Eric Warmenhoven is apparently annoyed by the oft-repeated statement that “everything happens for a reason.”[1] People who state this typically mean that God’s plans are often not evident to human perception, and that time will show the good that will come of some event. This represents a crucial mistake.

Eric is absolutely right, the statement as it stands, is a horrid misunderstanding of cause and effect. Even if you properly take into account the concept of free will, a given event happened because of some past event. That is to say, it was caused by that past event or choice. The actual teaching is that God will bring good out of everything, even out of evil. This is only superficially the same as the preceding, erroneous, statement.

In bringing good out of evil, God is not, usually, side-stepping causality (though He can). Joan of Arc’s preservation of France was not miraculous (well, perhaps it was, but it was not miraculous in the sense that it happened after the need for it). Rather, all that is necessary is to realize that from her choices and actions, God inspired certainly, but still rooted in causality, we later came to a situation where Catholic France would not be brought down when England betrayed the Faith in the Protestant Reformation. Again, the two statements, even with this example, remain very very similar. Someone in between St. Joan and the Reformation would know the reason for France’s freedom: St. Joan acted. They would not however know the purpose for her actions. Specifically, they could guess her purposes for acting, but not God’s for inspiring and aiding her actions. It is the purpose that will come clear with time, the purpose for which God did allow it, or the purpose for which He will use it, or both. It will be used as a cause, and the things it will cause remain unknown.

In some sense, this really is the same as saying the reason is unknown, but only if you think, as Calvin taught, that everything is predestined. It is not. You did not get sick because you needed to suffer. Adam did not sin because Jesus would save us. Rather, Jesus saved us because Adam sinned. Adam is the reason, or cause, of Jesus’ coming, Jesus is not the reason, or cause, of Adam’s sin. Now everything is as clear as mud. ☺

[1] http://www.warmenhoven.org/blog/7

We have now reached the point of human cloning.[1] As predicted, scientists, not held back by a universal moral framework from the inexcusable and unjustifiable, have proceeded. How many of these children, already denied the basic gift of being conceived into a family, are we going to allow to be killed before society realizes the evil? How much evil must happen until the will to stop it grows to sufficient levels?

[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4563607.stm

In her writings today, Ederlyn wrote “I suppose that patronizing as it may be, any philanthropy that results in money and time flowing downhill should be encouraged.”[1] I understand this statement, the peoples of the third and fourth worlds are in a truly bad state, and truly do need the money and time that the first and second world nations and populations can send. Yet I must respectfully disagree.[2]

Some time ago, I wrote a brief post about why the Church’s “option for the poor” is not the same as welfare.[3] It consisted mostly of a quote from a Jamaican Archbishop, telling the writer how it is more important that the human dignity of the people be preserved and enhanced than it is that they receive monetary or material goods from those who have an excess. This quote, in addition to disposing of the idea of a welfare state, also disposes of the idea of philanthropy being necessarily good, regardless of the form in which it comes, or the attitudes behind it. I do not, by this, wish or mean to absolve those who have much from giving of themselves, both in time and in money. I do, however, want to point out how harmful our misguided giving has been. We have been giving, through the International Monetary Fund(IMF), through the World Bank, and through other organizations, millions and billions of dollars to third world governments all over the globe. Even beyond the corruption involved in these efforts, what we have primarily succeeded in doing is providing excuses for these peoples not to help themselves. There has been no change for the better the world over, because these people are dependent on the IMF, the World Bank, on the United Nations, on the United States. True reform must come from within. True improvement must come by giving the peoples there the means (in tools and education) to help themselves.

If the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, it is also true that the price of prosperity is responsibility. Except for that tiny, guilty-feeling minority who depend on trust funds, people grow more prosperous in direct proportion to their own effort, and their own acceptance of responsibility. The free nations of the world have various standards of living. Some of that is luck(being limited to a few islands necessarily impacts the standard of living in Japan), some of that is history (not having been all that free all that long ago impacts any number of nations, businesses have not been developing in these countries), some of that is the level of free-ness they have. This last takes further thought. Looking at our own country, to the extent that we have implemented a dependency state instead of requiring that people take personal responsibility for their own lives, costs have gone up (see health care) and standards of living have not (see the welfare-dependent poor). To the extent that we have implemented welfare, and emphasized diversity and emotion over substance, our cities have grown less civilized. This holds true not only of our inner cities, but also of Appalachia. Where illiteracy abounds, the standard of living goes down, with few exceptions. It is the rare man who can found a successful company not knowing how to read and do basic math.

A perfect example of this is the rain forests. There are ways, we have demonstrated industries, that could thrive in the rain forest without destroying them. Further, we have proven that slash and burn agriculture is neither profitable or environmentally sound. So why is it still the norm? Because instead of helping these people start such industries, we are busy buying up rain forest land. Instead of helping them to help themselves, we are giving them a few livestock, some homes, the odd school or medical center. Instead of helping them help themselves, we give their governments money. Philanthropy for its own sake will continue this cycle, it takes a much stronger drive to effect the true and lasting changes the third world regions need.

[1] Lacson, Ederlyn. “The Young Lady’s Illustrated Primer” 2005-05-19 http://www.livejournal.com/users/baranoouji/211153.html
[2] Reading her replies to “cathkitten,” Ederlyn has a more complex understanding of this than I am responding to here. I do not understand her actual position, so I cannot address its accuracy or inaccuracy. My response then is limited to just the quote I provide, and should not be taken in any way shape or form to reflect on Ederlyn, as I am merely using her as a jump-off point.
[3] Schierer, Luke. “Random Unfinished Thoughts” 2005-03-09 http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20050309-1140/20050309-1140

As cool as the implications of sending tactile information over the Internet may be, I find it rather more than simply “eccentric” to develop a human-poultry interaction system.[1] It is quite frankly bizarre and disturbing. What happened to the good old days when we did our research with cats and dogs and other mammals? Who in their right mind would want to pet a chicken (except maybe a child)?

Still, as it develops, some of the other applications, such as helping people learn to dance, or interacting with other people, or even interacting with a guard dog, are interesting. It will be interesting to see this area of research develop.

[1] http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,67513,00.html

Interesting that the military understands the implications of our push for gender equality.[1] I am not saying that women should not have a choice of careers beyond the home, nor that they should be denied access to medical school or law school the way they once where when the feminists were truly feminists. I am saying that some jobs are not appropriate for a woman to have, and that other jobs are only truly appropriate to those few women who have the ability to do the same physical work as a guy holding that job would be expected to do.

The military’s combat roles, both as a soldier in combat, but also as a support/supply person exposed to combat, is one place women simply do not belong. Once we knew that. For centuries men understood their call to be gentlemen, and to protect the women around them. Because women and men are different.

Now however, we have lost that. We have women, in Iraq and Afghanistan, ending up in combat even though they are still, for now, banned from combat units. The Pentagon looks at this, and looks at the recruitment figures, and looks at the deployment needs, and is responding with a push to put women in combat roles, to further blur the distinction between the sexes. Congress is thus left as the break, attempting to preserve the ban as it was intended, to keep women out of harms way while allowing them to serve in areas not so utterly incompatible with a proper view of their place in a civilized society. I am sure that no mention is needed of the irony here, and thus the potential for further societal decay.

[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4560847.stm