I love that phrase "Tragedy of Human Cognition." How much of the tragedy of our human existence is due to just that -- we are aware of ourselves and our mortality, and we have enough cognitive processing to ponder what else there is to life and what exists, if anything, after death. From that one thought spins out a great deal of human history.
The concept of a "yearning for the supernatural" is something that's been written up in a lot of places, including the Book of Romans:
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. (Romans 1:20, NIV)Paul's point is that each person has a deep awareness of the existence of God, even though we might try hard to avoid Him. That "deep awareness" is the same thing as a "yearning for the supernatural". Others have described it as tied to the concept of our being "created in God's image" ... and through our sinful inclinations we've left a "hole" in our beings that yearns to be refilled with God. Again, the "yearning for the supernatural."
Something else that has been bugging me - I'm also wondering if belief in God is sensible but belief in a particular denomination is not sensible?
I think there's something to that, provided the denomination doesn't represent some enormous deviation. For instance, if person A says "God is as described in the Bible," but person B says "No, God is a three-legged fish to devours our souls in spiteful fury." Both suggest a belief in "God," but their belief structures tend to be exclusive. So, once again, I find myself tumbling back to the question of the "essential" belief elements of faith.
I do believe that denominational bickering over silly non-essential things is enormously counterproductive. I fully recognize there's great peril in defining precisely what is essential and what is non-essential.
* * *
The Election Cycle
- Republicans have as much right to retain the White House as do the Democrats have the right to assume it. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that forbids one party from monopolizing the Executive Branch. The 22nd Amendment prohibits any person from holding the office for more than two terms. That came about in 1953 as a response to Franklin Roosevelt having won four consecutive terms. It prohibits George W. Bush from running again. Were it not for the 22nd Amendment, we would have seen at least three terms of Bill Clinton, who would have easily won in 2000. Whether he could have pulled a fourth term is doubtful ... Americans have a desire to want to move on to other things.
- Watching politics is somewhat of a hobby for me. I suspect it's very much like you and chess -- both have to do with strategy and positioning. I allow myself to become too emotionally invested in it, though. I have tried to be less invested.
- I am generally conservative, and thus am generally Republican.
- When considering the pack running for president, I have little enthusiasm for any of the Democrats, though I believe Hillary Clinton would be an effective leader in a wartime setting. I believe she would be an awful executive in times of peace, where given time to tinker with the fabric of American life she would rip it asunder. Barack Obama is utterly unproven; lots of soothing words and a telegenic appearance ... but we have little sense for how he would actually govern. John Edwards is an utter phony ... a trial lawyer who made hundreds of millions of dollars for himself filing class action lawsuits against drug companies based on bad science and emotionalism. He speaks of a deep concern for the "have nots" of America, yet he's building a 28,000 square foot mansion for himself in North Carolina.
- As for the Republicans, this is going to be interesting. The Republican party has always been an unsteady coalition of several conservative branches -- social conservatives, business conservatives and libertarians. Social conservatives put great stock in what a candidate feels about key litmus issues -- abortion, gay marriage, family values. Business conservatives are about tax policy and regulation reform, but care little about peripheral issues that don't involve the creation and retention of money. Libertarians are all about being left to their own devices. "The best government is no government" is their motto, though the more sensible libertarians recognize that there needs to be a minimum level of government -- they tend to understand national defense is a critical component of minimal government. George W. Bush held this coalition together in 2000 and again in 2004. Were he to run again, he'd lose. His support among social conservatives and business conservatives has eroded.
- Of the three major Republican candidates -- Guiliani, McCain and Romney -- none has support across all three. Guiliani carries a ton of baggage on social issues (he's pro-choice); McCain is deeply distrusted by social conservatives due to his alliances with Ted Kennedy on various liberal causes; Romney is a Mormon and thus there's this question mark about whether evangelicals will support him. The fundamental question of the 2008 election is whether the "war on terror" trumps social and business issues, and thus the candidate that presents themselves as the most credible leader in a time of war may rebuild the coalition. I'm skeptical about the war on terror being the trump card ... unless we suffer another attack. Romney's Mormonism may well come to haunt him, but not because evangelicals have a real problem with him, but rather because the mainstream media has decided to take him out first as part of their plan to discredit the whole list of Republican candidates.
- As of right now, Guiliani seems to have momentum. On the Democrat's side, it's going to be a real dog fight between Obama and Clinton. And as we all know, the Clintons are able to fight dirty and effectively.
No comments:
Post a Comment