TEN @ BAL: BAL (Maybe I just have something against TEN. But BAL's defense is pretty good, and Flacco is pretty impressive. 20-16)
KC @ CAR: CAR (DEN made KC look like Super Bowl contenders, but it is still KC. 24-10)
CHI @ DET: CHI (Da Bears. 20-6)
ATL @ GB: GB (Defensively GB should do well, and as long as Rodgers is good to go, the offense should move the ball. 23-17)
IND @ HOU: IND (The bye hopefully rested IND players enough to start patching things back together. 28-20)
SD @ MIA: SD (MIA might think they're explosive after drubbing NE, but SD is getting back the confidence. 34-30)
SEA @ NYG: NYG (SEA just doesn't have it together this season, and they're on the road. 21-17)
WAS @ PHI: PHI (Defense and McNabb. It will be harder for PHI if Westbrook is still out, but I think they'll manage. 24-20)
TB @ DEN: DEN (Though Griese has shown himself capable of winning against former teams, I think DEN should have its act together for this one. 24-20)
BUF @ ARI: ARI (No feel on this one. 22-17)
CIN @ DAL: DAL (Surely DAL won't lose this one. 30-15)
NE @ SF: NE (Coming off a bye might be the only good thing to say about NE. 21-20)
PIT @ JAC: PIT (JAC is struggling, but the PIT defense is still very strong. Probably another low-scorer. 19-12)
MIN @ NO: NO (MIN tried to be resurgent and didn't do much, but expect a good running game. 21-17)
Strength of confidence: 10-4
Week 4: 7-6
Week 3: 12-4
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Finger Pointing
If there is anything that is a bi-partisan measure, it is passing the buck. Regardless of where one might stand on the issue, it is still abhorrent how politicians point fingers, cast off blame, and try to score political points.
On the left, Nancy Pelosi tried to use the necessity of passing the bailout package as an advantage to grandstand and point fingers at the Bush Administration for bringing us here. As far as she is concerned, she is both right and wrong. This government failed to read the writing on the walls and thus curtail bad policies that had been implemented in past administrations. However, Bush's economic policy raised federal revenue to levels previously unseen by cutting taxes to the wealthy and to corporations. On the other hand, Bush's administration did also raise spending to heretofore unseen levels, which also carries part of the blame.
On the right, Republicans in the House used Pelosi's grandstanding as an excuse not to vote for an unpopular bill.
On both sides, there were a large number of Representatives that hoped that they could vote "no" and still have the bill pass. In part because they felt they could score political points, and in part because they feared they would lose reelection if they voted "aye".
Overall, there was a complete failure of conscience, a willingness to place pride and ego ahead of what needed to be done. Now, I think the measure should have failed, and I think we can make it through this crisis without government intervention. There's no guarantee that government intervention will avert crisis in the first place, and though there is precedent that this might actually work, there are so many factors involved that there is no way to predict what will happen. But if a Congressman is willing to vote "no" on a bill in order to secure reelection when his conscience tells him that he should vote "aye", there is a severe problem.
There are a number of things that we need to keep in mind when dealing with our political system. First, there is no divine mandate for the United States of America. God did not direct us to create this nation as He directed the Hebrews to create Israel. The USA is just one nation among many. Someday, it too may just be another chapter in a history book. True, there are many good things about the USA, many things that make it the greatest nation in the world. But that is today. That there is no God-given mandate means that there is no guarantee we'll be the greatest nation in the world tomorrow. The lesson here is that we cannot as a nation feel assured that we will always be on top, that fortune will always favor us, that we can do no wrong.
Second, there is no God-given mandate that we should be a democratic republic. If we cherish our system, we have to realize that we can lose it, that we can hand it over to people who will abuse it, that we can let fall apart through apathy. God won't intervene to save our democracy.
Third, there is no God-given mandate that any particular candidate should take office, no matter his credentials, no matter what office. Any person has only a finite span in office, can only accomplish so much once there.
The lesson here is humility. When we as a nation start speaking, "Our way or the highway," then we had better be sure that our way is the right way. Note: it is not necessarily wrong to say "my way or the highway", because my way might indeed be right. But I also need to act humbly when saying it, and I need to have good reasons for saying it. When we start saying "our way or the highway" for no other reason than other people, other nations disagree with us, then we have abandoned humility and fallen to pride.
When we starting forcing our governmental system on other nations, we need to watch out. We may be right in suggesting they change, but then, we might be wrong as well. We need to make sure our reasons are something more than, "It's what we do."
When we start falling for the mentality that this candidate or that candidate must or must not attain office, we start falling to pride. We, not God, are the ones who know everything, and thus can definitively state that candidate A will bring ruin and wreckage, while candidate B will save us from all sins and bring us to everlasting toys, Amen. Now, we might have very good reasons to believe that candidate A might do terrible things while in office. But he is still one man, and can only do so much. We might have very good reasons to believe that candidate B will issue in an era of prosperity, and that would be nice, but he is still only one man. His era will be finite, and he will probably do other things that will tick us off.
The problem I see in Congress is this. A person runs for office, wanting to make a difference. He finds he has to cater to the voters if he wants to get elected, and so he has to compromise his policies to make it in. Once he's in, he finds himself in a dilemma. Accomplish his agenda, or accomplish what his voters--especially interest groups that funded his campaign--want him to do. Sometimes that isn't too difficult, when policies and agendas coincide. But when there is conflict, we start to see just how our system corrupts our politicians.
It starts out so simply. A candidate thinks that he cannot make a difference if he isn't elected, and so he changes his tune to attract the most voters. Once he's in, he faces the dilemma that if he doesn't please his constituents, then he can't stay in and effect change. Thus he can either keep compromising his policies, perhaps even against his conscience, or he can keep to his conscience and risk losing the next election. It seems like a double bind. He's damned either path he takes.
It reminds me a little of the musical version of "Les Miserables". Valjean sings: "If I speak, I am condemned. If I stay silent, I am damned." In this scenario, Valjean, a convict who broke parole and disappeared, only to later establish himself as first a successful businessman and then mayor, faces the horror of learning of some other man accused in his place, accused of being him. If Valjean speaks out, he'll lose his business, and the whole town will return to the economic shambles from which he raised it. He sings: "I am the master of hundreds of workers. They all look to me. Can I abandon them, how will I live, if I am not free?" And yet he eventually comes to the right conclusion.
There was no God-given mandate that the town should be economically prosperous, that Valjean should be mayor, that Valjean should be the savior of all those people. There was a God-given mandate to seek the redemption of his own soul, and there was a God-given mandate that one cannot use evil means to seek a good end. Thus the choice to forsake the town and reveal himself as the true escaped convict was the only one Valjean could justifiably make.
The same situation applies to Congress. No single candidate is our savior. At least, I don't see any of them dying on a cross to redeem our sins. Thus no single candidate has the right to claim the importance of staying in office over doing what is right. Perhaps there is some justification of doing wrong if the Congressman's conscience tells him that the wrong act is somehow right, but that's as far as it can extend. No Congressman is justified in voting against his conscience in order to gain political points and hold onto his office.
It is pride that leads one to believe that somehow the fate of all the nation, perhaps even all of mankind, hinges upon him remaining in office. And yet such a person should be humble. He has been entrusted with an enormous task, that of guiding a nation of hundreds of millions of people, in trying to craft legislation that is good for the nation, and in trying to defeat legislation that he believes will hurt the nation. He should be humble, for he has been given a chance few people ever get. He should be humble, for only then will he be capable of setting aside partisan politics, politics as usual, scoring political points, and so on. He should be humble, do what he believes is right, regardless of party lines or popularity. If he loses office by doing so, then so be it. He did what he could, and if people won't accept what he did, then that's that.
God Himself only showed us the way. He didn't force us to take it. Our politicians should be so humble.
On the left, Nancy Pelosi tried to use the necessity of passing the bailout package as an advantage to grandstand and point fingers at the Bush Administration for bringing us here. As far as she is concerned, she is both right and wrong. This government failed to read the writing on the walls and thus curtail bad policies that had been implemented in past administrations. However, Bush's economic policy raised federal revenue to levels previously unseen by cutting taxes to the wealthy and to corporations. On the other hand, Bush's administration did also raise spending to heretofore unseen levels, which also carries part of the blame.
On the right, Republicans in the House used Pelosi's grandstanding as an excuse not to vote for an unpopular bill.
On both sides, there were a large number of Representatives that hoped that they could vote "no" and still have the bill pass. In part because they felt they could score political points, and in part because they feared they would lose reelection if they voted "aye".
Overall, there was a complete failure of conscience, a willingness to place pride and ego ahead of what needed to be done. Now, I think the measure should have failed, and I think we can make it through this crisis without government intervention. There's no guarantee that government intervention will avert crisis in the first place, and though there is precedent that this might actually work, there are so many factors involved that there is no way to predict what will happen. But if a Congressman is willing to vote "no" on a bill in order to secure reelection when his conscience tells him that he should vote "aye", there is a severe problem.
There are a number of things that we need to keep in mind when dealing with our political system. First, there is no divine mandate for the United States of America. God did not direct us to create this nation as He directed the Hebrews to create Israel. The USA is just one nation among many. Someday, it too may just be another chapter in a history book. True, there are many good things about the USA, many things that make it the greatest nation in the world. But that is today. That there is no God-given mandate means that there is no guarantee we'll be the greatest nation in the world tomorrow. The lesson here is that we cannot as a nation feel assured that we will always be on top, that fortune will always favor us, that we can do no wrong.
Second, there is no God-given mandate that we should be a democratic republic. If we cherish our system, we have to realize that we can lose it, that we can hand it over to people who will abuse it, that we can let fall apart through apathy. God won't intervene to save our democracy.
Third, there is no God-given mandate that any particular candidate should take office, no matter his credentials, no matter what office. Any person has only a finite span in office, can only accomplish so much once there.
The lesson here is humility. When we as a nation start speaking, "Our way or the highway," then we had better be sure that our way is the right way. Note: it is not necessarily wrong to say "my way or the highway", because my way might indeed be right. But I also need to act humbly when saying it, and I need to have good reasons for saying it. When we start saying "our way or the highway" for no other reason than other people, other nations disagree with us, then we have abandoned humility and fallen to pride.
When we starting forcing our governmental system on other nations, we need to watch out. We may be right in suggesting they change, but then, we might be wrong as well. We need to make sure our reasons are something more than, "It's what we do."
When we start falling for the mentality that this candidate or that candidate must or must not attain office, we start falling to pride. We, not God, are the ones who know everything, and thus can definitively state that candidate A will bring ruin and wreckage, while candidate B will save us from all sins and bring us to everlasting toys, Amen. Now, we might have very good reasons to believe that candidate A might do terrible things while in office. But he is still one man, and can only do so much. We might have very good reasons to believe that candidate B will issue in an era of prosperity, and that would be nice, but he is still only one man. His era will be finite, and he will probably do other things that will tick us off.
The problem I see in Congress is this. A person runs for office, wanting to make a difference. He finds he has to cater to the voters if he wants to get elected, and so he has to compromise his policies to make it in. Once he's in, he finds himself in a dilemma. Accomplish his agenda, or accomplish what his voters--especially interest groups that funded his campaign--want him to do. Sometimes that isn't too difficult, when policies and agendas coincide. But when there is conflict, we start to see just how our system corrupts our politicians.
It starts out so simply. A candidate thinks that he cannot make a difference if he isn't elected, and so he changes his tune to attract the most voters. Once he's in, he faces the dilemma that if he doesn't please his constituents, then he can't stay in and effect change. Thus he can either keep compromising his policies, perhaps even against his conscience, or he can keep to his conscience and risk losing the next election. It seems like a double bind. He's damned either path he takes.
It reminds me a little of the musical version of "Les Miserables". Valjean sings: "If I speak, I am condemned. If I stay silent, I am damned." In this scenario, Valjean, a convict who broke parole and disappeared, only to later establish himself as first a successful businessman and then mayor, faces the horror of learning of some other man accused in his place, accused of being him. If Valjean speaks out, he'll lose his business, and the whole town will return to the economic shambles from which he raised it. He sings: "I am the master of hundreds of workers. They all look to me. Can I abandon them, how will I live, if I am not free?" And yet he eventually comes to the right conclusion.
There was no God-given mandate that the town should be economically prosperous, that Valjean should be mayor, that Valjean should be the savior of all those people. There was a God-given mandate to seek the redemption of his own soul, and there was a God-given mandate that one cannot use evil means to seek a good end. Thus the choice to forsake the town and reveal himself as the true escaped convict was the only one Valjean could justifiably make.
The same situation applies to Congress. No single candidate is our savior. At least, I don't see any of them dying on a cross to redeem our sins. Thus no single candidate has the right to claim the importance of staying in office over doing what is right. Perhaps there is some justification of doing wrong if the Congressman's conscience tells him that the wrong act is somehow right, but that's as far as it can extend. No Congressman is justified in voting against his conscience in order to gain political points and hold onto his office.
It is pride that leads one to believe that somehow the fate of all the nation, perhaps even all of mankind, hinges upon him remaining in office. And yet such a person should be humble. He has been entrusted with an enormous task, that of guiding a nation of hundreds of millions of people, in trying to craft legislation that is good for the nation, and in trying to defeat legislation that he believes will hurt the nation. He should be humble, for he has been given a chance few people ever get. He should be humble, for only then will he be capable of setting aside partisan politics, politics as usual, scoring political points, and so on. He should be humble, do what he believes is right, regardless of party lines or popularity. If he loses office by doing so, then so be it. He did what he could, and if people won't accept what he did, then that's that.
God Himself only showed us the way. He didn't force us to take it. Our politicians should be so humble.
Week 4 Results, with Soapboxing
Well, as predicted, I only scored 7-6 this week in my picks. The question one might ask: if I could guess that I would only succeed 7-6, why not change my picks to something stronger? The answer: some of these defeats I just couldn't see.
To be perfectly honest, I suppose I could have conceived of Kansas City toppling Denver, since I knew Denver has historically had problems in Arrowhead Stadium, but the Chiefs have been particularly bad this year, whereas Denver at least had an explosive offense. We will see if that continues. Dallas, too, was supposed to be so strong that there was never any hope for Washington, but they, too, were upset. I did call the Jets beating the Cardinals, though certainly not in such a devastating fashion; I did call Tampa Bay over Green Bay; I did call Carolina over Atlanta; likewise Chicago over Philadelphia. The reason I mention those is that they were risky games, ones that I either couldn't call one way or the other, or was taking a gamble. I will admit that picking Houston over Jacksonville and Minnesota over Tennessee were big gambles I made that didn't pay off, but the lesson is this: any given Sunday, anything can happen. A titan will continue plundering or will fall. A weak team comes together for a few brilliant moments to make an upset, or continues playing poorly. Close teams battle it out to the last nail-biting seconds. Games go into overtime and are largely decided by the coin toss.
As Chris Burman says, that's why they play the game.
I was happy to lose my pick last night on Monday Night Football, but in a sense I still feel justified in my choice. A touchdown--finally, after 11 quarters without a touchdown--seemed to bring Pittsburgh back into the game, but then sacking rookie quarterback Flacco, forcing a fumble that was returned for a touchdown, placed the game firmly into the Steelers' hands. Just like that, a game that had gone all Baltimore had become all Pittsburgh. Of course, that didn't mean the game was over--they fought hard for the rest of the half, and then battled it out in overtime. I like Pittsburgh, and so I'm happy they managed a much-needed win.
There's a lesson to be learned from this, though. In games, the tides can turn quickly. In real life, the tides can turn quickly. When we look at the political sphere, a couple of changes in the nation's fortunes can turn the voters from tending to the right to tending to the left, just as a terrorist attack can swing them back right.
The difference: football is game. Yes, some jobs are at stake, but those predominantly are the coaching positions and starting lineup. Politics, while people seem to treat it like a game, is real life. It is deadly serious. Right now, national politics affect some 300 million people.
When we watched the candidates debate, we see them struggling to maintain a good outward appearance while trying to tear the opponent to shreds. It is all about making cheap political points and not giving any away. In this sense, campaigning and legislating and so on is treated as a game, and that is dangerous. If politics is just a game, then the mentality easily becomes that we're not dealing with real people, real money, real problems.
The economy doesn't crash when Kansas City topples Denver 33-19. It does when bad bills are passed in efforts to score political points. When governing this nation is all about posturing, making a better show than the other guy, and trying to benefit a small target constituency rather than doing what is right, then it does seem like a game.
A game we all lose.
To be perfectly honest, I suppose I could have conceived of Kansas City toppling Denver, since I knew Denver has historically had problems in Arrowhead Stadium, but the Chiefs have been particularly bad this year, whereas Denver at least had an explosive offense. We will see if that continues. Dallas, too, was supposed to be so strong that there was never any hope for Washington, but they, too, were upset. I did call the Jets beating the Cardinals, though certainly not in such a devastating fashion; I did call Tampa Bay over Green Bay; I did call Carolina over Atlanta; likewise Chicago over Philadelphia. The reason I mention those is that they were risky games, ones that I either couldn't call one way or the other, or was taking a gamble. I will admit that picking Houston over Jacksonville and Minnesota over Tennessee were big gambles I made that didn't pay off, but the lesson is this: any given Sunday, anything can happen. A titan will continue plundering or will fall. A weak team comes together for a few brilliant moments to make an upset, or continues playing poorly. Close teams battle it out to the last nail-biting seconds. Games go into overtime and are largely decided by the coin toss.
As Chris Burman says, that's why they play the game.
I was happy to lose my pick last night on Monday Night Football, but in a sense I still feel justified in my choice. A touchdown--finally, after 11 quarters without a touchdown--seemed to bring Pittsburgh back into the game, but then sacking rookie quarterback Flacco, forcing a fumble that was returned for a touchdown, placed the game firmly into the Steelers' hands. Just like that, a game that had gone all Baltimore had become all Pittsburgh. Of course, that didn't mean the game was over--they fought hard for the rest of the half, and then battled it out in overtime. I like Pittsburgh, and so I'm happy they managed a much-needed win.
There's a lesson to be learned from this, though. In games, the tides can turn quickly. In real life, the tides can turn quickly. When we look at the political sphere, a couple of changes in the nation's fortunes can turn the voters from tending to the right to tending to the left, just as a terrorist attack can swing them back right.
The difference: football is game. Yes, some jobs are at stake, but those predominantly are the coaching positions and starting lineup. Politics, while people seem to treat it like a game, is real life. It is deadly serious. Right now, national politics affect some 300 million people.
When we watched the candidates debate, we see them struggling to maintain a good outward appearance while trying to tear the opponent to shreds. It is all about making cheap political points and not giving any away. In this sense, campaigning and legislating and so on is treated as a game, and that is dangerous. If politics is just a game, then the mentality easily becomes that we're not dealing with real people, real money, real problems.
The economy doesn't crash when Kansas City topples Denver 33-19. It does when bad bills are passed in efforts to score political points. When governing this nation is all about posturing, making a better show than the other guy, and trying to benefit a small target constituency rather than doing what is right, then it does seem like a game.
A game we all lose.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Bailout Failure
So the bailout was voted down, and surprisingly not so much along party lines. The vote count was 205-228. Those voting "yeah" numbered 140 (of 235) Democrats, and 65 (of 199) Republicans, so a sizable portion of each party broke from party lines in regards to this bill.
I must say that I'm not particularly pleased that my own representative, Barbara Cubin, voted "aye", but then, I suppose I'm against the bailout plan.
The larger question is the impact on our nation at the failure to pass this piece of legislation. The headlines scream about plummeting prices on the stock market (Dow Jones down 600+!), and there is rampant concern about savings, job safety, and paying the bills. On the one hand, I think that this is the natural consequence of the bubble bursting, and in a short period of time (a matter of months, perhaps), the economy will stabilize and we'll start our merry way upwards once again. People find out that no too many jobs were lost, and that the "fundamentals" of the economy, i.e. that portion that is still connected to the real world, are indeed still strong.
In this sense, I'm more of a do-nothing economist. The markets will right themselves. And while I feel fairly justified on this position (keep in mind I'm a computer scientist, not an economist), there is still the worry that this does portend even more dire events to come. Certainly our government thinks that a failure to do anything will open the door to doomsday scenarios, but that could simply be that our politicians believe they at least have to make a show of doing something, have some piece of legislation to point back at and say, "See? We did something about this."
I think lancing this sore is good for us, and we can't just cover up the wound with bailout packages. But then, is the infection so widespread that the healing process of bloodletting will bleed us dry before the infection is purged?
I don't have any strong answer on that. I do know that tomorrow morning, I'll wake up at 6:00 AM, have breakfast, read a little from my Bible, come to work around 7:00, and proceed with my normal daily routines. Life will move onward. If the economy tanks, well, I'll handle that somehow. I'll take whatever employment I can get to pay the bills, maybe even work two jobs for insurance.
I do know this. God will provide. It may not be what we want, but it will certainly be what we need. If I can't get my dream $75,000 a year job, well, maybe I should learn to be content with at $15,000 a year job, and live much more simply. Finances will be tight, but I can manage. And if we're willing to quit sniveling and act responsibly, the rest of us should be able to manage, as well, one way or another.
I must say that I'm not particularly pleased that my own representative, Barbara Cubin, voted "aye", but then, I suppose I'm against the bailout plan.
The larger question is the impact on our nation at the failure to pass this piece of legislation. The headlines scream about plummeting prices on the stock market (Dow Jones down 600+!), and there is rampant concern about savings, job safety, and paying the bills. On the one hand, I think that this is the natural consequence of the bubble bursting, and in a short period of time (a matter of months, perhaps), the economy will stabilize and we'll start our merry way upwards once again. People find out that no too many jobs were lost, and that the "fundamentals" of the economy, i.e. that portion that is still connected to the real world, are indeed still strong.
In this sense, I'm more of a do-nothing economist. The markets will right themselves. And while I feel fairly justified on this position (keep in mind I'm a computer scientist, not an economist), there is still the worry that this does portend even more dire events to come. Certainly our government thinks that a failure to do anything will open the door to doomsday scenarios, but that could simply be that our politicians believe they at least have to make a show of doing something, have some piece of legislation to point back at and say, "See? We did something about this."
I think lancing this sore is good for us, and we can't just cover up the wound with bailout packages. But then, is the infection so widespread that the healing process of bloodletting will bleed us dry before the infection is purged?
I don't have any strong answer on that. I do know that tomorrow morning, I'll wake up at 6:00 AM, have breakfast, read a little from my Bible, come to work around 7:00, and proceed with my normal daily routines. Life will move onward. If the economy tanks, well, I'll handle that somehow. I'll take whatever employment I can get to pay the bills, maybe even work two jobs for insurance.
I do know this. God will provide. It may not be what we want, but it will certainly be what we need. If I can't get my dream $75,000 a year job, well, maybe I should learn to be content with at $15,000 a year job, and live much more simply. Finances will be tight, but I can manage. And if we're willing to quit sniveling and act responsibly, the rest of us should be able to manage, as well, one way or another.
Earmarking a "Venial Sin"
One of the most important things McCain said in his debate against Barack Obama came early in the talks on economic issues. McCain quoted a friend of his on how pork-barrel earmarking was the gateway drug of wasteful spending. I think it was a point that McCain could have pressed forward on, and properly phrased it would have resonated well with Catholic voters, at least. Obama did not seem to understand, and that is intriguing given that Obama has typically been good at identifying the source of problems. And his lack of understanding should have been exploited, but unfortunately could not have been without taking extra time or wandering far off topic.
McCain cited $18 billion dollars in earmarks made this last fiscal year, and how Obama had earmarked nearly $400 million himself over his short career in the Senate. Now, this does not seem like a lot of money, especially in light of the $700 billion bailout package being debated in Congress, or the trillions of dollars of debt our nation is in. Obama tried to minimize the $18 billion, and I think to an extent he succeeded in diverting McCain’s message about the wasteful spending in earmarks. But McCain did get a parting shot in: “Maybe $18 billion isn’t a lot of money to Senator Obama…”
In the issue of earmarks, McCain is absolutely right. One of most important means of reining reckless government spending is to clamp down on earmarks. True, taking care of earmarks won’t necessarily solve the overall problem, but it takes care of certain interior dispositions that makes reckless spending so easy.
Earmarking is a temptation. Right now, Congressmen can slip in a few hundred thousand here, a couple million there, attaching those dollars to bills that need not have anything to do with the earmark itself. Passing an amendment to remove those earmarks from the bill is not necessarily easy, especially since “everybody” slips in egregious spending from time to time. The whole “I’ll scratch your back if you’ll scratch mine” really is one of the strongest bipartisan efforts in our federal government. On top of that, often it becomes the case of either voting through the earmarks, or letting a good bill that would help thousands of people die.
Our Congressmen have a duty to the American people, and that is to be fiscally responsible in their legislation. They tax income, spending, savings, investments, and so on in order to fund all the government projects. While these projects can be of vital importance—such as the military and Social Security—members of Congress have a duty to make sure that their spending is within the money the government brings in.
The problem is a disconnect between Congress and the money it plays with. Congress feels it can simply throw money around, and if it runs out of money, it can issue bonds, take out loans, or print more. If necessary, it could try to raise revenue by raising taxes, though who to tax is a hotly debated issue. But with this disposition, it is very hard to have even the incentive to be fiscally responsible.
Believe it or not, but this mentality starts with earmarks. There’s a little voice that whispers to us: “it isn’t a lot of money” and “this will please our constituents” and “everybody else does it.” Oddly enough, this sounds very much like temptation that leads us into sin.
If we had to apply labels in this analogy, then we would probably say that earmarking is a venial sin. It is so small in proportion to the larger problem that surely it doesn’t constitute to grave matter. One could easily argue that earmarking pales in comparison to spending hundreds of billions of dollars wastefully in bailing out rich CEOs of failing banks that made insensible risks and now are paying the price for their lack of prudence.
Of course, one could argue that knowingly spending millions of dollars wastefully for political points could only constitute to grave matter, but I won't argue that point. For the sake of analogy, we'll claim that earmarking is a venial sin while running a deficit of trillions of dollars, mortal sin.
Labelling earmarking as venial in this situation is not dismissing it as unimportant. Venial sin is not “sin that doesn’t matter”. It does matter. Venial sin wounds God’s grace within us. Repeated venial sin makes future sin easier and easier to commit. It causes our moral integrity to decay. It makes us shut our ears to our consciences and leads us to make excuses that further lead us down the road towards serious sin. The accumulation of venial sin inevitably allows for the commission of mortal sin.
Worse, venial sin is itself a roadblock to seeking forgiveness and living a virtuous life. We could easily see the gravity and severity of our mortal sins and truly feel remorse. But when it comes to venial sins, these are the things we tend to cling to fiercely because they are such “small” sins. These are the attachments to temporal goods that have a tendency to make our repentance something less than genuine.
This is exactly what we have going on in Congress, and why McCain is right to state that earmarking is the gateway drug of reckless spending. A little bit here, a little bit there, and who cares where this money comes from, as long as it goes someplace that will help with my reelection. But this mentality builds. If we have a bill that increases government sponsored health care for families making less than $40,000 a year, why not pay a few extra billion and bump that up to $55,000 a year? If we’re drafting a bill to send $20 billion in aid to hurricane ravaged states, why not tack on a few extra billion for struggling farmers in other states? Those few extra billion aren’t all that much, and they’re for good causes, right? And before we know it, we’re running a huge deficit because we think we can keep expanding the spending, using the rationale that we’re not spending that much more on any one particular bill.
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
If we want to rein in our reckless spending, we have to radically change the mindset of those who represent us in Congress. And to root out that wasteful mentality, a key component has to be the squashing of earmarks.
Getting rid of mortal sin permits God’s grace to return to our souls, but getting rid of venial sin allows our souls to grow in grace and become ever more fortified against sin. If we want our Congressmen to stop committing the mortal sin of huge budget deficits, then they must root out the venial sin of earmarking. McCain understands this. Obama does not.
Friday, September 26, 2008
NFL Week 4 picks
ATL @ CAR: CAR (ATL has won against KC (0-3) and DET (0-3), which isn't all that remarkable, though they were solid victories. CAR has played tough against SD and CHI, and their loss to MIN shouldn't be considered too detrimental. Though MIN is 1-2, both losses come against tough teams: IND and GB. However, ATL is starting to get their feet under them, and CAR is plagued by penalties. 14-12)
CLE @ CIN: CIN (No real feel for this one. CLE's defense has done moderately well, especially against PIT, but offensively they haven't put up points. CIN is on the up, having played NYG into overtime, and it may be that Palmer is back on target. However, any game between these two can be a rough and tumble match. 28-24)
HOU @ JAC: HOU (Expect an upset here. HOU needs the win, and JAC is cocky after defeating IND last week. 21-20)
DEN @ KC: DEN (If this isn't a blowout, I'll be disappointed, but then, the past two weeks should have been blowouts, as well. Division rivalries are always tough, but DEN should be able to march the ball all day long on the KC defense. 34-17)
SF @ NO: NO (SF is on the rise, and though NO is 1-2, there's still a lot to be said about NO. It will be hard fought and probably moderately high-scoring on both sides. 33-28)
ARI @ NYJ: NYJ (No real feel on this one, either. I expect that after seeing the kinks last week when Favre was actually allowed to throw the ball, NYJ will have smoothed things out a little. 27-24)
GB @ TB: TB (The main reason, I think, that GB lost to DAL was because GB could not put pressure on Romo. TB's line has been very strong at keep the defense off Griese, and if they do that again, they'll in, hands down. 23-20)
MIN @ TEN: MIN (This is going to be a defensive battle, and when Collins is called forward to make good on passes, he'll cough a couple up. 13-9)
SD @ OAK: SD (This game should be close early, but SD will probably pull away late in the third. 38-24)
BUF @ STL: BUF (STL is changing up their quarterback, but that doesn't fix a beleaguered defense. BUF should take charge of this game and stay afloat all the way through. 24-10)
WAS @ DAL: DAL (WAS will hang with DAL for the first half, but DAL will break it open in the second half. 36-21)
PHI @ CHI: CHI (Expect CHI to have one of their on games this week, but with a huge defensive battle. 17-14)
BAL @ PIT: BAL (Roethlisburger probably won't be 100% in this game, either, and unless the offensive line gets their act together, Big Ben might wind up hurt even worse. 20-10)
Week 3 results: I was 12-4, a record good enough for playoffs. Expected record for Week 4: 7-6
CLE @ CIN: CIN (No real feel for this one. CLE's defense has done moderately well, especially against PIT, but offensively they haven't put up points. CIN is on the up, having played NYG into overtime, and it may be that Palmer is back on target. However, any game between these two can be a rough and tumble match. 28-24)
HOU @ JAC: HOU (Expect an upset here. HOU needs the win, and JAC is cocky after defeating IND last week. 21-20)
DEN @ KC: DEN (If this isn't a blowout, I'll be disappointed, but then, the past two weeks should have been blowouts, as well. Division rivalries are always tough, but DEN should be able to march the ball all day long on the KC defense. 34-17)
SF @ NO: NO (SF is on the rise, and though NO is 1-2, there's still a lot to be said about NO. It will be hard fought and probably moderately high-scoring on both sides. 33-28)
ARI @ NYJ: NYJ (No real feel on this one, either. I expect that after seeing the kinks last week when Favre was actually allowed to throw the ball, NYJ will have smoothed things out a little. 27-24)
GB @ TB: TB (The main reason, I think, that GB lost to DAL was because GB could not put pressure on Romo. TB's line has been very strong at keep the defense off Griese, and if they do that again, they'll in, hands down. 23-20)
MIN @ TEN: MIN (This is going to be a defensive battle, and when Collins is called forward to make good on passes, he'll cough a couple up. 13-9)
SD @ OAK: SD (This game should be close early, but SD will probably pull away late in the third. 38-24)
BUF @ STL: BUF (STL is changing up their quarterback, but that doesn't fix a beleaguered defense. BUF should take charge of this game and stay afloat all the way through. 24-10)
WAS @ DAL: DAL (WAS will hang with DAL for the first half, but DAL will break it open in the second half. 36-21)
PHI @ CHI: CHI (Expect CHI to have one of their on games this week, but with a huge defensive battle. 17-14)
BAL @ PIT: BAL (Roethlisburger probably won't be 100% in this game, either, and unless the offensive line gets their act together, Big Ben might wind up hurt even worse. 20-10)
Week 3 results: I was 12-4, a record good enough for playoffs. Expected record for Week 4: 7-6
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Is What We Have What We Want?
It seems to me that one of the most frustrating aspects of the political realm is that the politicians we have seem to be power-hungry and corrupt. We want new elected officials in Congress to fix the problems that previous officials have made, and yet when the new ones reach Congress, they're practically indistinguishable from the ones we voted out.
Probably for most of us in the average American realm, we can scarcely see anything that happens in D.C. as anything other than politics as usual. Take the minor rebellion led by House Republicans over the month-long break. Pundits applauded the move as initiation of change, a bold step forward, and a sign to the nation that these members of the House, at least, were serious about fixing the energy problems confronting us.
I think that perhaps there was some demonstration of resolve, some definite interest in debating the problem and trying to find solutions, and yet cynically I can only see it as "politics as usual". It was nice grandstanding, and it certainly caught attention, and I was even excited for a while. But then the break passed, Speaker Pelosi didn't bring the House back early from vacation, and then the same politicking returned to D.C. that we've all seen before.
The real problem in Congress is that Congress does not act like a governing body, but a business. People in the business want to stay in the business. People in the business are interested in giving people what the people want, not what they need. Giving people what they need isn't popular, especially if a majority of people polled in the latest survey don't want what they need.
There is something intriguing about a politician that will actually hold firm on an issue and not change direction with the blowing wind. For that, President Bush and Speaker Pelosi deserve respect. The problem is that this kind of tenacity rarely wins reelection. If a politician has a firm stand on a point that is practically a non-issue at the time of his election, no one notices. But if the non-issue becomes an issue, and people want change in the opposite direction of where that politician wants to go, he loses the election.
From the politician's point of view, if he wants to remain a politician, the winning strategy almost seems to be to follow whichever way the wind is blowing.
In addition to policy, in order to win reelection, a politician needs to campaign, both so that people can see the good he has done so far, and also so he can make promises for the future. Campaigning, though, costs money, and thus the politician's winning strategy is to go where the money is.
The net result is that the logical outcome is the production of politicians that only care about money and votes, and have no real interest in crafting real policy. Real policy that fixes problems isn't good, because removing problems removes the need for the politician to be in office. Real policy that gives people what they need is unpopular. Real policy that cracks down on corruption, pork, and bribes chokes off the much needed money to stay in office. Is it any wonder that our new, bright, honest, hopeful candidates go to D.C. and become like all the others?
Sometimes I wonder if this system is what we really want, and if it is what we want, what we can do, if anything, to fix the seemingly inherent problem.
Probably for most of us in the average American realm, we can scarcely see anything that happens in D.C. as anything other than politics as usual. Take the minor rebellion led by House Republicans over the month-long break. Pundits applauded the move as initiation of change, a bold step forward, and a sign to the nation that these members of the House, at least, were serious about fixing the energy problems confronting us.
I think that perhaps there was some demonstration of resolve, some definite interest in debating the problem and trying to find solutions, and yet cynically I can only see it as "politics as usual". It was nice grandstanding, and it certainly caught attention, and I was even excited for a while. But then the break passed, Speaker Pelosi didn't bring the House back early from vacation, and then the same politicking returned to D.C. that we've all seen before.
The real problem in Congress is that Congress does not act like a governing body, but a business. People in the business want to stay in the business. People in the business are interested in giving people what the people want, not what they need. Giving people what they need isn't popular, especially if a majority of people polled in the latest survey don't want what they need.
There is something intriguing about a politician that will actually hold firm on an issue and not change direction with the blowing wind. For that, President Bush and Speaker Pelosi deserve respect. The problem is that this kind of tenacity rarely wins reelection. If a politician has a firm stand on a point that is practically a non-issue at the time of his election, no one notices. But if the non-issue becomes an issue, and people want change in the opposite direction of where that politician wants to go, he loses the election.
From the politician's point of view, if he wants to remain a politician, the winning strategy almost seems to be to follow whichever way the wind is blowing.
In addition to policy, in order to win reelection, a politician needs to campaign, both so that people can see the good he has done so far, and also so he can make promises for the future. Campaigning, though, costs money, and thus the politician's winning strategy is to go where the money is.
The net result is that the logical outcome is the production of politicians that only care about money and votes, and have no real interest in crafting real policy. Real policy that fixes problems isn't good, because removing problems removes the need for the politician to be in office. Real policy that gives people what they need is unpopular. Real policy that cracks down on corruption, pork, and bribes chokes off the much needed money to stay in office. Is it any wonder that our new, bright, honest, hopeful candidates go to D.C. and become like all the others?
Sometimes I wonder if this system is what we really want, and if it is what we want, what we can do, if anything, to fix the seemingly inherent problem.
Greed Has Led Us Here
We need a serious self-examination when dealing with financial crisis at hand. The whole problem is not necessarily a result of capitalism run amok, though there is certainly that factor. Any economic plan seems to be the perfect economic plan, until the human factor is worked into the equation.
Search around the web, and you'll find endless articles about how this current crisis is the fault of the Clinton Administration. At that time, lenders were given incentive to offer sub-prime loans to those with poor credit, little resources at hand, and income that could be measured with welfare or unemployment checks. On the surface, this seemed like a humane move. Let us get these people their own homes! But there is something implicit behind the scenes.
The lenders were eager to offer these loans, both to avoid litigation and to earn a potential profit. And that could happen, as long as the housing market continued to rise. Anyone risking foreclosure could simply sell their house for more than they bought it. They would not suffer too much, and the lenders would still earn money off the loan. It seemed like a win-win situation.
Mark Shea takes umbrage at those who would blame the poor, and that is understandable, because we have a duty to help the poor. But that doesn't mean that the poor are completely free of blame in this, either.
Greed is the factor driving us into this financial crisis, no doubt about it. The lenders took insane risks to earn greater profits, buoyed by the hope that the government would bail them out if things turned sour. But there was greed at the lower levels, too.
Perhaps we don't notice it, because we're so used to it. We see car commercials that talk about $3000 cash back, and we're ready to jump to our feet and buy the car for that screaming deal offered us. We see all kinds of junk that we did not know existed 10 seconds before, but offered to us at a discount of 80% if we only call in the next twenty minutes. We see the Big Mac back on sale for $2, and Arby's regular roast beef on special at 4 for $5. We're now seeing regularly advertising for people who will magically dig us out of debt.
We've been trained to want everything, to want everything now, and to want everything cheap. Greed is everywhere, rampant in our society. The instant gratification generation is now.
How does this relate back to the poor? In part we're deluded. We think every family must have their own house. The poor in particular see homeowners, and the message that we send the poor is that it is all right to covet, all right to be greedy, because somehow you're entitled to the same things those homeowners have. And so when a deal comes along too good to be true, do they look at it with skepticism, or do they buy into heart and soul?
True, we've inundated them (and everyone else) with the message of have now, forget the cost. But they, too, are responsible for living within their means, responsible for paying attention to what is reasonable and what is just fantasy, and in that regard they, too, failed.
But the greed goes deeper. It comes from the generations that lived through the Great Depression who, in the aftermath of WWII, found that they could actually have things again. Everyone could have their own home, two cars, a television, a toaster, a refrigerator, and so on.
And our government not only told us that we could have this, but that we could have more, and in perpetuity. Let's see what all we've come across, thanks to this mentality.
Debt: we have immersed ourselves up to the eyeballs in debt. Why? Because we believed we had to get things immediately, even when we couldn't afford them. We worked on the assumption that, because we didn't have to pay immediately, we could have, because assuredly the funds would be there later on to pay back the debt. We see how well that has worked.
Social Security: our government started plundering Social Security back under the Johnson administration, thinking that we could simply keep paying out social security as long as our work force kept expanding as quickly as it was at the time. The Baby Boomer generation was aptly named. But then the Baby Boomers turned around barely reproduced at all, and suddenly the work force didn't grow as expected, and all that plundering started to catch up with us.
American Vehicle Industry: Back at their height, the American vehicle manufacturers started handing enormous retirement packages, working under the assumption that Americans would keep buying new cars at an ever increasing rate, and thus providing funds to make sure those packages were honored. But then came the bust. Due to foreign imports and a number of other factors, the American companies lost a large share of the market, and their profits dwindles. They could not longer honor the retirement packages, and they had to be bailed out.
Dot-com Industry: A lot of people lost out on this because they thought they could set up little dot-com industries, get bought out, and live off of that money. This also ended in a bust.
Housing Industry: Again, people believed they could keep playing the market under the assumption that the housing market would keep expanding, that property value would keep rising, and they could buy beyond their means, hold on for a while, then sell and make a profit.
We've seen this pattern again and again and again. The trend is the same. We see trend in the market. We take a huge risk and play that market under the assumption that the trend will keep on going forever. And when the trend changes, we lose.
And it is greed that makes us do that. We gamble, not with what we can afford to lose, but with everything, because we think we found the magical means of getting everything right now.
I'm sorry, but we don't need the brand new car, the 8 bedroom house, the 48 inch HD TV, an Xbox 360, a PS3, a Wii, every movie known to man, 6 4-wheelers, a boat, some jet skis, an RV, and so on. We especially don't need to put ourselves into the red to acquire all of these. But we've been taught that we have to have all of these, that we deserve all of these, and when we don't get them immediately, we fall prey to greed. The poor were as guilty as anyone else in this. The only difference is that they are the ones going to pay heaviest, while the ones who committed the most atrocious crimes are going to get bailed out and suffer little to no consequence at all.
Search around the web, and you'll find endless articles about how this current crisis is the fault of the Clinton Administration. At that time, lenders were given incentive to offer sub-prime loans to those with poor credit, little resources at hand, and income that could be measured with welfare or unemployment checks. On the surface, this seemed like a humane move. Let us get these people their own homes! But there is something implicit behind the scenes.
The lenders were eager to offer these loans, both to avoid litigation and to earn a potential profit. And that could happen, as long as the housing market continued to rise. Anyone risking foreclosure could simply sell their house for more than they bought it. They would not suffer too much, and the lenders would still earn money off the loan. It seemed like a win-win situation.
Mark Shea takes umbrage at those who would blame the poor, and that is understandable, because we have a duty to help the poor. But that doesn't mean that the poor are completely free of blame in this, either.
Greed is the factor driving us into this financial crisis, no doubt about it. The lenders took insane risks to earn greater profits, buoyed by the hope that the government would bail them out if things turned sour. But there was greed at the lower levels, too.
Perhaps we don't notice it, because we're so used to it. We see car commercials that talk about $3000 cash back, and we're ready to jump to our feet and buy the car for that screaming deal offered us. We see all kinds of junk that we did not know existed 10 seconds before, but offered to us at a discount of 80% if we only call in the next twenty minutes. We see the Big Mac back on sale for $2, and Arby's regular roast beef on special at 4 for $5. We're now seeing regularly advertising for people who will magically dig us out of debt.
We've been trained to want everything, to want everything now, and to want everything cheap. Greed is everywhere, rampant in our society. The instant gratification generation is now.
How does this relate back to the poor? In part we're deluded. We think every family must have their own house. The poor in particular see homeowners, and the message that we send the poor is that it is all right to covet, all right to be greedy, because somehow you're entitled to the same things those homeowners have. And so when a deal comes along too good to be true, do they look at it with skepticism, or do they buy into heart and soul?
True, we've inundated them (and everyone else) with the message of have now, forget the cost. But they, too, are responsible for living within their means, responsible for paying attention to what is reasonable and what is just fantasy, and in that regard they, too, failed.
But the greed goes deeper. It comes from the generations that lived through the Great Depression who, in the aftermath of WWII, found that they could actually have things again. Everyone could have their own home, two cars, a television, a toaster, a refrigerator, and so on.
And our government not only told us that we could have this, but that we could have more, and in perpetuity. Let's see what all we've come across, thanks to this mentality.
Debt: we have immersed ourselves up to the eyeballs in debt. Why? Because we believed we had to get things immediately, even when we couldn't afford them. We worked on the assumption that, because we didn't have to pay immediately, we could have, because assuredly the funds would be there later on to pay back the debt. We see how well that has worked.
Social Security: our government started plundering Social Security back under the Johnson administration, thinking that we could simply keep paying out social security as long as our work force kept expanding as quickly as it was at the time. The Baby Boomer generation was aptly named. But then the Baby Boomers turned around barely reproduced at all, and suddenly the work force didn't grow as expected, and all that plundering started to catch up with us.
American Vehicle Industry: Back at their height, the American vehicle manufacturers started handing enormous retirement packages, working under the assumption that Americans would keep buying new cars at an ever increasing rate, and thus providing funds to make sure those packages were honored. But then came the bust. Due to foreign imports and a number of other factors, the American companies lost a large share of the market, and their profits dwindles. They could not longer honor the retirement packages, and they had to be bailed out.
Dot-com Industry: A lot of people lost out on this because they thought they could set up little dot-com industries, get bought out, and live off of that money. This also ended in a bust.
Housing Industry: Again, people believed they could keep playing the market under the assumption that the housing market would keep expanding, that property value would keep rising, and they could buy beyond their means, hold on for a while, then sell and make a profit.
We've seen this pattern again and again and again. The trend is the same. We see trend in the market. We take a huge risk and play that market under the assumption that the trend will keep on going forever. And when the trend changes, we lose.
And it is greed that makes us do that. We gamble, not with what we can afford to lose, but with everything, because we think we found the magical means of getting everything right now.
I'm sorry, but we don't need the brand new car, the 8 bedroom house, the 48 inch HD TV, an Xbox 360, a PS3, a Wii, every movie known to man, 6 4-wheelers, a boat, some jet skis, an RV, and so on. We especially don't need to put ourselves into the red to acquire all of these. But we've been taught that we have to have all of these, that we deserve all of these, and when we don't get them immediately, we fall prey to greed. The poor were as guilty as anyone else in this. The only difference is that they are the ones going to pay heaviest, while the ones who committed the most atrocious crimes are going to get bailed out and suffer little to no consequence at all.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
A Response for Palin
Joseph Farah makes a an observation that Sarah Palin might face a difficult question that could make a big difference in how she is viewed. He speculates that if asked if she believes that, since salvation is through Jesus alone, that Muslims and Jews will go to Hell, that there is no direct answer to the question that won't land her in trouble. If she answers yes, then she shows herself to be a bigot. If she answers no, she loses the evangelicals. If she replies with a wishy-washy non-answer, she loses credibility. He offers the solution:
Part of the problem is that Palin, as an evangelical Christian, doesn't have a good answer, or at least, not one that is good politically. Going by the Bible, the only way to salvation is through Jesus. It doesn't become much clearer than that.
The Catholic Christian, on the other hand, has a somewhat easier recourse (though neither the Catholic nor the Evangelical has a nice brief means of answer the question). The evangelicals have to fall back solely on the Bible. Catholics can speak about natural law, and the genuine desire each human has to follow natural law. Furthermore, Catholics can talk about an earnest yearning for the Truth, which is Christ, without knowing that the Truth is Christ. Finally, Catholics can talk about the mitigating factor of invincible ignorance. Thus the Catholic response is:
"Communion with the Church and faith and obedience to Christ are necessary for salvation. However, due to circumstance, it is possible that a person visibly outside the Church is still invisibly in communion with the Church through a desire for goodness, piety, and truth. Thus, while it is normative to achieve salvation through the Church, the visible body of Christ, and thus through Christ Himself, it is possible that mercy is bestowed on those raised in invincible ignorance who yet thirst for the glory of God."
In other words: "I cannot say that Jews and Muslims are going to Hell. By ignorance of the truth, but also through a true desire for holiness, Jews and Muslims may be unknowingly seeking Christ, and in the end achieve salvation."
For Palin, not being a Catholic, I would recommend she respond:
Palin: I know exactly why you are asking that question in this forum. You want to play the "gotcha" game. You want a headline from this interview. You want something sensational. You want me to say something controversial and provocative and maybe even offensive to millions of Americans of other faiths. But I'm not going to play that game with you. I already have told you what I believe about salvation and redemption. It's the same belief hundreds of millions of other Christians around the world share. I am firmly committed to my faith, just as others are committed to their faiths. I respect the faiths of others, just as I hope they respect my beliefs. This is a serious issue that cannot be addressed adequately in bumper-sticker slogans or sound bites. Therefore, I'm not going to fall for that bait. I love to talk about my faith. That's something I'm qualified to do. I welcome the chance to talk about the issues facing this country today. That's something I'm qualified and prepared to do. But I'm not going to talk about the faiths of others. Nice try. Next question.While I feel that this reply is in keeping with a spirited, on-the-offense campaign, it is still dodging the question, and people who really care about the issue will notice it. The evangelicals will feel slighted that she didn't have the chutzpah to make a simple assertion that every evangelical believes is true and vital to their faith, and the people on the other side will see her as playing politics as usual by not giving a definite answer.
Part of the problem is that Palin, as an evangelical Christian, doesn't have a good answer, or at least, not one that is good politically. Going by the Bible, the only way to salvation is through Jesus. It doesn't become much clearer than that.
The Catholic Christian, on the other hand, has a somewhat easier recourse (though neither the Catholic nor the Evangelical has a nice brief means of answer the question). The evangelicals have to fall back solely on the Bible. Catholics can speak about natural law, and the genuine desire each human has to follow natural law. Furthermore, Catholics can talk about an earnest yearning for the Truth, which is Christ, without knowing that the Truth is Christ. Finally, Catholics can talk about the mitigating factor of invincible ignorance. Thus the Catholic response is:
"Communion with the Church and faith and obedience to Christ are necessary for salvation. However, due to circumstance, it is possible that a person visibly outside the Church is still invisibly in communion with the Church through a desire for goodness, piety, and truth. Thus, while it is normative to achieve salvation through the Church, the visible body of Christ, and thus through Christ Himself, it is possible that mercy is bestowed on those raised in invincible ignorance who yet thirst for the glory of God."
In other words: "I cannot say that Jews and Muslims are going to Hell. By ignorance of the truth, but also through a true desire for holiness, Jews and Muslims may be unknowingly seeking Christ, and in the end achieve salvation."
For Palin, not being a Catholic, I would recommend she respond:
"As all Christians, I believe that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life. Salvation is through Him. However, Jesus Himself warned us not to judge the eternal destination of our fellow man: "judge not, lest ye be judged". There is always hope that those visibly outside of Christianity may be saved. This is no different than how we deal with the courts: a man is assumed innocent until proven guilty. Will I say that it is much more difficult for someone outside of Christianity to be saved? The answer is: of course. Is it easier to get to San Francisco from D.C. by taking the interstate or by walking through countryside? Of course. Walking through the countryside is a lot harder and a lot longer path to take, and the temptation to give up and go home is much stronger. Is it impossibly difficult? That I cannot say. That requires knowing a person's inner disposition towards to God, and none know that save God Himself."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)