t have the patience to read trial transcripts, and so tend to read other people’s summaries. But this section isn’t all that long and I think it will help make a couple of points about how ethical behavior is driven.

    First, however, I must mention the interesting ethical question of continuing to claim that the Foundation for Thought and Ethics didn’t get its day in court. Given a substantial record indicating the contrary, one wonders if that can be regarded as either thoughtful or ethical. (Such appears to be the activities of the Discovery Institute blog.)

    The following is a quotation from the testimony of Jon Buell, president of the Foundation for Thought and Ethics. Eric Rothschild (Q) is cross-examining.

    Q And then if you go over to the next page, in the first paragraph, you blame — you blame the current deplorable condition of our schools resulting in large part in denying the dignity of man created in God’s image, correct?

    A Yes, correct.

    Q And the rest of the paragraph builds on that concept, right?

    A That’s right. Many teachers tell me they have difficulty with — in the classroom with student behavior because there is no — there’s no sense of respect or accountability to the teacher, to the school, or to authority.

    Q And effectively what you’re advocating in this fundraising letter is that the FTE’s publications are an antidote or a partial antidote to these problems of hostility to Christian views and the cultural decay in our schools, isn’t that right?

    A I would say that they’re not an antidote to the hostility to Christian views, but they are an antidote to the hostility toward positive character qualities and moral traits and a positive outlook and philosophy.

    Now what I see there is a claim that cultural decay results from the teaching of the things that the FTE opposes, particularly in Of Pandas and People, and that this creates hostility toward positive character qualities and moral traits, and even against a positive outlook and philosophy. The mere notion that human beings are descended from a common ancestor with apes is so powerful that it will accomplish all of that.

    Two things come to my mind in response.

    The first is the Christian doctrine of total depravity. In general, Christians have not taught that good people are produced by a proper understanding of the universe, but rather that this is accomplished by the grace of God. There are innumerable major and minor variations on this theme, but the doctrine of total depravity basically says that humankind is fallen, unable to do anything of and for themselves of a morally positive nature.

    So exactly how is total depravity worse than common descent in terms of producing a hopeless attitude? Common descent does not even suggest that we are morally hopeless, but rather than we come from a morally neutral background in which our ancestors behaved as beasts, presumably in the way proper to their species and situation. We come to the point of ethical decision making at the same time when we take on whatever distinctive characteristics make us moral creatures.

    Total depravity tells us that we are, in fact, worthless–on our own. Now of course the goal is to make us come to God and be redeemed. But that is precisely my point. Christianity doesn’t preach the redemption of the really good people who understand that they were designed for moral behavior, but rather for fallen people who are doomed to moral failure.

    Which of these views gives the higher place to humanity? Which is more likely to produce moral people? Actually I see little reason to believe either one has a major impact. But if one can argue that evolution has an impact (I do not), then one can also argue that the doctrine of total depravity would have such an impact.

    Christians, as believers in redemption, should have no difficulty working within a context in which redemption is necessary. It does not matter if one was previously dirt being formed by the hand of God into a shape, or if one was an ancestral form of animal behaving according to its character. What matter is what one is now.

    But that leads me to ask just what is the primary motivation to bad behavior? I think that is demonstrated within this transcript. As humans we choose to regulate our behavior as part of societies. But we all have things that we truly desire. The question is generally whether our ethics will regulate the way we behave in order to achieve our desires. Can we deny ourselves a desired goal because the process required to get it is wrong, however we come to the conclusion that it is wrong?

    Well, the same section of trial transcript suggests that belief in intelligent design does not preclude taking the less ethical pathway. The desire of the defendants, and of the Foundation for Thought and Ethics was to have intelligent design taught in schools. FTE produced a textbook for that purpose. The Dover Area School Board acted for that purpose. In order to accomplish that goal, intelligent design must not be seen as religious. If it was found to be a religious idea, it would be rejected.

    The only ethical way to get a religious idea into American public school classrooms would be to change the constitution. Not that I’m suggesting such a thing be done. But coming out openly and saying, “We want to promote Christianity in public schools. The establishment clause is in our way. Let’s get rid of the establishment clause,” would be ethical, however inadvisable. People could get a look at just what the ID advocates wanted. (Note that not all ID advocates want this. My comments here refer specifically to those trying to introduce ID into public school classrooms.)

    In cross-examination, again, Eric Rothschild brought up five sources that indicate that FTE had as its purpose the promotion of Christian thought. I’m just going to quote three of them:

    1. The from 990

      Q And the explanation that the Foundation provides to the IRS is that its primary exempt purpose is promoting and publishing textbooks presenting a Christian perspective, isn’t that right?

      A That’s what it says.

      Q Okay. And Pandas is one of those publications, isn’t it?

      A No, Pandas doesn’t fit this because this is not an accurate statement.
      [the quotation begins on page 84, line 12]

      So either the form 990 was falsified, or Of Pandas and People has a different purpose than the one stated.

    2. Then the corporate charter:

      Q If you go to the third page of the document, it identifies the purposes for the — for which the corporation1 was formed?

      A Right.

      Q And what it states is that the primary purpose is both religious and educational, and then it talks about making known the Christian gospel and understanding of the Bible?

      A Yes.

      Q Is it your testimony that that’s also an inaccurate submission?

      A It was boilerplate that the attorney that was helping us become established used. I felt that it was inappropriate. He said we need to be clear in identifying yourself as having a genuine nonprofit purpose, and so the language that originated with me is the phrase, “but is not limited to.”

      Q And everything else was the attorney’s?

      A Yes, most of it, I think nearly all of it, possibly all of it.
      [the quotation begins on page 85, line 24]

      In this case we appear to have a goal–formation of a non-profit–and it is therefore OK, even for an organization named “Foundation for Thought and Ethics” to just use the boilerplate. Apparently identifying their actual activities wouldn’t do.

      In fact, I have no doubt that the religious purpose was truthful, and it became inconvenient later. The problem is that either the document must be false, or the testimony about the document must be false. There’s some lying involved here somewhere.

      I am also fairly certain that nobody is so careless as to late a completely incorrect statement of purpose go through in a corporate charter. Normally you would get something you can live with. I may be optimistic about human nature, however.

    3. The organization’s web site:

      Q Mr. Buell, this document is something that was1 pulled off the Internet, but you recognize it as a purpose statement for the Foundation that used to be distributed?

      A Yes. I don’t actually — I don’t actually remember this statement, but it’s obviously an FTE statement.

      Q And in this statement it says, “The Foundation for Thought and Ethics has been established to introduce Biblical perspective into the mainstream of America’s humanistic society, confronting the secular thought of modern man with the truth of God’s word.”

      A Yes, that’s right.

      Q And then it talks about how there would be a public — a textbook published which will present the scientific evidence for creation side by side with evolution.

      A Yes, and this, by the way, was written before — I can just tell from the language, this was very early, before the National Academy defined the term creation science. So the terms of art that are in play today were not in existence at that time.

      Q This was just your use of the word creation?

      A Yes, right.

      Q And into the third paragraph it describes the Foundation as a Christian think tank, correct?

      A Yes. I would say in contrast to that, there’s what we’ve done for over 25 years, which is not to be a Christian think tank, but to actually engage in primary works of science.

      Q And that includes Pandas, correct?

      A It includes Pandas, yes.

      And there we have it. What they’ve announced that they have done for all those years is not what they have actually been doing. There is some extremely disingenuous work with the definition of creationism–the National Academy of Sciences doesn’t really have the power to control definitions–but that would require more writing.

    Conclusion: It is more important to accomplish the purpose–getting ID into public schools–than it is to be truthful about the purpose of one’s organization.

    This shows, I think what is the primary challenge to ethical behavior, and its not evolution. It is the attitude that says that if we have a goal we regard as desirable we can take any means necessary to accomplish that goal. In this case that manifests itself by the denial that an organization is actually pursuing Christian values.

    But it manifests itself also in the claim that evolution results in all kinds of behavioral and moral problems. This claim is made in opposition to evolutionary theory–we shouldn’t teach it because it causes deteriorating morals. But the effect of a fact does not impact the truth of that fact.

    To be quite honest I’d rather evolution weren’t true either. I like to preach about a loving God, and it would be much nicer to be able to show a really cuddly process of creation, a loving God carefully crafting creatures and not allowing them to fight it out. But my desire does not change the facts. And there are good points about the facts as well. A less hands-on, saccharine God, though perhaps not my first choice may be a better choice. But it still doesn’t matter. What is, is.

    By attempting to argue against evolution based on the way it makes people feel, anti-evolutionists fall directly into this same trap. That which they desire to be true, must be true. But of course reality rolls blithely on, unconcerned with their desires, and people of integrity want to know what actually is, not what they wish.

  • Different When WE Do It

    As I’ve watched the debates about various aspects of our behavior as a nation (the United States), I am very concerned with the way we seem to be able to rationalize things that normally would be totally unacceptable. The same action can be acceptable when we do it and a gross violation of justice when done by someone else. Something that is acceptable done to another person is a horrible violation of our rights if it is done to us.

    Here are just a few stray thoughts . . .

    When we grab terrorists and torture them, we are just protecting ourselves. When Russia does it in Chechnya, it’s a human rights violation.

    When we arrest someone without a warrant it’s a necessary part of defending ourselves against terrorism. When someone else does it, it’s an abuse of power.

    When we invade a country it’s preemptive defense; when someone else does it it’s naked aggression.

    This extends to our personal lives. As a nation we have a low view of congress, but we generally have a favorable view of our own congressman. We like it when our congressman brings home the pork; all those other congressmen ought to stop! We dislike attorneys as a profession, but we generally like our own attorney–at least as long as he wins.

    The other guy’s defense attorney is a sleaze who is prostituting himself to get a criminal off; our attorney is just using the best possible strategy to see to it that we get a just result.

    When we consider the justification–or more likely rationalization–for some of the things we are doing in the war on terror, we need to ask ourselves how we would react if some other country, or some other person, did the same things. I think we would find it much harder to justify these actions when done by others than when we do them.

    There is, of course, the argument that we must do these things in order to survive. But let me ask this: If I survive by lowering myself to the point of torturing someone else, just who is it that survived? Do I want to be that person?

    Who would Jesus torture?

  • Anthropology and Military Planning

    It seems that some people in the military have noticed the fact that we don’t really understand the territories and the countries about which we so glibly pontificate. And much of the pontification is official, which makes the ignorance more egregious.

    In an BBC article received via e-mail, I read the following:

    But that is not all. The US military has developed a new programme known as the Human Terrain System (HTS) to study social groups in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    The HTS depends heavily on the co-operation of anthropologists, with their expertise in the study of human beings and their societies.

    Steve Fondacaro, a retired special operations colonel overseeing the HTS, is keen to recruit cultural anthropologists.

    “Cultural anthropologists are focused on understanding how societies make decisions and how attitudes are formed. They give us the best vision to see the problems through the eyes of the target population,” he said.

    There’s a story that brings up mixed emotions. We certainly do need to understand people better, but a phrase like “target populations” presents an understanding that is at least equivocal. What exactly are we targeting these populations for? What are we going to do with them, and what gives us the right to do it?

    But despite my questions I welcome the notion of creating a better educated military. Hopefully somewhere in this process some military leaders will be asking just how we can cooperate with, rather than dominate local populations. Perhaps troops can learn how to work in a way that minimizes offense. But as long as those military forces are operating under orders to transform those societies into an image that is desirable in American eyes, I don’t think it will work perfectly. It’s good military strategy, but good military strategy needs to be employed in the service of good political and diplomatic strategy.

    And that is the level at which I believe our country as a whole, and particularly the appropriate portions of our government need to be better educated. A little bit of anthropology would go a long way with our diplomats. To those who suggest that we have such experts, I would answer that we are 1) not listening to them, 2) they are not as expert as they appear, or 3) we don’t have enough of them.

    I suspect all three. Why? Because somewhere up there in the American government somebody thought that we would easily accomplish the invasion of Iraq (we did), would be welcomed by the Iraqi people as liberators, and then would easily create a new government. Low cost in money, in lives, and even in time. Then we could get on with other targets in the war on terror.

    Whoever painted that scenario was somewhere between criminally negligent and grossly stupid. There was never any reason for anyone to believe that in the first place.

    Of course we need anthropologists and other social scientists in the military. The more wisely force is applied, the less force is needed. In social situations, the best result is when no force is actually applied at all. I’m not so optimistic as to think we can attain that easily, but the more intelligently we act, the less people we’re going to have to kill–our own and others.

    The tragedy is that we’ll be sending in anthropologists to help us deal with various tribal groups after much of the damage is already done. If we are to fight and win a war on terror, we will need more than a military strategy. The prime error of diplomats is the belief that diplomacy accomplishes all; the prime error of those who wield military power (but not usually of the soldiers on the front line) is to believe that force can ultimately solve all problems.

    A strategic approach to the [tag]war on terror[/tag] will have to involve an intelligent strategy, first political, and then military where problems are actually intractable.

    One further note–I can see the ethical objections to anthropologists in being part of these teams. Do you want to use your understanding of a tribal group to facilitate their manipulation by the military with no control over just what will be done and how? You would never know when your knowledge might become the key to destroying a culture. At the same time, applied at the proper level, such knowledge could result in great savings of life. Perhaps there is a balance to be sought here.

  • Larry Craig and Accountability

    I regard [tag]accountability[/tag] as an extremely important, even critical value. Not that it’s more fundamental than others logically, but it helps hold people to such values as they profess and as are expected of them by law and custom. If people are not expected to uphold the values they profess, then there is little point being concerned precisely what those values are.

    Senator [tag]Larry Craig[/tag], who hopefully won’t hold that title for long, has fallen afoul of this value of mine. He wanted to avoid public scrutiny, so he plead guilty. Now he wants to pretend that his pleading was improper. Is it possible that in some way a United States senator did not understand precisely what he was doing? I see two options. Either he knew what he was doing, and now he’s trying to avoid the consequences, and thus should not be a Senator because he lacks integrity, or he didn’t understand his own situation, and thus should not be a Senator because he’s too stupid.

    Having said this, I think there is a stronger reaction to Craig’s action largely because of the involvement of homosexuality, which is not fair. Senator [tag]David Vitter[/tag] has more to answer for morally, in my view, even though he has not been convicted, nor has he displayed the same level of stupidity that Craig displayed. I think much of this case doesn’t look so good from the police side. But if a U. S. Senator can’t take responsibility for his own actions who can we expect to do so?

    We are told that Senator Craig might decide not to resign if his guilty plea can be vacated (Source: MSNBC.com). I think that is ridiculous. We have a serious need for leaders with integrity. What we’re getting is loud claims and no accountability.

  • Just When I Think I’ve Seen Everything …

    … I find this: Marry Our Daughter. Hat tip: Hit the Back Button to Move Forward. Will someone please tell me that this is just a sick joke? I’m thinking that it would be considered illegal despite the claims on the web site.

    Update: I should have looked on snopes, as pointed out by commenter Black Knight:

    Sick joke:

    http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/marryourdaughter.asp

    I’ll leave the egg on my face for all to see and learn from.