I. No senator or representative shall take office unless they have passed a proctored exam, approved by Congress, in order to ascertain their ability to act as a senator or representative. A tougher exam being in place for senators and an easier one for representatives.
II. A grade of three-fourths correctly answered questions shall be required for a passing grade on the proctored exam. The candidate shall have no knowledge of the exam prior to taking the exam. If any candidate violates this article, the candidate shall immediately be disqualified. In addition, after failing an exam, the candidate may retake the exam only once as long as the candidate has scored better than fifty per-percent. Any candidate scoring below fifty per-cent may no retake the test again during the current election year.
III. The questions in the said exam shall be objective and based on the following subjects: English language, history, economics, the American constitution, and comparative politics. There shall be no discrimination of persons in the exam, with the same questions being asked of each candidate per election year and new questions being generated for future exams.
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Christianity and Knowledge
Foundational to my epistemology is faith. All of our knowledge is formed by certain categories that have developed in our minds. The modernist dream of finding a neutral, objective, and "rational" body of knowledge is just that - a dream. If postmodernism has done one positive thing, it has been to show that the constructs of the human mind do indeed influence our knowledge. Everyone is coming from somewhere and all knowledge is built upon epistemic assumptions that we hold to be true. These assumptions include; theism, atheism, pantheism, the New Age, existentialism, pragmatism, and countless other isms. All such isms are accepted on faith. This is because there must be a rock-bottom foundation that human reason can spring from. We cannot reasonably reason that reason is reasonable, for this always includes one basic assumption; that reason is reasonable. It is impossible to prove that he can trust our reason. It is impossible to prove that what we experience is reality for, if it is an illusion, all the tools that we use to prove thus are part of our reality and thereby themselves illusionary. Thus I take it as a matter of faith that God exists. This is not a "leap of faith" or fideism. I do not accept this faith blindly. Rather I accept this faith because I believe that it provides the best foundation for accepting all those things in life we accept to be true; reason, science, knowledge, morality, meaning, beauty. As C.S. Lewis said, "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen; not because I can see it but because by it I can see everything else. Also, reason is not excluded from faith. Rather from the standpoint of faith reason has been justified and the Christian can use it critically. The Christian can, from the standpoint of faith, use reason to buttress that faith and critically think about faith to ensure that it is coherent and consistent.
In the epistemology of Christian knowledge it is important to remember that all knowledge is God's knowledge. Christians often forget that even so-called "secular" knowledge is God's knowledge. When discussion the Renaissance, it is fashionable for historians to say that it was the "birth" or "rebirth" of secular learning. We should not, however, believe that simply because Renaissance learning was not dominated by theology (indeed I would say that even in the High Middle Ages learning wasn't solely about "theology") that the educational and scholarly trends of the Renaissance was "secular." The spiritual and the secular is a division drawn up by post-Kantian thinkers. To the Medieval or Renaissance mind, there was no such division. The exploration of history, the science, art, and literature were as much a part of the knowledge of God as theology proper. To them, all knowledge was truly God's knowledge because all thins, or rather all good things were created and sustained by Him. Many of the greatest minds that Christendom ever produced, men such as Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, and Edwards, very much treasured reason. As Augustine said, all knowledge of men, even that of the heathen, that is in accordance with faith is as gold and silver mined from the veins of God's knowledge and should be embraced by Christians.
In this way I view the Bible, not as an exhaustive body of truth as some fundamentalists see it, but as foundational. Since man is depraved because of original sin and distorts his reason, God sent his Word so that man would have a reference point of truth. The Bible gives us a foundation from which to build our knowledge upon. This does not mean that I view the Bible in a lesser sense than other Christians. I believe that the Bible is the absolute and final word on spiritual matters and matters of salvation. However, in the realm of politics, economics, history, and science I believe that the Bible is normative and not comprehensive. The Bible gives us foundations for these subjects such as the chief end of man, the characteristics of God, the finite characteristic our universe, the imago dei of man, and the depravity of man. With an understanding of these profound spiritual truths we can pursue learning in what is termed the "secular realm," though I would prefer to call it the temporal realm or the material. We must remember that the temporal and the material are creation of God and that he has deemed His creation "good." Therefore they are worthy of our study as Christians. Indeed God has commanded us to take dominion of the earth as His stewards. But again, I stress, we do not find answers to these questions in the Bible but rather they pursued by our reason, though a reason that is informed by the principles of Scripture and is guided by it.
I think I can best illustrate this by applying to the subject that I know best; history. Though the Bible is set in history and recordsmany historical facts (the kingdom of Israel, the coming of the Assyrians, the Exile, the rebuilding of the temple, and the Roman Empire, it is not a history textbook. The Bible gives only a sliver of ancient history. The history that it is most concerned with is the history of the People of God which is a spiritual history that is the sphere of special rather than natural revelation. Such a history is not, I believe, discernable from the academic study of history, but rather had to be revealed to us by God. We must also avoid, as Christians, to insert biblical providence into history. The only things we know about God's providence in history is limited to what is record about the events of Scripture. Christians must avoid the arrogance of believing they know for certain the purpose of God's hand in the events of most history (e.g. God let 9/11 happen because of gays). However, the Bible does inform us of God's sovereignty in history. We know that all events are ordained by Him and that nothing occurs which God did not make happen or let happen. Christians also know what the Bible says about man. Christians know the creative potential of beings created in the image of God as well as the depravity of creatures who suffering from original sin. Christianity supplies us with a moral compass to provide a basis from which to judge historical events and apply history to contemporary life (e.g. the Holocaust was morally wrong. Ultra-nationalism should be avoided because of the horrific results that it can bring). Finally, Christianity can humble us in the pursuit of history. As Christians we are fully aware of the imperfection of man. As Christians we know to avoid utopian ideals in both the political/societal and academic spheres. Christianity knows that perfect societies and perfect scholarship are beyond our reach, though we should strive for them (Christ commanded us to be perfect although he clearly knew our inability to be so). Christians can therefore imbue their scholarship and politics with a sense of humility
In the epistemology of Christian knowledge it is important to remember that all knowledge is God's knowledge. Christians often forget that even so-called "secular" knowledge is God's knowledge. When discussion the Renaissance, it is fashionable for historians to say that it was the "birth" or "rebirth" of secular learning. We should not, however, believe that simply because Renaissance learning was not dominated by theology (indeed I would say that even in the High Middle Ages learning wasn't solely about "theology") that the educational and scholarly trends of the Renaissance was "secular." The spiritual and the secular is a division drawn up by post-Kantian thinkers. To the Medieval or Renaissance mind, there was no such division. The exploration of history, the science, art, and literature were as much a part of the knowledge of God as theology proper. To them, all knowledge was truly God's knowledge because all thins, or rather all good things were created and sustained by Him. Many of the greatest minds that Christendom ever produced, men such as Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, and Edwards, very much treasured reason. As Augustine said, all knowledge of men, even that of the heathen, that is in accordance with faith is as gold and silver mined from the veins of God's knowledge and should be embraced by Christians.
In this way I view the Bible, not as an exhaustive body of truth as some fundamentalists see it, but as foundational. Since man is depraved because of original sin and distorts his reason, God sent his Word so that man would have a reference point of truth. The Bible gives us a foundation from which to build our knowledge upon. This does not mean that I view the Bible in a lesser sense than other Christians. I believe that the Bible is the absolute and final word on spiritual matters and matters of salvation. However, in the realm of politics, economics, history, and science I believe that the Bible is normative and not comprehensive. The Bible gives us foundations for these subjects such as the chief end of man, the characteristics of God, the finite characteristic our universe, the imago dei of man, and the depravity of man. With an understanding of these profound spiritual truths we can pursue learning in what is termed the "secular realm," though I would prefer to call it the temporal realm or the material. We must remember that the temporal and the material are creation of God and that he has deemed His creation "good." Therefore they are worthy of our study as Christians. Indeed God has commanded us to take dominion of the earth as His stewards. But again, I stress, we do not find answers to these questions in the Bible but rather they pursued by our reason, though a reason that is informed by the principles of Scripture and is guided by it.
I think I can best illustrate this by applying to the subject that I know best; history. Though the Bible is set in history and recordsmany historical facts (the kingdom of Israel, the coming of the Assyrians, the Exile, the rebuilding of the temple, and the Roman Empire, it is not a history textbook. The Bible gives only a sliver of ancient history. The history that it is most concerned with is the history of the People of God which is a spiritual history that is the sphere of special rather than natural revelation. Such a history is not, I believe, discernable from the academic study of history, but rather had to be revealed to us by God. We must also avoid, as Christians, to insert biblical providence into history. The only things we know about God's providence in history is limited to what is record about the events of Scripture. Christians must avoid the arrogance of believing they know for certain the purpose of God's hand in the events of most history (e.g. God let 9/11 happen because of gays). However, the Bible does inform us of God's sovereignty in history. We know that all events are ordained by Him and that nothing occurs which God did not make happen or let happen. Christians also know what the Bible says about man. Christians know the creative potential of beings created in the image of God as well as the depravity of creatures who suffering from original sin. Christianity supplies us with a moral compass to provide a basis from which to judge historical events and apply history to contemporary life (e.g. the Holocaust was morally wrong. Ultra-nationalism should be avoided because of the horrific results that it can bring). Finally, Christianity can humble us in the pursuit of history. As Christians we are fully aware of the imperfection of man. As Christians we know to avoid utopian ideals in both the political/societal and academic spheres. Christianity knows that perfect societies and perfect scholarship are beyond our reach, though we should strive for them (Christ commanded us to be perfect although he clearly knew our inability to be so). Christians can therefore imbue their scholarship and politics with a sense of humility
Friday, October 9, 2009
Nobel Peace Prize
ARE YOU SERIOUS!?!? He hasn't been in office for one year, has had virtuall no foreign policy success, and you give Barrack Obama the Nobel Peace Prize? I don't care what you think of Obama, the man hasn't been in office long enough to make any effect whatsoever ont he course of world events. What is everyone's obsession with this man? He's a political novice that can manipulate the media and yout put him along side Kim Dae Jung, Desmond Tutu, the Dalai Lama, and Lech Walesa. After Obama and Al Gore, I have no more respect for this prize.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Dealing with Iran
A recent poll done by Fox News shows that 69% of Americans feel that President Obama has not dealt strongly enough with Iran. 61% feel that force is needed to be used against Iran in order to stop the country from developing nuclear potential. While I agree that Obama should take a stronger stance against Iran, I think that launching an attack against Iran would be a terrible mistake. Unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, which do not have strong nationalist pasts, Iranians have a proud history that dates back to ancient Persia. Afghanistan and Iraq are both ethnically diverse and lacked a real national identity and thus felt little loyalty to the state. Iranians, however, who have strong ties to the Iranian state, would be enraged if the US or a US-backed Israel attacked Iran. People with a strong national identity detest any violation of national sovereignty.
The problem with much of American foreign policy is that it emphasizes too much on the present. It doesn’t look back far of enough in the past and doesn’t look far forward enough into the future. The best long term solution to stabilizing Iran is to have the ruling theocracy overthrown by a reform movement and a pro-Western (or at least not anti-Western) government to take power. Attacking Iran would almost certainly ensure that the Iranian people (who have shown strong support to introduce reform) would rally around the government against foreign military action. A good story to keep in mind is what happened with the SPD in Germany at the start of World War I. The SPD (Social Democratic Party) was extremely critical of the German monarchy and intense German nationalism. Yet, with the start of the First World War the patriotic members of SPD rallied around the German flag (at least initially) and approved funds to mobilize Germany for war. Even the most critical opposition can be driven to support of an unpopular government if they feel threatened by foreigners.
Thus the long term solution is to support and aid reformist Iranians within Iran. Force should not be used except as the most desperate course of action. This is because the best hope for removing Iran from the so-called “Axis of Evil” is to support regime change from within Iran by the reformers and the people. If Americans work closely with these people we can secure their friendship. To put pressure on the current Iranian regime the US should enforce harsher sanctions against Iran to deteriorate the economic situation. The biggest complain that reformist have against Ahmadinejad is his poor handling of the economy. If a connection is made by Iranians between Ahmadinejad nuclear ambitions and the deteriorating economy, Iranians at the very least will put pressure on him to end this ambition in order to have embargos lifted. I do not think that the Iranians believe that nuclear weapons are worth the price of a poor economy. Finally, American should pursue alternative fuels and expand domestic drilling which would tremendously hurt the Iranian economy and cause greater unrest. This is a less direct form of economic pressure and may bode better to Iranians so that anti-Western propaganda (in the case of greater sanctions) won’t be handed to the Iranian regime.
Some things to remember:
*51% of Iran’s population is Persian and 58% speak Persian. 89% are Shia Muslim. Thus there is a strong national identity through ethnicity, language, and religion.
*Iran’s revenues: $51 billion, Expenditures: $103 billion.
*80% of Iran’s exports are petroleum.
*Unemployment: 12.5%
The problem with much of American foreign policy is that it emphasizes too much on the present. It doesn’t look back far of enough in the past and doesn’t look far forward enough into the future. The best long term solution to stabilizing Iran is to have the ruling theocracy overthrown by a reform movement and a pro-Western (or at least not anti-Western) government to take power. Attacking Iran would almost certainly ensure that the Iranian people (who have shown strong support to introduce reform) would rally around the government against foreign military action. A good story to keep in mind is what happened with the SPD in Germany at the start of World War I. The SPD (Social Democratic Party) was extremely critical of the German monarchy and intense German nationalism. Yet, with the start of the First World War the patriotic members of SPD rallied around the German flag (at least initially) and approved funds to mobilize Germany for war. Even the most critical opposition can be driven to support of an unpopular government if they feel threatened by foreigners.
Thus the long term solution is to support and aid reformist Iranians within Iran. Force should not be used except as the most desperate course of action. This is because the best hope for removing Iran from the so-called “Axis of Evil” is to support regime change from within Iran by the reformers and the people. If Americans work closely with these people we can secure their friendship. To put pressure on the current Iranian regime the US should enforce harsher sanctions against Iran to deteriorate the economic situation. The biggest complain that reformist have against Ahmadinejad is his poor handling of the economy. If a connection is made by Iranians between Ahmadinejad nuclear ambitions and the deteriorating economy, Iranians at the very least will put pressure on him to end this ambition in order to have embargos lifted. I do not think that the Iranians believe that nuclear weapons are worth the price of a poor economy. Finally, American should pursue alternative fuels and expand domestic drilling which would tremendously hurt the Iranian economy and cause greater unrest. This is a less direct form of economic pressure and may bode better to Iranians so that anti-Western propaganda (in the case of greater sanctions) won’t be handed to the Iranian regime.
Some things to remember:
*51% of Iran’s population is Persian and 58% speak Persian. 89% are Shia Muslim. Thus there is a strong national identity through ethnicity, language, and religion.
*Iran’s revenues: $51 billion, Expenditures: $103 billion.
*80% of Iran’s exports are petroleum.
*Unemployment: 12.5%
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)