Featured Posts

America's real party system-Part 1

[Every now and then something I read produces a critical reaction that impels me to focus on the background historical and other assumptions that I take for granted  in my thinking.  This article is the first in a series that developed as I took note of my reaction to a piece about the significance and possible future of the Tea Party movement.  Labor Day has traditionally marked the formal kick-off of the "campaign season" in American politics.  It seems an appropriate day to publishing a series that aims to help readers think through the political reality veiled by the appearance of the so-called two-party system. ] Not long ago I read an article signed J. R. Dunn that offered a plausible history of the relationship between conservatives and the GOP.  It portrays a party in which the “liberal” tail has usually been  wagging the  “conservative dog”, the exception being the era ...

Read More

America's real party system- Part 3

If, during eras of elite ascendancy, the two most visible parties are tools of elite manipulation, then there is at all times a third party involved in all our political activities.  It is the populist party, normally divided against itself by successful elite manipulation.  In terms of its potential, it is always the majority party.  The notion that “third parties fail” is therefore less an observation of fact than a statement of elite intention. In the past, some pervasive material or moral passion occasionally roused this third party to unify under its own leadership .  In our current circumstances the unifying impulse comes in reaction against the elite itself.  There is a widespread sense that the nation suffers from a general failure of elite leadership (in particular, the failure of both elite manipulated parties),  a failure connected with the elite's cynical, purely self-aggrandizing ambition.  The Obama faction's open contempt for ...

Read More

America's real party system-Part 2

In the years that followed the Lincoln era, the United States faced a new organizational imperative.  As in the post-Jackson era, it involved continental expansion.  But in addition to this there were  the material challenges of accommodating new technology’s rapid transformation of economic life, and the moral challenge of reconstituting the nation’s unity despite the persistent post-traumatic stresses still reverberating from the Civil War. These challenges allowed the elite to regain a leadership position, this time co-opting the populist moral passion of the Lincoln era with ideas of national destiny and administrative reform. The result was  an era of unprecedented elite ascendancy marked off by the two Roosevelts, the Republican, Teddy and the Democrat, FDR.  Their familiar nicknames represent the complete submergence of elite ascendancy in the streams of populist passion.  They signify the virtually complete success of the elite divisional strategy. The two Roosevelts aptly represent this success.  Their family relationship ...

Read More

Is Lakin’s court-martial an American ‘Dreyfus affair’?

I doubt that most people would be shocked to learn that sometimes the influence of power can interfere with and even derail the course of justice in our legal system.  Behind the scenes, a phone call from a powerful politician, or a corporate mogul often affects the actions or judgments of people whose personal ambitions they are in a position to help or hinder.  Usually though, people giving heed to such considerations have enough sense to cloak what they do with words or actions that give their corruption at least the appearance of probity.  Maybe its the tribute that vice renders to virtue.  Maybe its nothing more than self-serving prudence (the mask of honesty that facilitates corruption.) However, when court officers conclude that such hypocrisy is no longer worth the effort, things are pretty far gone.  The video featured with this post  focuses on the recent decision by Col. Denise R. ...

Read More

Planned Parenthood’s moral insanity

Daily Brief #13 The video featured on this page is a news report out of Texas about a pro-life billboard campaign just launched there by the Radiance Foundation and the Life Education Resource Network (L.E.A.R.N.).  It’s an effort to focus attention on the disproportionate number of nascent blacks being murdered in Texas under the rubric of abortion rights. What especially provoked my interest was criticism of the project from a Planned Parenthood spokeswoman quoted in the report.  “This is about trying to interfere with women making private personal decisions and unfortunately and really shockingly, this group has decided to use racism as a wedge issue,” Rochelle Tafolla said. “We think that  is just reprehensible…” So its reprehensible to focus an individual’s attention on the impact her individual action has on her community.  Could there be a more perfect illustration of Planned Parenthood’s moral insanity? In many U.S. communities today local laws encourage or even ...

Read More

Was Jesus a leader?

Daily Brief #12 “Asked who would be considered conservative Christian leaders today- with Graham in his 90s and the recent death of Jerry Falwell – Land said that “leaders are leaders because people follow them.”  So says Richard Land. Every year as we approach the commemoration of Christ’s passion, crucifixion and resurrection the people Jesus has saved recall his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. And the most part of the multitude spread their garments in the way; others cut branches from the trees, and spread them in the way.  And the multitudes that went before him, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest.” Judging by the multitudes that followed him, and the words of Richard Land, in this grand triumphal entry, Jesus was a leader. But after he drove the money lenders from the Temple, confounded the ...

Read More

A Meditation on Glenn Beck’s Divine Mission

[I have been in prayerful thought about the events taking place this weekend under Glenn Beck’s auspices.  He portrays them as the beginning of a Great Revival of faith in America.  People I know and think well of are involved.  Yet I find I cannot ignore the check in my spirit that prevents me from accepting that the events or their sponsor are what he professes them to be.  This posting is an effort to lay out the elements that contribute to my misgivings, insofar as they are susceptible to articulation.  Herein I attempt to share a train of thought and the destination toward which  it points.   Is it the right one? With God’s help, time may tell.] Glenn Beck: “I mean, the one part of culture that I am doing a lot of is faith.  But general faith.  We have got to get back to our churches, our synagogues, our mosques, ...

Read More


How to tell a bad tree

January 22, 2009 · 2 comments

Simple logic:

Jesus said “by their fruits ye shall know them.” We take this to mean that a tree is bad because its fruit is bad, but in fact it’s not a statement about what determines the objective condition of the tree. It’s a statement about the empirical basis for our knowledge of its condition. If the tree bears bad fruit, it’s a bad tree. Any fruit that comes from it is bad, since a bad tree cannot (does not have the power to) bear good fruit.

Christ’s assertion seems contrary to possible human experience. Don’t we find bad cherries growing side by side with good ones? If we remember the story of Adam’s fall from Grace, however, we can easily understand Christ’s instruction. Eve looked at the fruit of the tree of knowledge and judged it to be good based on her (human) faculties of perception and understanding (it looked ripe and luscious and good for food.) But according to the word of God, the tree was bad. Eating its fruit meant death. God’s word reflected the objective nature of the tree with respect to Adam and Eve. For them, it was a tree of death. The badness of the tree was not caused by the fruit. Rather, the objective nature of the tree gave rise to the badness of the fruit.

So how can we know that a tree is bad; by judging its fruit in light of God’s word rather than relying on information derived exclusively from our own faculties. Using Obama as an example, one of his fruits appears to be making sure that abortion and infanticide are sanctioned as right and lawful. God’s will for us condemns the taking of innocent human life. Obama’s fruit is contrary to God’s will, and therefore bad. But a good tree cannot bear bad fruit. Therefore Obama is a bad tree. This means that all his fruit is objectively bad; however it may look to us. We cannot cherry pick the fruit of a bad tree once we have determined its objective condition. This puts the lie to the actions of those so-called Christian leaders who think we can support Obama when he does what is good, and oppose him when he does wrong. According to Christ’s criterion, no fruit that he produces can be good. Though it looks good, and may produce what seem to us to be good results, according to Christ’s rule of moral reasoning, his fruit is bad because he is bad.

If we had the time to step back and take in the whole picture, we would better understand the sense of this. Back in the 1930s Adolf Hitler helped revive the German economy, reduce unemployment, improve the infrastructure, encourage scientific research and development and many other “good” things. Each such “good” policy increased his popularity and expanded his support, contributing to the cult of adulation that empowered him to implement policies of holocaust and aggression. Those policies morally depraved the German nation, and plunged the world into total war. Objectively speaking, the elements of German society that accepted what they saw as good results from the Fuhrer made Eve’s mistake. Of course, they didn’t realize the truth until Germany lay in ruins, defeated and literally demoralized.

I think the difference between God’s knowledge and ours lies in this: he has intrinsic knowledge of the objective condition of each tree at every moment, even before its fruit appears. Our objective knowledge depends on our experience. In his word he tries to share the fruits of his intrinsic knowledge with us. But since his guidance arises from a way of knowing that transcends the preconditions and categories of our understanding, we cannot know with certainty that his guidance is correct until our experience verifies it. Of course, if the experience involves our destruction, the satisfaction of certainty won’t last for long. Is this one reason the Psalmist declares:

It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.

It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in princes

(Psalm 118:8-9)




  • Plaxo Pulse
  • StumbleUpon
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Delicious
  • Share/Bookmark

Related posts:

  1. Call Obama bad- It’s the Christian thing to do

{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }

Conservative Poet Tom Zart August 4, 2009 at 4:10 pm

PREACHERS, TEACHERS AND POLITICIANS

Preachers, teachers and politicians
Too many times turn out the same.
Forecasting predictions of what lay ahead
Confused by self-love, ego and shame.

Forewarning of judgment and our own unawareness
Blaming others for corruption and the mayhem of war
They seek our endowment of revenue and support
As volunteers e-mail or beat on our door.

Thank God for each and every individual
That prays for wisdom, repentance and grace.
Not perfect though remorseful, repentant when wrong
As their devotion radiates from their face.

Listen and watch carefully the shepherds of man
Judging them by what they practice not preach.
Do they make you wonder about their purpose?
As they communicate, inspire and teach.

By Conservative Poet
Tom Zart
Most Published Poet
On The Web

Reply

guitar_man February 20, 2009 at 6:47 am

Alan’s test of simple logic is a wise one; straight, pragmatic, moral thinking to discerning every day matters is vanishing.
These days, Objective morality is a small fish in this ocean of moral relative sharks. Obama is the latest of these sharks. However, when Alan referred to “the objective nature of the tree”, I was surprised by that comment. The bible is the written code of all our morality. Only God, not man, is capable of creating our moral compass. The bible makes very clear that all that God had made was very good. Keys was correct in that, eating of the tree meant death; there’s no mistaking that. The issue was the free will choice to obey, or NOT to obey the voice of God. The tree was designed, built by the Lord Himself. The “object nature” wasn’t pre-loaded with a bad fruit gene. There fore, the tree wasn’t “bad”. It couldn’t have been; God made it.
The parable in scripture Jesus makes of bad trees yielding bad fruit speaks about our sin nature. Our wicked choices indicates bad fruit.
Obama, like the rest of us; rather, ALL of us, face choices. The remedy for bad fruit is a NEW nature. One outside of ourselves.
Obama’s America, AKA socialism, is the promised land of Liberals and their Elites; where humanism is the god they worship. That pretty much accounts for their fruit, and the direction they’re heading this country that once had an abundant fruit that was very good.
John C.

Reply

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a
video comment.

Previous post:

Next post: