About Me

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

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Search

Blog Roll

 

God v. godless

Posted by Josh Kon on Thursday, December 25, 2008 2:12:11 PM
All good, God-based, worldviews lead to better results -- more happiness and less suffering -- than any godless worldview; some godless worldviews lead to better results than some God-based worldviews; and all bad, godless, worldviews lead to worse results than any God-based worldview. 
Tags: religion  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Religion and Patriotism are our first and last line of defense.

Posted by Josh Kon on Wednesday, December 24, 2008 10:08:35 PM
         What’s wrong with all of us thinking we are world citizens—all fellow members of the human race? Why do we need what many on the left call “more divisive” identities, like religion or patriotism? 

         Because we need something to motivate us to sacrifice and help those in need.  It is these more narrow identities -- what some might call "faiths" -- that give us the strength to put others' needs before our own. Be it one's identification with God, family or country—something needs to drive you

         And undeniably, as one’s identity gets larger and broader, they care for others less and less. To illustrate, we can start with the narrow identity of family or self where people care a lot, then we move on to the broadest identities like "World Citizens" or fellow humans, and we see people do nothing, i.e. the UN. It seems that at that broad level of identification, the unsaid but apparently deeply-held refrain is: "Why should we help? Let some other citizen of the world deal with that genocide."

         Now of course identity can go too far, like in the case of National Socialism. But that is by no means a reason to take the other extreme, embracing the meaningless identity of world citizenry. Too much radiation can also kill you  -- while a more focused amount just eradicates the cancer living in your midst. And thankfully and at least for now, no one is advocating we get rid of radiation merely because sometimes it can go too far. 

         So why give in to the left’s assault on more focused identities when they do so much good? Are there actually those among us that don't think the human race has many cancers living in its midst that we also need to eradicate? 
Tags: culture  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Race and Gender are not the same thing.

Posted by Josh Kon on Tuesday, December 23, 2008 3:39:44 PM
       Only an idiot can conclude that the race of a couple is relevant to whether we should legally encourage their relationship with "marriage" and in turn, only an idiot can claim that their gender is not.
Tags: culture  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (14) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Judicial Activism" -- revisited.

Posted by Josh Kon on Friday, December 19, 2008 4:09:34 PM

         Unfortunately, "Judicial Activism" has become a term so widely used -- or for that matter, misused -- that it has lost most of its meaning. Like "neo-conservative," it no longer has a concrete, substantive meaning; it is just used by many as an epithet, arbitrarily thrown at people they don't like.

          Now, this does not mean that these words don't actually have a fixed meaning. It just means we need to re-establish it. While I have already attempted to re-establish the reasons why we should find Judicial Activism repulsive, at this point, a reference to some legal jurisprudence seems appropriate. So here we go:

         The problem of "Judicial Activism" has, ironically, been recognized as repugnant by the same judges that routinely engage in it. The Political Question Doctrine is a widely accepted notion of judicial restraint. It maintains, quite correctly, that the courts are ill-equipped to deal with some types of issues -- in this case, politics. Sure, the question of whether, for example, a battery occurred—i.e. whether someone intentionally touched someone else in a harmful or offensive way—is well with a court’s area of expertise. There is little nuance for a court to apply. Using a handful of pre-existing rules and excuses for such conduct, the court can adjudicate justly. But this is not the case when we deal with politics. And most wise judges know that.

        Politics requires a far more nuanced approach. The question of whether we should institute school vouchers, for instance, is not something that can be concluded by merely invoking a few prior rules. Thus, clearly things like the use of military force or how a society deals with the value of the unborn should be determined by political debate and compromise, and not the relatively cold decision-making process of a court.

         So, in essence, this doctrine concludes that democratic representatives who engage in debate and compromise, can better adjudicate the complex political and cultural issues that a society inevitably faces.  In other words, it embraces democracy -- the once revolutionary idea that we can govern ourselves better than a monarchy or an oligarchial group, like the life-tenured and unelected Supreme Court. 

         Thus, through the prism of this doctrine's wisdom, we can be more clear: It is in fact when a judge abandons this wisdom, and imposes his own political preferences on that democracy, that he engages in "Judicial Activism." 
 

So why it this so bad? In fact, I am sure I could find some who think it is a good thing; maybe a democracy should have to listen to the orders of a few wise judges -- those people would say -- even if that does amount to an oligarchy.

 

          It is to those confused people that I would respond: it is bad because even as oligarchies go -- and they go poorly -- judicial oligarchies are the worst kind. A regular oligarchy, at least in theory, is or can be more macro-oriented. Meaning, it is less confined by micro sets of facts that are currently before it and it can thus better focus on the broader picture. 

          Yet, judicial oligarchies do not even have that luxury. A judge is largely bound by the "case and controversy" before it. That is to say, even though the case may have far reaching implications (see Roe v. Wade) the judge is at least ostensibly claiming to bring justice to the parties currently in front of it.  Thus, while a regular oligarchy can remain more focused on the big picture, a judicial oligarchy is more likely to be blinded by the emotional plea of the injured litigant, and thus not worry as much about the trickle-up effect of its decision -- effects that frequently cause terrible results. 

         As I explained in a previous post, for any law, no matter how just, one can come up with a micro situation where the law's result will be unjust. Therefore, a judge is more likely to take this micro injustice, let it pull on his heart strings, and then foolishly make it the global law. At the very least, intellectual honesty demands that one admit that a judge is more susceptible to such ill-humors than would a normal oligarchy -- let alone democratically-elected representatives.

         For that reason, if one believes in the superiority of democratic decision-making -- and I sure do hope there are a few of you still out there -- you should abhor judicial activism, and join forces with the rest of us who wish to eradicate it from within our midst. 

