About Me

Name: Josh Kon
Email: smartway24@gmail.com Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Search

Blog Roll

 

A government's role.

Posted by Josh Kon on Sunday, October 26, 2008 1:33:59 AM
A government fulfills its role when it protects the weak who are good from the strong who are evil --  by allowing for the weak to take care of themselves.

Tags: government  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Evil, Global Warming, Abortion and Nuance.

Posted by Josh Kon on Friday, October 24, 2008 11:43:40 AM

Is nuance good or bad? For many on the left, moments exist where one must engage in nuanced thought.  One cannot be taken seriously, for example, if he uses sweeping labels like "evil" or "axis" -- particularly in the same sentence, and especially if he uses them to describe our "talking" buddies, Iran and North Korea. Yet, at other times, the leftists perform an about-face, assailing nuanced posturing as a game played by simpletons or ideologues. 

In the vice-presidential debate, for instance, Governor Palin -- the queen of simpletons, to those on the left who are especially blind to reality -- was asked a question regarding so-called “climate change.” She answered that while she is not one “to attribute every … activity of man to the changes in the climate. There is something to be said … also for the cyclical temperature changes on our planet.” In other words, while humans may be a cause, there is no denying that to the extent the world is actually warming, it may well be resulting from cyclical changes that have been occurring long before people even knew a “carbon emission” from a shoelace.

To me, it seemed as though this answer, which audaciously lacked a perfect faith in the Global Warming hysteria, annoyed Senator Biden. To therefore vent this frustration, he answered, “Well, I think it is manmade.” And then he reiterated: “I think it's clearly manmade” -- leaving no room for doubt or nuance. He showed his followers that his faith was neither incomplete nor wavering. He was a true believer.  

Now, to be fair, both sides of the political/cultural spectrum can engage in this type of dogmatic posturing. While it was not widely covered by the mainstream media, most people can recall when both Senator Obama and Senator McCain were asked when they think life begins. Senator Obama gave a vague and nuanced answer reflected by his comment that such an issue was “beyond [his] pay-grade.”  But when Senator McCain was asked the same question, he did not hesitate to proclaim that it began “at conception.” 
 
 Thus, it seems both sides find nuance at times appropriate and at other times, not. That is to say, everyone agrees that we need certain dogmatic convictions; we just disagree in which topics those convictions should exist.

So without focusing too much on the growing information that levies nearly fatal blows to the premises of global warming -- in a vacuum, which type of belief is more deserving of our stalwart and non-vacillating support? The belief that human life, even the nascent variety, is of great value that we must err on the side of caution to protect; or the belief that our planet is warming, that warming is caused by humans, it will lead to catastrophic results, we can do something about it and other fights against global calamites, such as the one against malaria, cannot use our limited resources more effectively?

You decide which one requires a greater leap of faith; which one asks more of us; or most importantly, which one calls for a more nuanced approach.   

Tags: Politics  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

We are a rich nation; so why mess that up?

Posted by Josh Kon on Friday, October 17, 2008 12:34:19 PM
I find myself agreeing with a lot of people on the left -- and to be honest, I'm a little scared. There is no denying the fact that all these leftists speak the truth when they say that "America is a rich nation." But for my own self-image, thankfully, there ends my agreement. Where I use this undeniable fact to reinforce my pride and love for country, leftists do not.
 
Instead, people on the left invoke their mantra that "America is a rich nation" whenever they want to justify some new government program; you know, the programs that give people things even if they are completely unwilling to work for -- and thus deserve -- them. Mr. Obama, for instance, attempts to justify his odd claim that health insurance is a "right" by saying that we are the richest nation in the world. And therefore, he argues, if less rich nations like those in Europe can afford to create a government run healthcare system, we should as well.
 
For a second, let's put aside the fact that such socialist systems deliver mediocre results and call on government bureaucrats to ration out medical care, instead of free market systems that do so based on skill and willingness to work hard. Rather, let’s try and focus on the premise of this argument. Has Mr. Obama ever thought that maybe the reason why we are such a rich country is precisely because we do not allow government's inefficient hand to guide the marketplace? I don’t think so. Because if that was the case, he would realize that the refrain that "America is a rich nation" in fact belies his entire proposition. We are rich because we allow free markets to allocate resources. Therefore, frustrating those free markets in order to propel a socialist Utopia doesn't make too much sense.
 
Unfortunately, such foresight and understanding is lost on the unappreciative recipients of the American Dream. But we can't let this confusion seep into the minds of Mr. Obama's fawning crowds. Because if Mr. Obama has his way, we may fall asleep to the American Dream and wake up to a Socialist Nightmare.  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

“The Passion Argument” against legal recognition of same-sex "marriage."

Posted by Josh Kon on Monday, October 13, 2008 11:12:22 AM
         I now attempt the impossible in the current political climate and make an argument for heterosexual marriage as the ideal and thus, the only one deserving of legal recognition -- or more accurately stated, legal encouragement. Although too many so-called progressive people respect the notion of moral relativism—and thus, one cannot argue any relationship is superior to another—the patent superiority of heterosexual relationships over homosexual ones leads me to take the chance and let the chips fall where they may.
 
         To start at the beginning—many people make an ambiguous argument for the ideal nature of heterosexual marriage. They maintain that the unique union between a man and a woman is a foundation to our society. Thus, if we radically change it to include, for instance, same-sex unions, our society and its values will perish. Some may find this sufficient. But what exactly does it mean? How does it work? It is clear that we need to refine this argument, or at least flesh it out.
 
        We start with the premise that only a society passionate about their values fights for those values; and, obviously, if they don’t fight, their values do not survive. More specifically, a society must be willing to fight both in the marketplace of ideas and if it comes to it, with military force.

         On the other hand, if a society lack this passion, and their values are confronted with values held by passionate adherents, say, Islamic Totalitarians, surely the former’s values will die out and only the Islamists’ values will survive. The other people will more loudly and persuasively argue for their values in the marketplace of ideas; and, if they must defend their values with the tip of a sword, they will fight with more dedication, conviction and strength. 

         So whether you like the term “passionate” or would rather something like “fervent,” that’s fine. Regardless, I am sure we can agree that the values held by adherents less willing to preserve them are less likely to survive the test of time than values posited by those willing to do whatever it takes.
   
         Still, we must determine what breeds this lack of passion/fervor. One source overtly presents itself. That is, a society's embrace of moral relativism. A moral relativist posits a world where most if not all of one’s values possess no intrinsically or objectively better characteristics than anyone else’s. Values, they argue, result considerably from what any given culture happens to deem moral. Thus, a society has little to no passionate relationship with its morals; they are merely that society’s cultural opinion or preference. 

         If that is the case, then why on earth would that society fight to preserve those values? If another country’s mere preference on a subject is different than ours, will we protest in the streets or go to war? I hope not. Therefore, evidently moral relativism breeds this lack of passion in one’s values.

         But what does this have to do with homosexuality? A couple things. Firstly, a homosexual person is likely to adopt a moral relativist world-view. Initially, they will have two choices: live in sin under a Judeo-Christian-type moral framework or decide that framework is a relic of the past. More likely than not, the homosexual will decide to abandon the Judeo-Christian-type framework and replace it with some secular moral framework. And this type of framework is, by definition, a relativist one; it possesses no divine, and thus objective, authority for morals; collective human experience just does not cut it, as humans, with their diverse and subjective valuations and preferences, are still the driving force without God. As a result, the likely adherents to this secular/relativist ideology -- i.e. homosexuals and their supporters -- breed this moral relativism and the ensuing lack of passion in one’s values.

         One can find yet another connection between moral relativism and a society’s sanction of homosexuality. Taking a look at the rhetoric of the same-sex special-interest groups, we see that they regularly advance the argument that one’s personal biology -- not some objective notion of morality -- is a primary determinant of what we deem moral. That is to say, they advance the notion that homosexuality is moral by finding persuasive the argument that homosexuals were “born that way.” Thus, they argue, society should tolerate -- if not celebrate -- homosexuality.

         This argument, however, cuts both ways. If we accept this argument as compelling, then when other people are born other ways we must also find that conduct more acceptable as a result. Lets say, for instance, we come across a person born with a propensity to be sexually promiscuous, or even to be a robber or physically violent; one who gives this type of argument persuasive weight must at least think twice before condemning those conducts. In other words, when -- or actually, if -- these people decide to denounce these types of behaviors, they will likely do so with much less passion, for the objects of their condemnation were “born that way.” How can they blame them? 

         We see this constantly with people on the left who show more compassion for a murderer on death row than the victim and their family. Punishment and retribution are no longer virtuous endeavors of a criminal justice system, as these criminals were “born ill.” Therefore, not only do they hesitantly condemn the murderer, they hold candle-light vigils for that murderer and leave the mourning family with no choice but to look on in disgust. All the same, at this point one should be able to see how the values of other people who do not get swayed or distracted by this “born this way” argument will survive, and the moral relativist’s values will wither and die.

         In the final analysis, therefore, because the homosexual movement furthers this crippling relativist agenda, we must not give it government encouragement in the form of legal marriage. To do so, is to invite our own demise. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The fundamental right to not become a murder stat.

Posted by Josh Kon on Monday, October 06, 2008 9:10:50 PM
The assault (no pun intended) on the right to bear arms touches on a more fundamental idea than most of the public debate cares to recognize. Even assuming, for argument's sake, that the will of the democracy embodied in the constitution is of little consequence. And let's also assume -- again, just to make a point -- that stricter gun laws would decrease innocent deaths (it does not). Regardless, murder will still occur everywhere; not even the most confused anti-gun advocate will make that claim -- at least I hope not. 

Therefore, if Americans really are free, why must we just accept the inevitable fact that we may, some day, end up a mere murder stat? The most basic notions of liberty demand that we instead allow people at least a chance to defend themselves appropriately -- whether against a lone murderer, or God forbid, a murderous and oppressive government. 

In other words, truly free people can -- and in fact should -- buy a gun, bear it, and keep it.

Tags: gun rights  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Atheists and theists -- similar, but so different.

Posted by Josh Kon on Monday, October 06, 2008 8:49:28 PM

Atheists frequently invoke a dastardly indictment, accusing theists of being the same as them. The horror. They argue that theists merely claim to follow a higher moral standard; when in fact, they are really just following their own conscience, just like atheists. That is to say, they contend that theists are really just taking scripture and interpreting it to fit the moral zeitgeist of the times, and not extracting from the Bible a divine moral code. 

I understand this point, and do not find it without any merit; but I think it ignores a fundamental truth.  In other words, there is little honesty in saying that religious people do not allow their own hearts to guide them when interpreting written texts like the Bible. Indeed, even the most avid fundamentalists do not possess immunity to this bias; disagreement amongst fundamentalists has to come from somewhere, right? Yet, assuming of course the Bible reflects any degree of a divine will, the forthcoming morality is not the same as that which comes from an atheist’s heart.

First, let me ask you a question: Do you think that when interpreting laws, a judge's control over people is more constrained than the legislature who may make those laws anew? I assume the answer is yes. This is because the judge must fit his version of justice into a pre-existing moral framework, i.e. the one previously set out by the legislature. Whereas, the legislature is not similarly bound.

So now let's apply it to humanity. Who is more bound -- or stated differently, guided -- by an external and higher moral standard? The religious person who must at least pre-textually pay homage to a written code like the Bible, or an atheist who must not take similar steps? The answer should be apparent. It is the theist who is more guided. Therefore, herein lays the difference between a religious person and an atheist. Even though we must filter biblical morals through our own conscience, we still can come out with a less bias result.

Is that a good thing? I think so.

Just like we would not like judges making up laws as they go along -- we want them somewhat constrained by the democratic will -- so, too, a human's inevitably biased and self-centered heart needs to be constrained by some higher moral will as well. Because, if for nothing else, while bad religion does exist, when evil marches under the banner of secular ideologies like Nazism, Communism or Maoism -- where the only constraint is a dictator’s demented heart -- the ensuing death and suffering knows no equal. 

Tags: atheism  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Atheism in the Gaps"

Posted by Josh Kon on Friday, October 03, 2008 10:27:38 AM

Dinesh D'Souza recently coined a wonderfully insightful quip to respond to the old "God in the Gaps" mantra -- that is, "Atheism in the Gaps." So, it is in his tenacious shadow that I offer my own little tidbit.

As I see it, "Atheism in the Gaps" occurs when an atheist does not need to prove his position is more plausible; but instead, he just needs to point out the holes in the theist's position, i.e. prove it is not iron-clad – as if anything is – and then fill in the gaps with an atheistic belief.

Atheists, for example, point to supposed "design-flaws" in the human body, like that we choke too easily. To them, this lack of perfection creates a gap in the God model proposed by theists. They then proceed to fill this hole with atheism, saying these flaws prove there is no omniscient and perfect God that designed us all. 

But this conclusion is quite arrogant, let alone wrong.

They are in essence claiming to know what the grand purpose of humanity is. Only then can they legitimately claim that the design which supposes to achieve that purpose is in some way flawed. For instance, a hammer does not have a “design flaw” because it can’t beat eggs, as its purpose is to – what’s the technical term? Oh yeah! – bang things hard.

So how do they know our purpose? Indeed, why do they assume it is to live forever so that things like easily choking frustrates it? Who told them, God? What's more, how do they then proceed to, with a straight face, fill this purpose/design gap with an atheistic belief? This is a completely irrational step that assumes far too much.

In fact, it is far more rational to fill this "gap" with God, at least the Biblical view of Him. According to this view, the human body must be frail.  Only a frail and feeble creature would have the motivation to guard – or for that matter, to live – life as the fleeting treasure of untold value that it is. If we lived forever, how would life be similarly valuable? It is in fact the urgency and ease of death that gives life value.

So we see that unless atheists can legitimately posit an objective purpose to humanity, this argument, much like most atheist arguments, can be discarded out of hand. What's unmistakably clear is that atheists have no rational basis to fill this gap with atheism. But fill they do. 

 

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (6) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »