The task of defining the "Humanities" in understanding "Religion"

I have been working hard to update the site. The current design may not, ultimately, become the lasting one. I have been using this site as a “canvas” in which to practice my image editing and coding skills. So, consider the current design of Educated Soldier, a work in progress.

Moving on:

I have a professor whom I have a great amount of admiration. This semester, I am taking a class of his that deals with theory and method within the discipline of religious studies. I can not tell you how fascinated I am with this particular aspect of my religious studies major. As much I enjoy historically reflecting on religious text (and, I do), I find theory and method to be my more passionate calling.

This professor requires his students to write papers reflecting on the class’s assigned readings. Each paper is required to be one normally aligned page in length – no shorter or longer. The object of the paper is to produce an argument related to the reading and then defend that argument logically. The assignments are exercises in being concise (difficult for me), affirmations that we have completed the readings, and reflections upon our own rhetorical ability.

I produced something today that I am quite proud of and I want to share it. Before reading, I would like my audience to understand the following: This paper deals with “religion”; not religious traditions, but the mysterious concept that we recognize as common amongst all these traditions. One should also understand these terms in their religious studies context: reductionism and functionalism. And, for some simply interesting reading, one should also dive into the life of Emile Durkheim whose functionalist theories supposed on religion are ones that I find greatly profound.

Finally, you should also note that all accounts of page numbers and quotations in the following are made in reference to William E. Paden’s Religious Worlds (2005 edition, published by Beacon Press). Please enjoy. I look forward to your response:

Paden’s basic definition of religion (or, at least religious behavior) is those actions influenced by the sacred. This definition is different than those presented by other scholars. I have come to believe that the key to defining religion in a way that is universal can only be realized should scholars find a way of defining “humanities,” the genus under which “religion” is often grouped.

On page 48, Paden argues that religion, “like the arts,” is not reducible to sociology. I do not totally agree. The arts are only “the arts” to societies that recognize them as such. In an example, the painting of a woman with a deceptive smile could be simply understood as a portrait useful to the individuals whom produced it and whom it was produced for. To another society, this same painting is the Mona Lisa, an artistic masterpiece. However, this thought process and the environment in which it occurred ultimately led me to what I consider a more useful supposition.

I was listening to classical music while reading this chapter. It occurred to me that not much about classical music is common with the rock music that I at other times listen. Other than being at their core a system of sounds, there seems to be little reducible (common) traits to which one could break down music. This seems to be true of all sub-categories within the humanities. Again, consider art: the Mona Lisa has little in common with a Jackson Pollock exhibit, yet they are understood as intrinsically related. Likewise, we gather wholly different traditions under the penumbra of religion.

The key is to realize that none of these disciplines individually, including religion, are reducible. Perhaps if the religious scholar could distinguish the essence of the greater category, the humanities, of which religion seems to fall below, he or she may be able to better, and in a more universally accepted manner, define “religion,” itself.

Belated Update

Ladies and Gentlemen:

I am so very sorry for not having updated Educated Soldier lately. However, my absence online is based on solid reasoning (unlike some presidential campaigns):

I recently ran a campaign for student government election. Because of my efforts, I was resoundingly chosen to become a student senator. I received more than five hundred votes and outpaced some student body presidents in my support. While to some this may seem somewhat juvenile, my position as a University of South Florida student senator will put me, upon inauguration, at the distributive reigns of a 10 million dollar budget which will be allocated as my senate colleagues and I see fit. As a fiscal conservative, you best bet I look forward to cutting fat wherever I can.

Moreover, I am sustaining a junior year in college in which I hope to maintain my streak of 4.0 semesters. My cumulative GPA is 3.85 but the last three semesters have been my best. This semester promises to be even better because I am studying only material of which I am deeply interested; namely historically accurate research into religious traditions.

On top of all that, I am training hard to become Special Forces qualified. As some of you know, I am currently in ROTC and formerly active duty Army. I plan on turning in my status as an ROTC cadet to obtain Special Forces status because I foresee my life’s work on an Operations Detachment Alpha (Special Forces Team) member before returning from military life to do further public work. I live and breathe to become Special Forces qualified.

Meanwhile, I have been following USF Bulls sports, so my time has been limited. However I have been re-mastering my skills on Paint Shop so look for more updates at Educated Soldier and a total website redesign with updated graphics and info!!

Thank you!!

We Deserve Better (H.R. 1955 Is Not It)

While there are several stories worthy of discussion tonight, I am going to focus upon something that has received less attention than deserved.


A piece of proposed legislation has passed the House and is currently shuffling through Senate committee scrutiny before coming to vote in that chamber. The bill is titled, “The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007.” For those whom would like to be better informed concerning this bill, it can be tracked while it travels through Congress here and its summary on Wikipedia is located here.


I understand H.R. 1955, in a nutshell, thusly: The bill attempts to define three terms specifically. These terms are: “Violent Radicalization,” “Homegrown Terrorism,” and “Ideologically Based Violence.” It then orders the establishment of an institute to study the fields associated with these newly defined terms.


The stated general purpose is to prevent internally (American) borne terrorism. The implied purpose that I, and others more noteworthy (see next paragraph) recognize, is to allow the federal government regulatory ability in areas that need no such over-watch.


I am highly troubled by this proposed bill; as are others. While I have not been an outspoken fan of Representative Ron Paul’s, I share his criticism of this bill. While he was not present for the House’s vote on HR 1955, he did speak on the floor at a later date in opposition. While the full transcript can be found here and I encourage its reading in its entirety given its brevity, I will highlight the statements by Representative Paul of which I agree:


“There are many causes for concern in HR 1955.”

“(HR 1955) may well be the first step toward US government regulation of what we are allowed to access on the Internet.”

“It leaves the door wide open for the broadest definition of what constitutes “radicalization.””


Other statements in this speech by Representative Paul minimize the risk from internally (American) developed terrorism; this, however, I do not so easily dismiss. However, I do agree wholeheartedly with the points expressed above and raise major objections to this bill. While homegrown terrorism may be a risk, the vague terminology of this bill and the means in which it intends to attack such terrorism are far from the needed solutions.


What’s worse is the ease in which the proposed legislation passed the House. HR 1955 passed 404 to 6. The only noteworthy speech made on behalf of the legislation prior to voting was a request to suspend regular rules of order so as to expressly pass the bill. It’s not just the substance within the proposed legislation that is troubling. Also startling is the lack of scrutiny it was subjected to while in the House. Even in my novice perspective, I see several details that deserve attention; the details noted above by Representative Paul (and echoed here) are severe enough to perhaps cause major opposition to the bill.


I am voicing my own opposition here. I would hope that, as an informed constituent, my readers would also give the bill a glance and form their own opinions. If strong enough, please contact your local representatives and make them aware of how you feel. This bill is a step in the wrong direction and could, worse, present opportunities for government to enforce censorship in ways never intended by our country’s founding fathers.




In closing – and mostly unrelated, I want to encourage all readers to watch the President’s State of the Union speech tonight. I encourage my fellow residents in Florida to participate in tomorrow’s Presidential Primaries. Despite his withdrawal, I will be pledging my continued support for authentic conservative ideals by voting, as promised, for Senator Fred Thompson.

In Hindsight…

…Might this be the most ill-fated advertisement of 2007?

I was reminded of this disgusting overture when I came across this news: General David Petraeus, architect of the successful “surge” strategy in Iraq, is under consideration for nomination to the position of NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander.

In case the above graphic is not recognizable, it was first run in the September 10^th edition of the New York Times. It was financed by Moveon.org, a left-wing smear group. Of course, such a distasteful jab at a fine military officer wouldn’t have been deemed creditable if it weren’t for all the Democratic candidates that Moveon.org has successfully supported in the past.

What’s maybe most interesting (and I’ll let you practice your searching techniques as I rather NOT post a direct link to such a repugnant organization) is that Moveon.org continues, to this day, to defend their traitorous advertisement.

In conclusion, I can only wish the best for General Petraeus in whatever future position he takes on behalf of our country’s security. On the other hand, I can only remind the electorate during this crucial election year of the bedfellows that the Left continues to keep.

South Carolina and a Disheartening Mentality

Many details have prevented me from publishing an edition of Educated Soldier in the last week or so, but I will briefly discuss those issues at the conclusion of today’s post. At that point, I would also like to gloss over some other “administrative”-type housecleaning.

Today, however, is much too important of a day to delay tackling the major issues at hand.

Of course, the big news revolves around the Republican primary currently being conducted in South Carolina.

This is a big day for our candidate of choice, Senator Fred Thompson. He has made it thoroughly clear that South Carolina’s primary is one that will emphatically shape his following campaign. He needs a strong showing. However, he does not necessarily need a victory. The momentum that has been expressed towards his campaign since the Senator’s triumphant debate showing (evidence of which is found HERE – notice the up-tick in funds raised lately) has turned South Carolina from a “must win” to a “must capitalize.” If the numbers pan out as I would hope, a second or third place showing could leave Senator Thompson with a recipe for success: fund-raising momentum and tangible, growing ground support.

For, what its worth, I predict a second place finish for Senator Thompson today, grasping about 19% of the South Carolina vote.

I would recommend heading over to Blogs For Fred Thompson today. It is a very informative site for FredHeads. Moreover, during each of the major primaries, they open a thread where intelligent, informed, conversation transpires amongst interested followers. They also link to the best sites for real-time result tracking. Head over to the Blogs For Fred Thompson, wait for the discussion thread to open up and join me and others in tracking this momentous occasion.

Now to Something Sadly Disheartening...

Last weekend, I was driving home from my National Guard drill. When driving I prefer to listen to talk radio. Doing so seems to expedite the traveling. Driving north on I-275 in Tampa, I passed a vehicle with a bumper sticker advertising their talk radio station of choice. I am choosing not to advertise on their behalf so I will keep the station identity to myself. I decided to give the station an attempt; to see what it was all about. Alas, I turned it on and was quickly greeted with a call-in show flooded with liberal rhetoric. I followed the show nonetheless. For the most part, everything I heard was typical critical banter that one would expect from a show overtly dedicated to ideals of the Left. Then, one caller said something that really made me think:

“Barack Obama is my choice for President. He would bring pride in nation back to Americans.”

This ideology has been spinning in my head since I heard it that day. I hate to throw around the derogatory “Blame America First” designation, but I can hardly think of a better way to describe such a perspective. That the host of the show only agreed and encouraged such discourse is simply salt in a savage wound. Here is the question that I pose in response:

“Why do you need a Presidential candidate to cement your pride in America?”

Maybe it is because I have fairly substantial first-hand knowledge of the events, but I find it difficult to have anything but pride for a country that is willing to take a lead in defeating the most ferocious threats of our time. We are a country that is doing everything in our power to liberate and empower a foreign people. We are surely making mistakes in a tough period of time, but no mistakes are significant enough to dampen my pride in the United States.

Moreover, we are doing all of this while leaving the average American alone. I can nearly guarantee that the caller has little connection to the “inconveniences” of the world around her. No military draft has been instituted. The Patriot Act may have cramped civil liberties to a certain degree but the effects felt by the average American are minimal at best. Security is tighter at airports but most rational people would substitute taking aboard a plane their Venti Latte for the satisfaction on knowing that their flight is as secure as possible.

So why this lack of pride?

The Democratic Party depends upon a growing discourse of hate towards America by Americans to ensure political success.

When I fight with U.S. Army on my chest, I am happy of whom I represent. Apparently, patriotism is a value that has gone absent from the modern Left.

Administrative Notes

I just wanted to make readers aware of a few sites.

First, a couple of university friends and I conduct a radio show on the University of South Florida’s WBUL network. The topics center on sports. We entertain callers and attempt to provide informed analysis of sports both local and national. You can listen live or download the podcasts here: The Power Hour. Shows air Thursday nights, six to seven p.m. (Eastern).

Also, one of those above-mentioned roommates has begun a blog of his own. It also deals with sports and is located here : The State of the Sports Nation.

Delays between posts here at Educated Soldier may increase for the time being as I am tackling a new exciting term of school. I will attempt, however, to be diligent about posting. Until then, enjoy the primaries in South Carolina and Nevada.

The Growing Significance of the Youth Voting Bloc...

...and the Republican Party's disregard for it.

A memo has been circulating amongst Republican National Committee officials. Its subject is the voting trends of young people. Unfortunately, the data indicates that my generation is moving in alarming numbers towards candidates from the Democratic Party.

• A total number of 65,230 individuals between the ages of 17 (rules in Iowa state that you only have to be 18 by the date of the national presidential election to vote) and 29 participated in the Iowa caucuses. From that number, over 52,000 caucused on behalf of Democratic Party candidates!

• 37% of the voters in the New Hampshire primary were under the age of 29. This is a significant percentage. Unfortunately, 61% of those individuals voted for a Democratic candidate.

(All numbers via Tech Republican)


Young people undoubtedly decided the winners in both New Hampshire and Iowa!


Discourse could be held endlessly concerning why these noteworthy trends continue to express themselves. My knee-jerk reaction, as a member of the demographic in focus, would be this: my generation responds well and actively to passion, rhetoric, and well-tuned speeches. Like youth movements of the past, suggested “change” (as manifested historically in “counter culture,” “revolution,” etc) motivates mass support. On the other hand, tough policy discussion with less entertainment value finds deaf ears among my peers.


However, these are all insignificant details in comparison to the single largest deterrent prohibiting young people from endorsing Republicans. The G.O.P. doesn’t attempt to engage the youth movement!!


Something can be done to counter these trends. I do all I can. I have interested my friends in politics. They watch the debates. They are informed participants. By showing them how to become informed, I have noticed that they cease their support for the candidates of empty rhetoric.


My observations have proved that the key to swaying young people from the Democratic Party to Republicans is to get these young people truly informed on the stances of the candidates.


Coverage of the campaigns of the individuals from the two parties depicts mirror opposites. Republicans visit coffee shops and town diners. The Democrats are exciting university campuses and other hang-outs of young adults.


If our demographic is going to be taken seriously as a voting bloc (and the data suggest that it should), the candidates have to physically attempt to engage us.


Let’s bring the Republican candidates to university campuses! I encourage each Republican candidate to address student bodies, engage the youth movement personally, inform and, thus, gain the support of this hitherto inaccessible voting community.


In this effort, I am forwarding this message to every individual that I feel can be accommodating to this effort. I encourage you to do the same. A fraternity brother of mine sits on my university’s lecture committee. Most of us receive mailings from our preferred candidates’ national and local campaign committees. Contact the leaders of these forums and encourage them to bring their candidates to the young people.


Let’s engage all of these individuals and bring the candidates to the campuses. I will do my best to coordinate a speech by Senator Thompson prior to the January 29th Florida Republican primary. The coordination should not be difficult. The candidate desires to be heard and requires the support of the under-29 crowd to be successful. Campuses like the University of South Florida (with an enrollment greater than 40,000) are likely to be home to individuals prepared to listen.


What we can do is make this happen. What we can not do is continue to allow Republican candidates to bypass significant support that has been empirically shown to strongly influence the outcome of the early primaries!

To Catch Bin Laden

While I can fully understand if the average reader has grown tired of the typical opining that one can find here at Educated Soldier of a young man in favor of his chosen Presidential candidate, I encourage you to stay with me one more time. I only have a single brief observation to make on behalf of Senator Fred Thompson and then I want to move on to a wholly original topic.


About Fred Thompson: When I watch debates, I attempt to take the perspective of a neutral viewer. In my own skin and through my own eyes, it is quite difficult to be impartial. That being the case, I attempt to perceive the candidates’ performances as if I were viewing through my mother’s eyes. While my mother is virtuous and knowledgeable enough, I would suggest that my convictions are much more engraved than her own.


And, thus, she tends to be more “naive,” or “impartial.”


Acknowledging her sentiment, I can see why people have not caught on to Fred Thompson’s message. The same reasons that cause me to adore Fred Thompson as a candidate are the reasons that the less politically attentive fail to get excited by him. I trust Fred Thompson because he shoots straight and speaks honestly. The average voter, however, doesn’t seem to value straight-shooting as much as they value passion. It doesn’t seem to matter what a candidate says as much as it matters how he / she says it.


The media has developed this connotation that Fred Thompson is lazy. As long as that connotation exists, the average viewer will interpret Thompson’s calm debate performances as lacking passion. The denotation (that you and I as Thompson supporters understand) is that Thompson is calm because he is running his campaign on substance rather than emotion.


I am disappointed to be a member of a generation that rallies around hollow words delivered emotionally (in the case of, say, Senator Obama and Governor Huckabee) than around an individual that has actual plans to improve America’s condition (see Thompson’s detailed plans for social security and tax reform, et. al).


I admit it: I see why the “average Joe” isn’t fired up by Fred Thompson. Being just as honest, I must confess that I am saddened - as a sacrificing American soldier - that “average Joes” would declare their support for mere rhetoric when much more genuine substance exists.




Moving on…




Call me “crazy,” but I want to be the Secretary of Defense for these United States of America. During the Fox News Republican Forum, I heard Senator McCain suggest that he has a plan for catching Osama Bin Laden. I can not hold the distinguished Senator to that claim. However, I can argue that I have a successful plan that I would implement should I, hypothetically, assume the role of Secretary of Defense.


I know it sound crazy but please follow with me.


Alright, foremost, as Secretary of Defense, I would focus most of my attention on the most important individuals that we have fighting on America’s behalf in the Global War on Terrorism. These are America’s Special Operations Forces.


As the new Secretary of Defense, I would double the size of the Combat Applications Group (“CAG,” Special Forces Operational Detachment – Delta, “Delta Force,” what have you). I would leave half the squadron under the command of SOCOM. The other half I would put under the direct control of the Pentagon. And, when I say “under the control of the Pentagon,” I mean it in the sense that half the squadron would answer only to the Secretary of Defense (me) and his (my) most trusted advisors – very, very few levels of management.


Both halves of the C.A.G. squadron would have equal training. I only want individuals who are ready for today’s fight. And today’s fight occurs in remote regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan. C.A.G. would be knee-deep in men that train and desire nothing more than to live in arduous conditions, sleep in caves (or less), and terminate the enemy.


I want individuals who speak the language and understand the culture. They would live the culture. They would be able to develop actionable intelligence. And by quickly dialing SOCOM or the Pentagon, they would have instant authorization to act on the knowledge that they gained. The key to catching high value targets is the elimination of delay between gaining intelligence and acting decisively on it! With less micro-management, my Combat Applications Group would have Osama and the top heads of Al Qaeda dead or in custody in just a few months.


The above-described plan would be key to my success as Secretary of Defense. My next step would be to continue to the current re-modularization of the military into a force that can operation autonomously at the brigade level and below.


I would increase our Special Operations Forces. I would ENSURE that the Army’s Special Forces Groups are language and culture proficient. I would disregard all Special Operations Generals and Admirals who are only proficient in direct action missions. If I was Secretary of Defense, no one would command SOCOM (or any SOF element) unless they could command troops in the implementation of foreign internal defense, unconventional warfare, and other SOF-particular missions; proficiency solely in counter-terrorism or direct action does not equate a SOF – qualified leader.


The infantry battalions in the 82nd Airborne Division, the 101st, the Marines, etc… their direct action capabilities would be sharpened to their utmost. I want these infantryman conducting the reactionary missions; not my SOF personnel. SOF gathers and reacts instantaneously.


The misuse of Special Operations Forces is the single most devastating mistake being made in the War on Terror.


I would work hand-in-hand with diplomatic and intelligence agents. I would rebuild the military intelligence networks of days gone by. For every ambassador, there would be a Special Forces team with language or cultural knowledge to work cooperatively. I would encourage the CIA, DIA, et. al, peers to work as a team to develop any and all data in every area, whether friendly or foe…


And that’s about it.


I am 24 years old. I study religious and international studies at the University of South Florida. I have ambition to be a National Guard Special Forces soldier after attending law school. I would like to be a congressman. These are all goals and I am but determined and young. Yet, I believe that all I posed tonight in this alcohol-inspired rant could truly be implemented to better secure the world’s greatest nation.

Condolences

It’s past two in the morning…

I am tired…

I was ready to go to bed when I found the following link:

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/01/andy-olmsted.html

I have no connection to the author of the blog nor the soldier in reference. I knew nothing of the situation until I clicked the same link above that I plead to you to now access…

This is a heart-wrenching story… Tiredness seems less nagging; politics less important…

I see a lot of myself in the Major…

Please read; my condolences to those left behind

Knee-Jerk Reaction to the Iowa Results

Ladies and gentlemen,


It is getting late and I am still awaiting the final precincts to come in with the results of their Republican caucus votes in Iowa. Moreover, I just completed a tiring week that culminated an arduous (albeit thoroughly enjoyable) month. However, before resting tonight, I feel that I absolutely have to address what occurred tonight in Iowa and in the world of American politics as we finally begin to tangibly select our next President.


I genuinely hope that the passion that I have for these events, the Iowa caucuses and the choosing of our next Commander in Chief, is as evident in this blog as it is in my heart right now.


There is hardly anything that gives me such thrill and anxiety as sports. Yet, tonight as I watched rather impatiently for the political results from Iowa to trickle in, I found my heart pounding and my excitement level on par with what I felt in El Paso on Monday after traveling 2000 miles to watch my university’s football team play in the Sun Bowl. I take pride in cheering on USF’s Bulls in college sports; I am a passionate fan of the NFL’s Eagles. These teams give me such pride and, when they lose, I take their defeat personally. I found myself facing similar feelings tonight. My interest for the caucuses in Iowa was not in passing. It was genuine passion; the same inner fire that I long thought only sport could provoke.


I am relating this passion for a reason. Much is often said of the importance of the “next” generation. Rallies seem to always develop around the concept that there always exists a group of young people that symbolize the future of our country. I genuinely feel that I am a member of this group that represents America’s next leaders. Whether that leadership will be on a battlefield, a corporate setting, a court room, political space, or merely among the neighborhood watch, I feel that I will be there to help take charge and lead the way.


From that perspective of America’s “next” generation of leadership, with the intense desire to contribute to a process so important that it decides the next leader of the Free World, I plead to all readers to please be at least sympathetic to the charge in which I stand so passionately.


There is no hiding that I unequivocally back a single candidate in the running to become the next President of the United States. The endorsement for Fred Thompson is obviously apparent through the images and continued rhetoric on this site. And tonight, I am going to make an impassioned plea on his behalf. However, I would hate for a reader to judge me as partisan or closed to the ideas presented by the others running. In fact, I would love to be the first to congratulate Barack Obama tonight.


In the delivery of his victory speech tonight, I heard one of the more moving political speeches of my young life. The grand ideology that Senator Obama represents is truly moving. I think his elevation to genuine viability as a Presidential candidate is great for America. I am nearly saddened that I disagree so fully with the political platform on which he stands because he is a great and passionate campaigner. I think there is a place in a Republican-led executive for him and the country would be better for it.


However, with that being said, I stand staunchly behind my belief that Senator Fred Thompson is the best qualified candidate to become America’s next President. And, leaving Iowa’s caucuses, I feel that he is in a good position to win the Republican nomination yet.


Here is my theory.


Governor Huckabee did not win the endorsement of Iowa’s Republicans tonight. He received the endorsement of Iowa’s evangelical types. Withdraw the votes of these individuals (whose presence is not nearly as evident in most other states), and the Republican caucus was little more than a wash between Huckabee and Romney with Thompson and Senator McCain close behind. Looking at the results that way, and Huckabee’s victory becomes much less significant.


Now we face an important upcoming debate and then the voting in New Hampshire. While Senator Thompson has no opportunity to place in New Hampshire where he has not campaigned, the debates and the dialogue surely to surface should do little more than tear Huckabee down. ALL of the Republican candidates will now be gunning for Governor Huckabee and his weak conservative record should become obvious. Despite that, either he or Senator McCain should still topple Romney in New Hampshire. This should indicate the beginning of the end for Romney’s campaign.


This all leads to South Carolina’s primary where Senator Thompson is in a position to do very well. He polls well in the southern state and voters there appreciate his long-proven conservative values. However it pans out, the G.O.P. field is wide open and as a candidate that appeals to the party’s base, Thompson looks to undoubtedly move up in the future primaries. But he is going to need help.


And this plea for help is why I write tonight with so much passion.


Senator Thompson’s political ability is strong enough to allow him to seize the Republican Party’s nomination. This is in the best interest of the party, in the best interest of America’s “next” leaders, and in the best interest of the country. What Senator Thompson lacks is monetary assets. I can only do so much. I contribute financially small amounts whenever my college student budget allows. Senator Thompson needs the financial support of those with greater ability to contribute than I. I beg passionately that those that are able to do so contribute to this campaign.


The battle of principles will not prevent Senator Fred Thompson from capturing the White House. He is only limited by the depths of his treasury. It would be such a shame to see such a viable candidate with a potential for victory to have to impede his campaign because of the limitations of money.


Let’s continue to support our candidate. Tonight was a good night for Fred Thompson, the Republican Party and, ultimately, the United States of America. From a passionate, youthful supporter, I encourage you to help make tomorrow just as successful!!

Career Army Officer to Run Against Murtha!!!

Today’s post may be a little scatterbrained. I am a bit distracted by my attempts to keep tabs on a wild Eagles game. However, I just got the heads-up on a story that surely will go unnoticed by the mainstream media but is of great value nonetheless. I think this is a news story that fellow conservatives can (and should) really get behind.


Ladies and Gentlemen, I want to encourage you all to spread the name of William T. Russell. Mr. Russell is running for the House seat in Pennsylvania’s 12th Congressional District. This is the seat currently held by Democrat John Murtha. Murtha, despite being a former Marine himself, has delivered more rhetoric on behalf of our enemies abroad than nearly any other individual. Regardless of the service that Representative Murtha dedicated to America while in the Corps, the damage he has done while in Congress has been far more influential. I feel I need to digress no further on the damage that has been encouraged by Murtha save stating emphatically that he must be removed from power!!


And Mr. Russell seems to be a wonderful choice to replace him.


Russell is a career Army officer having served around the world and in the Pentagon. His tours of duty include time in Iraq. He understands the military of TODAY. Moreover, Mr. Russell’s website depicts a platform deep in conservative values: adherence to Adam Smith-inspired free-market values, implementation of the fair tax, dedication to the right to bare arms, willingness to give charity rather than welfare, etc.


Most importantly, however, one should keep in mind, again, that Russell is a modern Army officer. Representative Murtha served in the military of YESTERDAY. Murtha served in a military where commanders denied ground-truths to, instead, better serve the whims of individuals in Washington. And yet, amazingly, Murtha has developed into one of those very individuals in Washington trying to influence a war that has dynamics that Murtha continues to be ignorant. I sense that Mr. Russell will be a needed voice of change.


Pennsylvania’s 12th needs an individual like Bill Russell. And America’s troops abroad need the removal of Representative Murtha. Please spread the word! I think this is a cause worth supporting!


Here is an ARTICLE concerning Mr. Russell’s upcoming bid.
William T. Russell’s website HERE


Yesterday’s Educated Soldier post about the current standards of higher education accessible HERE.

A Semester's Reflection

It has been a while since I have written here at Educated Soldier focusing on the sort of subject matter that follows. I know that many people that read here, do so because my situation in life allows me to provide a fresh glimpse on American academia that many have either missed or are far removed. So, today, I would like to reflect and talk a little about higher education (from the perspective and experiences of the minority – the conservative, war veteran student). If you are more interested in reading my current views on politics (which, of course, I love to discuss) please check out my two latest updates, accessible HERE and HERE.


I would encourage you to continue reading with an open mind. While reflecting upon the courses that I completed this past semester, I am also attempting to present questions for reader consumption. I would hope that these questions would be intriguing enough to stimulate broad, intelligent, and interesting discourse. PLEASE, feel free to comment at the conclusion.


SHAMELESS PLUG


First a self-congratulatory note: I received my grades from this past semester yesterday and was happy to see that I had received the full 4.0. So, to date, I have completed around 65 credit hours and have maintained a cumulative 3.8 GPA. I am proud of my collegiate success and genuinely enjoy all that it means to be a university student.


THE INTERESTING


Besides a course in Arabic that I took during my freshman year, this past semester has had the most demanding classes. The most challenging was also the class that I found the most interesting, “Development of Religious Studies.” Because of budget constraints, the class was actually a combined graduate / undergraduate course. Both levels read the same texts; the graduate students simply had more demanding work requirements.


The dilemma that developed with this class: I tackled such a large selection of material that I left knowing too little about too much. The course was designed to introduce the budding religious studies scholar to the interdisciplinary dynamic of their chosen academic field. In an attempt to meet this objective, students were directed to read material from a wide arrange of contributors; from sociologists to anthropologists, from psychologists to phenomenologists, and so on. I read excerpts from many famous scholarly thinkers including Hume, Tylor, Spencer, Frazier, Freud, Jung, Berger, Otto, etc. However, with minor exceptions, I can no longer recite with confidence any of the particulars of the individual proposed theories. Instead, I left the class with this all-encompassing thought:


Everyone has a theory concerning what religion is, how it should be studied, where and how it developed, and what affect it has on society.


Despite the “fog” that remains from the depth of the class material, there are general principles presented by the scholars that warrant discussing. For example, I have found that the origin of religion is much more complex (and even more interesting) than one would first conclude. There is the suggestion, for example, that religion grew as a tool for man to use to manipulate nature. In this theory, religion replaced the shortcomings of magic. The end-result presented in this theory is that, eventually, science will replace religion as the only adequate tool in man’s desire to control / understand nature.


There are others that suggest that religion is a phenomenon that grew from the ancient totem worship. Totem worship, in turn, grew from the father-obsessions in patriarchal communities. Still others would describe religion in a wholly different manner. I do remember this: Berger described religion as the externalization of one’s inner self. Man needs “ultimate man” (my terminology, not Berger's) to endlessly strive after. So, in god, we have ultimate happiness, complete lack of sin; all the things that “regular” man cannot be in the presence of the omnipotent god (but could be, in fact, should the omnipotent god not exist as a measurement of the ideal).


And, of course, there are those like Hume. He - although a believer in a god himself - claimed that religion developed from early man’s fears. Man had to explain why he feared death and sickness and other not-apparently justified phenomena. Religion provided the explanations.


While I found interest and criticisms with all of the presented theories, I am in no position in my still early studies to make a conclusion with any sort of conviction. The origin of religion is something that will always be in debate. Perhaps, I will never be able to present a conclusion that I will be able to stand behind whole-heartedly. Are there any out there more candid in their theories? Please, direct your comments at the appropriate place below. I am genuinely interested in the available discourse.


It was in another religion class that I “learned” the most. “Introduction to Judaism” was offered as an upper-level course and was only an introduction in the sense that a completely Judaism-ignorant student could successfully tackle the course material. The workload, however, was that of an advanced religious studies major course (which it was). While Dr. Neusner has since left USF, I would encourage you to read about him HERE or HERE to see the legacy that he has left in the religious studies department here; especially in the field of Judaism. My professor for “Introduction” was, for better or worse, the young scholar following in the footsteps of the highly (and internationally) influential Dr. Neusner.


That Judaism-ignorant student described above was I prior to this semester. While far from an expert now, upon the conclusion of the class, I feel that I could enter a conversation concerning Judaism and at least listen with some level of comprehension. I gained the most knowledge from this class because I entered knowing so little about the subject matter. What’s interesting, however, is the question that was left to linger from the class:


What is the essence of Judaism?


The class was very thorough and, through directed readings, conversations, and lectures, we traveled through the many stages of the Jewish tradition. Study focused on the Israelites, the Temple eras, Exodus/Diaspora influences, post-Temple Rabbinic Judaism, Middle-Age Philosophical Judaism, Enlightenment Judaism, the effects of the Holocaust, the influence of Israel, and the modern traditions (Reconstruction, Orthodox, Conservative, etc). Because it is such a highly developed tradition, I again refer to the question above.


What is the essence of Judaism? And how would the different actors in Judaism answer this question? I am sure that the answer presented by Rashi would be vastly different than that suggested by Maimonides, both of whom would surely disagree with Mordecai Kaplan’s response. Is it about spiritualism? Is it about dedication to duty; the mitzvoth? How about common study of the Torah? It sure seems that the essence of Judaism is held at the level of the believer. This dynamic particular to Judaism (at least of the Abrahamic religions) is, perhaps, what I found most interesting this past semester.



THE CONTROVERSIAL



Finally, I would like to discuss the most contentious of classes that I completed this past semester. As an international studies major at USF, a core class in our curriculum is “International Issues and Actors.” One can imagine the material covered in class: The influence of actors such as states (nations, countries), transnational corporations, non-government organizations, government organizations (think: the U.N.), et. al and the importance of issues such as world health, global poverty, international economics, etc.


What you probably could not imagine is how strongly my professor made the case for socialism throughout the semester. At one point, in fact, we were subjected to an hour-long video that told how badly capitalism has left the condition of third-world countries. Of course, the video skipped capitalism’s many successes: such as (among so much else) encouragement of growth, production, and research.


The professor, a scholar from Sierra Leone was off-the-wall. He was, more or less, a nice guy but he spent entirely too much time speaking “tongue-in-cheek” about the apocalyptic calamities confronting the world. “Tongue-in-cheek” with quotations because he was deadly serious. However, the professor recognized the level of absurdity in his beliefs and also realized that lecturing on such theories without doing so sarcastically would surely result in the termination of his tenure.


Worse, his mid-term exam contained such nuggets of importance as these questions: During the first six months following the invasion, Operation Iraqi Freedom had cost the U.S. how much? And: What is the name of President Bush’s foreign policy initiative in regards to weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Which, I swear to you, the answer was “Wishful Thinking.”


At least international studies programs in America’s south aren’t pandering to the same left-wing biases as their counterparts at institutions in the north….



THE CONCLUSION (a.k.a. The REAL Value of a College Education)



Oddly, despite my objections to the professor’s personally held convictions, I still escaped the class with the highest grade of all students. I know this because he made it a point to post the grades after each test anonymously. The highest grade each time would be presented along with the number of people that received that grade. Each time, there was only one recipient for the highest grade. Each time, it was I.


Do I tell you this to gloat? Absolutely.


While I tend to gather a wealth of useful knowledge and intellectual stimulation from my religious studies classes, my international studies classes teach me a far greater skill: How to play the game.


Should I hope to be successful upon completion of collegiate studies I am sure that my proven ability to read those persons in positions to assess me and then perform adequately to their expectations will far overshadow my ability to describe Hume’s theories on religion.


That’s sort of sad.

Questioning the Motives of Roger Simon, et al.

Roger Simon, for those of you not aware, is the chief political columnist over at Politico. Typically, I head over to their site to read the work of Jonathan Martin. He updates multiple times a day concerning the latest developments on the Republican side of the Presidential race. You can access his work HERE.


However, it was Simon that caught my attention during my latest visit to Politico. On the front page of the site was another hit piece of his directed at Senator Fred Thompson.


Today, I would like to address characters like this Mr. Simon fellow. Individuals like Simon have a single criticism that they repeatedly express concerning our candidate of choice, Senator Thompson: He’s lazy.


And, I have a simple response: If true, so what?


What’s interesting is that none of the supporters of the other Republican candidates ever challenge Senator Thompson on any authentic, important, Presidential issues. Indeed, it would be reckless for Romney or Giuliani followers to question Thompson’s plan to fix the Social Security system because, quite frankly, their chosen candidates do not have plans of their own. Another example: Even Senator McCain, whom I generally approve of, fails to challenge Thompson on principle. Would Senator McCain like to battle over illegal immigration with Thompson with the conservative base at stake? I think not.


Time does not permit comparing conservative candidates soup to nuts, so allow me to summarize: Republican Steve King (Iowa) received a 100% rating from the American Conservative Union in its latest assessments. Congressman King endorsed Fred Thompson. Moreover, Senator Thompson, himself, maintained a near 90% lifetime rating from the ACU. Thompson is, unquestionably, the conservative choice.


Yet, failing to damage candidate Thompson on any sort of policy issues, critics like Simon continue to bring up this tried-and-failed connotation of “laziness” for the former Senator. Thompson has successfully overstepped this issue by citing a prolific career that seems to prohibit laziness by its very productive nature.


Yet, I will ask this concerning the deemed “laziness”: Are we attempting to elect the nation’s next best campaigner? Or, are we trying to find the individual best suited to be the next President?


Is a perceived “weak” campaign that effective of a criticism? It is not.


This is petty politics people. I beg of anyone that reads: Please do not permit the influence of individuals like pundit Simon to cloud the candidacy running less on showmanship and more on solid policy. Please keep in mind what’s really important when electing the next President of the United States.

Am I Taking Crazy Pills!?!?!

As the build-up to the Iowa caucuses develops and poll results become more closely scrutinized, one thing is becoming all too apparent: biases and “favorites” are quickly (and sadly) trumping rationality.


As I support this argument, I implore you to understand that I am doing my best to set my own affiliations aside. That is to say that while I wear my Republican association on my sleeve, I am also willing to concede that there are Democrats who would clear the filter that I am about to present; for example, Joe Biden.


Point being: petty politics of much too little value continue to hold too much significance in the context of the harsh environment that will confront whomever becomes our next president.


Unfortunately, while that sentiment seems all too plausible to me (and others), for some* (*many) the dangers of reality simply are not important enough to surpass the “significance” of political influence.


Allow me to put forth a premise that I believe should be perceived as true universally: the single most important issue in this upcoming election will be national security. All things considered, national security is the foundation in which all other issues develop. For example, the hot button topic of the recent debates has been illegal immigration. However, illegal immigration, at its core, is essentially a national security issue. At the topic’s fringes, it is an economic and moral issue. Even so, without sound national security, the most devastating of economic or moral conditions matter naught. Nothing will demand the attention of the next President with so much regularity as the continuous protection of the citizens that he governs. National security is the issue.


For the sake of argument (and, more importantly, because I genuinely believe that I am correct), let us hold this premise to be true. If candidates are more or less equal on all other issues, national security should be the delineating factor. At the very least, let us not support candidates whom express vast weaknesses in their national security abilities. It blows my mind that six years removed from September 11th, 2001 and the American people are rallying behind Presidential candidates such as Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama.



And let me state this forthright: the opposition to Huckabee and Obama is not the product of some long-steaming bias. For example, it is not the case with either of these candidates that I would suggest that I would forego my continued career in the military because of their hypothetical Presidencies. This is to suggest that, in short, neither of these two individuals is as bad for our country as Hillary Clinton. In fact, I will even go so far as to suggest that in a different time and environment either of these men could make for a fine President. Albeit, they would both be Presidents with traits (in one case socially and the other fiscally) that I disagree. But I imagine that in a world with far less prominent threats to America, these gentlemen could successfully lead the nation.


But not now.


Seriously, I spent nothing more than a couple years in the Middle East and South Korea and have studied international/religious affairs as an undergraduate. Yet, at 24 years old (yesterday) and wet behind the ears, I truly believe that I could hold my own in a debate against Mike Huckabee on foreign affairs. Senator Obama would probably fare better. “Better” in the sense that a Senator-turned-Presidential-candidate would only satisfactorily defeat a snotty kid in a debate focusing on the quintessential issue of the upcoming Presidency.


This is ridiculous.


And please, do not lob the “homer” title at me yet. I am not suggesting unequivocally that Fred Thompson is the strongest candidate on national security. In fact, if the measurement is international policy knowledge alone, I am sure that Duncan Hunter is the most qualified candidate. Of course, Senator McCain is also extremely strong on national security. And even from the Right, I must admit that there is merit to be given the man that is Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, (D) Joe Biden. And, surely, I do feel that Senator Thompson is also fully qualified. Any of these candidates could ably navigate America through the turbulent waters ahead. There is no proof absolutely to suggest the same optimism for Obama and Huckabee.


And, as an aside, I do not believe that successfully upholding a community and, yes, a nation following the worst terrorist attacks to be launched against out country necessarily makes one a strong defender of national security. Mayor Giuliani has been successful at turning his ability to crush Mafiosos and heal a city with rhetoric into some sort of amazing foreign affairs guru-type image. This immediate association that is so apparent to others escapes me.



Nonetheless, the “momentum” of national security juniors Huckabee and Obama builds. A voting bloc so ignorant to the enormity of the national security issue at hand has me screaming from the roof tops in confusion, “Am I taking crazy pills?!?!?!”

PERSONAL SIDE NOTE:

To those that follow with any regularity, I am spending the holiday season in the D.C. area and am, in fact, staying on Capitol Hill currently and until the 27th. It is nice to have a change of the season’s weather for Christmas, and it is also nice to find a politically charged climate in which to engage in lively discussion.

The Educated Soldier's Take on the G.O.P. Debate

It was surely my intention to respond to the G.O.P. presidential debate that occurred last night in St. Petersburg more quickly. However, school matters delayed my response until tonight. As a benefit of this delay, however, I have been able to digest the entire broadcast, reconsider its contents a few times, and I should now be able to produce something more worthwhile than had I simply written a quick, “from the gut” response.

However, before I begin with my analysis on the debate, I would be remiss to fail to mention the most surprising, if not extraordinary, news that I have read in a while. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports that stalwart anti-Iraq War Congressman John Murtha has identified the surge in Iraq to be “working.” Of course, those of us with ties to the soldiers on the ground reported these successes months ago. Credit should go out to endeavoring journalists such as Michael Totten and Michael Yon who, from their embedded positions, have been attempting to convince a skeptic American public of the on-ground truths occurring in Iraq. You can access the John Murtha article HERE.

ON TO THE DEBATE

Reflecting on the big-picture aspect of the G.O.P CNN/YouTube Debate, I must comment that this was the most entertaining, cut-throat presidential debate that I have witnessed in some time. Others seemed to have agreed. TV Newser reports that this debate has been the most watched thus far in the campaign.

While I am prepared to declare clear winners and losers walking away from the event, I want to first make a larger observation. IT’S A SHAME… It’s a shame that so much of American politics hinges on some abstract concept declared “electability.” I say this because I identified two candidates during the debate that may be the best for America. My assessment may come as a surprise as I continue to be a Fred Thompson supporter, but I value my integrity more than my biases. That being said, I genuinely think that both Mike Hucklebee and Duncan Hunter may be the “best” for America. In this sense, I prefer Hunter, all things being equal, over Hucklebee. Despite his on-screen time being limited by his lower status as a candidate, Hunter demonstrated that his knowledge of foreign affairs is far greater than any of the other candidates. In a time of growing global tensions, a man of his international expertise would be incredibly valuable as the President of the United States. And, of course, Hucklebee displayed the same charm last night that has so many excited that he could possibly unite a divided United States.

But, alas, they both lack a prerequisite quality: “electability.” I don’t know what defines this term because in most manners of affability and oratorical skill, Hucklebee proved superior last night to even Giuliani. However, this critical trait of electability that is missing, for whatever reason, from Hucklebee and Hunter has left them to ostensibly compete for the Vice President spot. In which case, I have Giuliani or Romney choosing Hucklebee as their running partner should either of them be granted the nomination and Thompson choosing Hunter should he gain such an opportunity.

Back to Giuliani: Reports that I have read so far commenting on the debate do not reflect my own observations. However, I find this to be true: Mayor Giuliani, more than any other candidate, hurt his chances last night. He started off petty with his personal attacks on Romney concerning illegal immigration. Giuliani had previously established a successful political career by maintaining self-assurance in the most difficult of situations. Nonetheless, last night I found him to be a bumbling mess. He stammered through his defense of New York City’s status as a sanctuary city. He was caught often looking down and uncomfortable. He lacked the professionalism and stately manner that we have come to associate with the Mayor. And, worst of all, he managed to alienate social conservatives in ways that he not in previous debates. His stances on gun control, immigration, and abortion caused him to travel further to the left on a night where all his opponents were fighting viciously to establish themselves as the true conservatives.

Approaching the debate, I found myself really disliking Romney as a conservative choice. However, last night I genuinely felt that he did a good job of establishing himself as steadfastly on the side of the Right. Romney’s performance for the initial hour-plus was the antithesis of Giuliani’s. He maintained calm, order, and clear confidence. I found myself buying into this image that he was selling. I was even ready to admit, sadly, that he responded well to Thompson’s attack ad. He seemed sincere in his plea that he is reformed in regards to his former Pro-Choice stance. In fact, I think he is, indeed, sincere on this topic. However, my overall assessment of Romney’s performance turns downward sharply when I reflect on how badly he handled the question concerning homosexuals in the military.

This issue of gays in the military is one very important to me. Romney’s response was problematic for two reasons: 1) His apparent stance against “Don’t Ask / Don’t Tell” is opposite of my own and 2) He seemed bullied by moderator Anderson Cooper when prodded to provide a concrete answer concerning his opinion on the manner. I think history will show that the question was a bogus one (as reports have shown) supplied by a Hillary Clinton campaign contributor which should tame the damage incurred by Romney on the issue. That question aside, of the major candidates, I have to admit that I left the program probably most impressed with Governor Romney.

Beginning the campaign, Senators Thompson and McCain were my two preferred choices. Thompson remains my choice. I feel that both of their performances last night were equal in effect. Thompson came across as very likable. Most interestingly, Thompson – the one considered to have the least legislative gumption – was the only candidate that I heard last night offering any authentic plans. He proposed authentic plans for Social Security and tax reforms. The other candidates broach the subjects but have no meat behind their rhetoric. Thompson does but, unfortunately, he receives no credit for his solid stances. It’s unfortunate. Thompson’s weakness was exposed when he occasionally and too obviously dodged questions. When asked of three agencies that he would remove from the federal government to curb spending, his answer was especially weak. Overall, however, I find myself satisfied with my choice for President.

For both McCain and Thompson, the problem was this: They performed well on a night when someone like Hucklebee performed superbly. While others favor Hucklebee’s response to the “What Would Jesus Do” question, I noted that Hucklebee’s off-the-cuff comment that he would send Hillary to Mars when questioned about potential funding increases for space-exploration particularly amusing. Had Hucklebee been less the focus of last night’s debate, I genuinely feel that both McCain and Thompson would have benefited more significantly from their quality performances.

I will even bother to mention Ron Paul for two reasons: 1) To point out that Senator McCain made a farce out of the Texas congressmen when arguing Paul’s isolationist tendencies and that 2) Paul caused me my only disappointment in my home state last night when a portion of the crowd cheered the option of a premature exit from Iraq.

I didn’t intend to complete this entire report sans a Tancredo reference. He didn’t do badly. His problem is that he seems to be a one-trick pony, relying on his heavy stance against all sorts of immigration solely. He was unsuccessful last night in presenting any indication that there exist other topics that he can use to gain footing in this election. Sadly, I think he fails even as a viable competitor in the Hucklebee / Hunter Vice President race.

So, there you have it: I’ll reluctantly give the debate victory to Mitt Romney. Hucklebee left the runner-up. I think the clear loser, despite the “experts” disagreeing, was Rudy Giuliani. McCain and Thompson motivated their bases but probably failed to extend them. Duncan Hunter failed to gain the face time that he probably deserved and suffered because of it. Congressman Paul didn’t convince any on the fence about him concerning his political sanity with his bumbling Mexico-to-Canada super highway madness. I guess, ultimately, Tancredo will look at this debate as an opportunity lost as I am sure he will be withdrawing soon.

And that’s it. Thanks for sticking with me. I hope this was informative.

Religion, Politics, Society, and Self-Identification

So I find myself at an interesting period of time. I am exiting a sabbatical from academic pursuits- the pause in my collegiate journey prompted by the Thanksgiving holiday. But, directly, I am entering an intensely rigorous scholastic period which will culminate with final exams at the end of the semester in a few short weeks. Meanwhile, so many outside interests are tugging at my focus that I feel like I am periodically going crazy and I couldn’t be happier about it.

Of those outside interests, the first I must mention is my University of South Florida Bulls football team which earned an invitation to the semi-prestigious Sun Bowl and an opportunity to play a yet to-be-determined Pac-Tem team. The game will be played in El Paso, Texas on New Years Eve and I have every intention of attending the game; figuring a method of funding such an endeavor is weighing heavily currently.

Meanwhile, I am still culling the situation with American University. They have offered me a pretty substantial financial package stoking any remaining desire to transfer there as early as this upcoming spring semester. While the likelihood of transferring so soon is null, I find myself keeping the option open because, perhaps, I am reminded of just how badly I wanted to attend AU just a few short months ago.

And then, on top of all that, I have another force tugging at me; my attempt to become Special Forces-qualified. I would argue that of all the factors building in my life currently, I have not thought about one as often or for as long as I have thought about this one. I am really obsessed with becoming an ODA team member. I could write volumes about my passion here and, in the future, via this medium, perhaps I may. However, I am simply mentioning this desire among the others to demonstrate how difficult it is currently to focus and compose something meaningful at an outlet such as this; Educated Soldier.

But this morning I will attempt to do just that.

In a religious studies course of mine that I find particular interest, it is the goal of the class to initiate the student into the varying methods of studying religion. Because of the sort of broad spectrum of subject matter, the student is exposed to a wide array of scholars. Because of this class, I have been reading Wach, Mueller, Frazer, Hume, Marx, Freud, Otto… etc. Through the works of these scholars, we are exposed to various techniques of understanding the phenomenon that is religion. It has become apparent that one can tackle religious thought through many scopes including those of history, anthropology, psychology, sociology, philosophy, theology, feminist theory and through many other disciplinary techniques.

The interesting part as related to the political nature of this blog is this: As I consider myself a budding “scholar” in the field of religion, I find my academic understanding of religion to be totally at odds with my most deeply held political stances. In a nutshell, I am finding that I hold to morals traditionally associated with Christianity but find Christianity, itself, to be – in all likelihood – false. Because of this contradictory dynamic, I want to consider the social evolution of religion as discussed by Frazer and William James.

Although this sort of synopsis completely shortchanges brilliant work, for our purposes I will explain the theories of Frazer and James in brief. Frazer argues that religion has developed as a social construct. Basically, early man developed certain mechanisms to understand the world in which he lived. When he found things to be tough to comprehend, he attributed their erratic behavior to magic. The answers that magic provided would soon be replaced by religion. Religion, however, eventually gave way to science which also answers some of the same basic questions about the world. Frazer might ask of the current world: With the abundance of science and technology available, why do religions continue to exist?

William James, on the other hand, diagnosed the need for religions psychologically. He compared religion to an opiate, a sort of pain killer that numbs man’s problems. James finds himself unsure through his academic pursuits about the legitimacy of real, genuine god(s). What he does recognize, however, is that people have genuine religious experiences and these experiences are highly significant for those undergoing them. James prescribes religion as a doctor does medicine. If religion allows you a happy vibrant life, than by all means, continue your faith. On the other hand, if the demands of your religious beliefs are battering you psychologically, it is wise to cease the source of the problems.

And, of course, both of these theories are tied to the sociological view that man produces his own religion. Berger and Feuerbach both do an outstanding job of solidifying theories that, more or less, suggest that man (actually society) creates religions from the internalized qualities of humans that are projected externally in the expression of god(s). And I mention all of these theories because, basically, I find myself agreeing with them. Here exists the problem.

Surely, many of the people that follow this site with any regularity might find it hard to believe that the author fails to agree on the existence of a god. I find the following dynamic peculiar: People tend to bind their beliefs in to pre-determined packages. This is to suggest that, historically, southern Christians tend to identify themselves as Republicans. As I travel through the university experience, I have come to realize that individuals who identify themselves as atheist, agnostic, or any way “counter-culture” in this regard identify with the Left. And then there is me.

While I find it easy to place myself into one of the pre-determined packages (I am explicitly and unapologetically Republican), I struggle with the details while inside. For example, turning away from religion as the focus, I can identify at times with Marx’s call for revolution. However, at the same time, I am completely baffled by his economical philosophy. Considering religion again, Marx suggests that – regardless of which religion you pursue – by fully placing oneself into such a belief system, one is enslaving themselves needlessly to their religion’s demands. I agree and I also agree that the revolutionary assailing of religion on philosophical grounds would be a welcome occurrence. But what Conservative, especially one that concurs so whole-heartedly with the economic principles presented by Friedman and Adam Smith, can walk in a path suggested by Marx? Moreover, on what grounds can one be fully Pro-Life yet both non-religious in nature and, admittedly, not moved by the “preciousness” of life? Can one despise abortion simply because of the moral standard that such an action produces? Finally, what is this nonsense about the lack of “atheists in foxholes” as they say? At the very least, I can promise that there has been at least one agnostic leaning forward in one of those very foxholes.

My original intention in writing this morning was to discuss the sociological aspects of religion because I find this method of studying religion fascinating. I guess, in some regards, I have met that objective. I can conclude on that topic by agreeing with the scholars mentioned above, many of whom would argue that religion is at least purposeful in the sense that it legitimizes the constructs that society creates. I would suggest that one keep in mind, however, that we (human beings) create society and are, therefore, responsible for the very values that lack the legitimacy that, apparently, only religion can provide.

The overwhelming result of this morning’s post however has been an attack on the methods through which we identify ourselves as humans. The attack wasn’t totally justified because I don’t find myself obsessing angrily about this particular human tendency with any regularity. But like so many other things that man does with or without observable rationalization, if this tendency was only overcome, man would be all the better off for its omission.

Anyway, hopefully, tomorrow I will be able to produce something a little less philosophical for those of you that didn’t find interest in this. I am hoping to add a response to the Republican debate that will be occurring, basically, in my backyard of St. Petersburg, Florida. See you then.

Pennsylvania Tackles the 2nd Amendment

So I feel that there are plenty of reasons to compel one to write this night (early morning):


I am currently reading an immensely intriguing book concerning a Jew’s experience in labor camp, entitled, Survival in Auschwitz; I was recently engaged on the listening-end of a very interesting lecture of what it means to be sociopathic (the discussion-worthy significance being that I found the description presented to be much like a description that I would present concerning my own psychological makeup; at least in as much as the description of the sociopath’s mentality was similar to what motivates me and what keeps that motivation often short-lived and highly sporadic); The surprising news, received today, that American University has awarded me a Dean’s Scholarship of 10,000 dollars per year despite the very fact that it is highly unlikely that I will ever attend the institution as an undergraduate; I could even discuss the satisfaction that grew when I received an email from an inexperienced soldier waiting to deploy to war – having found my work, my experiences, to be helpful in his own preparation. In fact, I can think of plenty more worthy to discuss including a detail as yet unmentioned that may be the most noteworthy:



I am currently celebrating the Thanksgiving week in the rustic and chilly Northeast. Have you never had the opportunity to celebrate late fall / early winter in this corridor of America, the great experience that you have missed. The Holiday Season captures this area like no other in America; only here does it seem full and real. In my parents’ yard, trees are in their autumn colors. Across an entirely subdued country highway lives a silenced and endless cornfield. Only in the Northeast, during this season, can overcast weather be accepted with so positive a reaction. Cars at night pass more deer and fox than vehicles of other humans. It’s an amazing place up here this time of year. Even outside of the rural area, should one enter the urban complexes, it becomes completely obvious that the Northeast assumes a new character during the Holiday Season. I can think of no place where I would choose to spend a Thanksgiving or Christmas Holiday than a location in the Northeastern United States.



However, despite the text that could be inspired by any of the factors above, I want to discuss something else. As a result of being in lower and western New Jersey currently, I have been watching the news from Pennsylvania. News from P.A. is the topic that I currently want to extend discourse.






Today (officially, yesterday), P.A.’s governor, Ed Rendell (D), traveled to Harrisburg to implore congress members through testimony to pass three separate bills concerning the sale of handguns. Each of the bills, expectedly, was restrictive in nature. The idea was to “get the guns off the streets.” While memory will prohibit me from being able to properly describe each of the bills (and my current slow internet connection is going to preclude the search for a hotlink), I can attest that none of the bills, at first glance, seemed particularly overbearing from the eyes of this NRA member. In fact, in light of Philadelphia’s exceedingly high homicide rate, I found the governor’s testimony to be genuine in its cause to protect citizens. Because of these feelings, I momentarily questioned my position concerning the second amendment and whether it should be limited. Now, I would like to explain why this moment of dubiety was a brief one indeed.



While personally considering these possible new laws (two of which were immediately rejected, the third tabled), two things became clear to me: 1) Laws prohibiting the sale of weapons only really inhibits those with lawful intentions and 2) That, although I am highly sympathetic to the problems that Philadelphia is having, I personally hold the problems as products of a city that has more dilemmas of moral decay than with the sale of handguns.



Concerning my first discovery, I present this: I find it highly likely that the persons whom committed the majority of the 300-plus murders this year in Philadelphia were of low economic class. If one is to agree with this premise, than it follows that one would also agree that such a person (the murderer) would be unlikely to purchase an expensive handgun by any sort of legal means. More likely, they obtained the weapons through means of a “black market,” or, in other terms, “off the streets.” If these premises are true, than by what means would someone conclude that adding more red-tape to the legal purchase of handguns would result in less violent crime? In fact, I would argue that by restricting well-intended people from purchasing arms themselves, the government is – in fact – causing them to become more susceptible to crime in places precisely like Philadelphia. Moreover, there exist citizens such as myself and former military personnel like me, whom would desire to purchase weapons of all sorts to use on ranges to hone skills that are critical to our chosen profession. Bills like those touted by Governor Rendell today only limit my ability to purchase a weapon and only limit another law-abiding citizen’s ability to protect him or her self.



My second conclusion derived from the contemplation concerning these bills is more controversial. However, I will proclaim highly from any mountaintop, despite the loudest of protests, that the welfare status that has gripped many of America’s most urban areas is also killing those cities. In places like Philadelphia there is a tear in the moral fabric that holds the rest of America tight. The economic condition of the people who tend to commit murders may be a common trait among the perpetrators but it is not the ultimate reason for their crimes. People are poor in many places. People don’t choose to kill each other at alarming rates in many of these other places. They do in Philadelphia because many of these people are developing values in dwellings that contain parents reliant solely on the government’s providing. Children are learning their morals in cities where it is acceptable practice to have abortions. Yet, nearly half of us outside of these scenarios want to restrict the weapons used in the crimes instead of attempting to improve the decency in the environment in which people are raising their children.



To me, it is ridiculous that bills concerning gun-laws are even still being considered these days. There is so much more on America’s plate. Yet a Governor chooses to testify on behalf of an action that will never have any working effect on the biggest crisis facing his state. What a joke. Once states figure out how to educate their children, teach them morals, and develop in these children a sense of responsibility for their decisions, we will see an America that doesn’t have slums like “Killadelphia.”






Of course, by realizing that I may be wrong, I immediately reflect on my fascination with presidential candidate Fred Thompson’s promise to reinvigorate federalism. This is something that I think is an extraordinarily important idea. It is also, however, something that will have to be discussed at a later time.



Thanks for reading…