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

Protect the Center!

Posted by Josh Kon on Wednesday, December 03, 2008 5:30:36 PM
        As the Democrats come out victorious from the Presidential race, many conservatives find solace in the fact that politics is cyclical and we were just due to be the party out of power. The political and cultural pendulum swings, they tell themselves, and thus we should not feel bad about losing.
 
         To be sure, the pendulum does swing.  But we should cautiously find comfort in this fact, as the center of the cultural pendulum also swings – in fact, it shifts.  And, in doing so,  the new center not only changes the cultural make-up of the society, but it also produces politicians that must try to cater accordingly. In other words, conservatives will regain control of the government in due time. But the center from which they will be elected may be unrecognizably "progressed" -- and so, the politicians must "progress" -- or more accurately,  devolve -- as well. So the point is, while the only thing certain in politics is that the party in power will lose it, when they lose it, they must be sure that the values upon which they were elected do not lose too. 

 

         Take the debate over homosexual "rights." There is little question whether the conservatives of the 40's or 50's would support any government recognition of a same-sex union -- let alone the encouragement of it. And granted, to a certain extent the softening of the conservative position on homosexuality may be a good thing. Then again, I may just take that position because the "center" in which I grew up had already shifted too close to radical egalitarianism.

 

         Be that as it may, now many conservatives have conceded to just protecting the mere definition of the word "marriage"  -- and even for that, they can only hold on by a 52% majority in some of the more confused states like California. In fact, two states, Massachusetts and Connecticut, or at least their oligarchial courts, did away with that as well. Why keep the age-old definition of marriage? What are we, Nazis? Slave owners?

 

         And if social issues raise too many distracting passions, what about the abandoning of the notion of small government? It seems that every time one turns around they are greeted with a new government spending (read: wasting) program that has bi-partisan support.

 

         So truth be told, in many ways, the conservatives are losing this battle for the center. And especially, but not exclusively, in areas social conservatism, the country’s core has dramatically shifted to the left. Thus, even when we do get another conservative in that white house, if we don't start getting our message out there with the reasonableness and passion it deserves, that person will more likely be a moderate -- one that can appeal to the then shifted center.  What's for sure, he will not be the truly conservative leader we all want -- or in fact, know  -- we need. 

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

Faith -- the savior of reason.

Posted by Josh Kon on Monday, December 01, 2008 12:00:57 PM
         Many atheists argue that faith is not only unnecessary but that it is at-odds with reason.  Thus, society should completely discard it for the destruction that, they argue, inevitably ensues. But this argument runs into two overt roadblocks: One, these atheists are hoisting up reason, an inherently amoral device, as an independent source for morality; and two, faith leads, at the very least, to moral conclusions just as often as immoral ones. But before moving further, let's flesh out these two ideas so that we can see how, contrary to the argument above, society should not only tolerate faith but cherish it for it is essential to our survival.
 
         To begin with, reason, by itself, is utterly amoral; it will just as likely lead a person to immoral choices as to moral ones. Imagine a man, for instance, who finds a bag with $1,000,000 of unmarked bills, and he knows he could take that money without anyone ever knowing, and he will never get in any trouble for it. What does "reason" tell him to do? (That's a rhetorical question for any socialists out there who seem fine with taking other people's money even if people do know about it.)
 
         Another way to look at reason is that it is only as good as the moral framework in which it is applied. For example, if one's moral framework tells him Aryans have a far greater human value than Jews, then reason "morally" tells him to do with Jews as he pleases. All this shows us is that reason can in no way be an independent source of morality as it is, by definition, amoral.
 
         We now come to faith. Faith is, in a worst-case scenario, also an amoral institution—it leads people to do good just as much as bad. But in truth, faith -- at least the Judeo-Christian variety -- generally leads people to better choices. Sure, extremists exist who take faith and use it to commit evil. We, however, call them "extreme" for a reason: they are -- well -- extreme; they do no represent the majority of the faithful -- or even a significant minority. And no less importantly, a theist's potential for evil is relatively limited, as they must fit their corruption into a pre-existing faith framework -- an exercise in which an evil atheist would never need to engage. He does not answer to any higher authority, only his own demented heart.

         Thus, those that just carelessly blame the evil we find in the world on too much faith and too little reason engage in nothing more than a quest blinded by preconceived prejudices towards religion. Surely it was not critical and objective analysis that got them to this confused and dark place.

         Indeed, when one correctly confronts an atheist with all the unprecedented death that atheist regimes brought onto humanity in a mere century (more than all the religions of history combined), they argue back saying "those are not atheists who embrace the ideals I am talking about!" They conveniently claim that they must only take responsibility for the handful of atheist people who engage in careful and critical thinking; only the atheists who have abandoned "faith," be it spiritual (like Judaism) or secular (like Communism and Nazism), are their brethren. But this is a sleight of hand. The religious must somehow take responsibility for all people that exercise a God-based/spiritual religious faith and the atheist must not take responsibility for all the people who don't.

         Now, of course, we do not want people coming to a situation with faith alone—religious or secular. Reason obviously plays an important role of focusing one's faith to use it for good and not for bad. But to say "faith" is the problem is a misnomer. Faith, by itself, is just as much of the problem as is reason, by itself.  You need both. As stated above, you need faith to create the framework in which reason is applied. Even if one does not believe in God, they must concede that a notion like "all people deserve liberty" is a faith-based proposition.

         So, it seems the atheists are wrong again. We need both reason and faith. And those that seek to rid our society of either embark on an arrogant, destructive and foolish journey.
Tags: values  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »