Happy St. Patrick's Day!

Below is the real reason to celebrate St. Patrick’s Day.

The Prayer of St. Patrick or “Breastplate” of St. Patrick

I arise today
Through a mighty strength, the invocation of the Trinity,
Through the belief in the threeness,
Through the confession of the oneness
Of the Creator of Creation.

I arise today
Through the strength of Christ's birth with his baptism,
Through the strength of his crucifixion with his burial,
Through the strength of his resurrection with his ascension,
Through the strength of his descent for the Judgment Day.

I arise today
Through the strength of the love of Cherubim,
In obedience of angels,
In the service of archangels,
In hope of resurrection to meet with reward,
In prayers of patriarchs,
In predictions of prophets,
In preaching of apostles,
In faith of confessors,
In innocence of holy virgins,
In deeds of righteous men.

I arise today
Through the strength of heaven:
Light of sun,
Radiance of moon,
Splendor of fire,
Speed of lightning,
Swiftness of wind,
Depth of sea,
Stability of earth,
Firmness of rock.

I arise today
Through God's strength to pilot me:
God's might to uphold me,
God's wisdom to guide me,
God's eye to look before me,
God's ear to hear me,
God's word to speak for me,
God's hand to guard me,
God's way to lie before me,
God's shield to protect me,
God's host to save me
From snares of demons,
From temptations of vices,
From everyone who shall wish me ill,
Afar and anear,
Alone and in multitude.

I summon today all these powers between me and those evils,
Against every cruel merciless power that may oppose my body and soul,
Against incantations of false prophets,
Against black laws of pagandom
Against false laws of heretics,
Against craft of idolatry,
Against spells of witches and smiths and wizards,
Against every knowledge that corrupts man's body and soul.
Christ to shield me today
Against poison, against burning,
Against drowning, against wounding,
So that there may come to me abundance of reward.

Christ with me, Christ before me, Christ behind me,
Christ in me, Christ beneath me, Christ above me,
Christ on my right, Christ on my left,
Christ when I lie down, Christ when I sit down, Christ when I arise,
Christ in the heart of every man who thinks of me,
Christ in the mouth of everyone who speaks of me,
Christ in every eye that sees me,
Christ in every ear that hears me.

I arise today
Through a mighty strength, the invocation of the Trinity,
Through belief in the threeness,
Through confession of the oneness,
Of the Creator of Creation.

America in 1965: Religion, sex and what the secular left’s ‘theocrat’ charge misses

It has become commonplace in recent years for those on the left, especially those who are non-religious to accuse traditional religious people of attempting to impose their religious views on the rest of society. This is particular the case on matters related to sexuality such as abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage, abstinence only sex-education and so forth. Some of the more extreme voices on the left have resorted to labeling orthodox religious believers who voice their opinion on this issues in the public square “theocrats” or “Christianists” who seek to “roll back the clock” and put “fundamentalists” (a much abused and loosely used term) in charge of the government. Several liberal authors published books that made this argument during the presidency of George W. Bush. While the election of Obama has calmed down many liberals, this narrative remains dominant on the left and will likely remain so for years to come.

For orthodox Christians such as myself who are actually familiar with traditional Christian churches, the “theocrat” charge is clearly exaggerated. It seems more indicative of fear and an ignorance of religion on the left than the aspirations of orthodox Christians. Clearly there are those in the so-called “religious right” who have said and done some foolish things. And conservative Christians have often uncritically supported the Republican party, which in turn has done little for them. The ‘theocrat’ charge, however, is completely overblown and unfair. It only serves to automatically discredit one party and shut down discussion before it starts. But that may be the point anyway.

So what is the secular left missing in all this? To explain this, it is worth remembering what America was like in 1965. Why 1965? Because the United States in 1965 was a very different nation. Yet it was on the cusp on a number of social, cultural, and economic changes that shape contemporary American society today, especially its politics. By the end of 1965, president Johnson’s signature of the Civil Rights Act and Voters Right Act had ensured that Jim Crow segregation was on its deathbed. Johnson was also in the process of expanding the federal government with his “Great Society” programs and getting the nation knee-deep into Vietnam.
America in 1965 was still a nation with a strong industrial base. Computers were unknown in the workplace and had little impact on the way most business operated and the way most people lived. America was not dependent on foreign oil. The big three dominated the automobile industry and Japanese imports were not popular. Immigrants from Asia and Latin America were largely unknown. Far fewer Americans lived what is called “the sunbelt” today. Of course, all of this was about to change.

The same was true of American culture. In terms of religion, mainline Protestant churches were at the height of their influence. As the election of president Kennedy seemed to have shown, Catholics and Jews were largely accepted as part of the religious mainstream. Evangelicals and especially fundamentalists as well as agnostics and atheists were considered outside the mainstream. Nonetheless, only around 40% of the population attended religious services on a weekly basis and much of the population was only nominally religious. Religion, however, was generally seen as a good thing by most of society. America in 1965 had not yet experienced the counter-culture movement or the feminist movement. It had also not experienced the sexual revolution of the late 1960s and 1970s. Clearly the seeds of feminism and the sexual revolution were present in 1965. Alfred Kinsey’s ideas were far from unknown in academic circles, the FDA had approved the birth control pill, “Playboy” magazine was beginning to take off, and feminist icon Betty Friedan’s book “The Feminine Mystique” had been published.

In 1965, abortion was illegal to one degree or the other in every state in the Union. No fault divorce as unknown. Premarital sex was frowned upon as was having children outside of marriage. A couple who lived together before they were married would have been considered scandalous. Pornography was not common and was widely seen as immoral. Homosexual behavior was seen as immoral, unnatural, and psychologically abnormal. The idea of “gay marriage” was completely unknown and would have certainly been seen as utterly absurd. People who were religious, nominally religious and non-religious generally shared these attitudes. America was no utopia in the 1950s and early 1960s. But Americans of various political and religious persuasions shared a common set of ethical values with respect to human sexuality in 1965.

Your average atheist, agnostic, nominal religious person, or ‘progressive’ religious person in 1965 quite likely wouldn’t have supported the abortion laws we have today. They most likely wouldn’t have seen homosexual behavior as normal and won’t have dreamed of supporting “gay marriage.” For “gay marriage,” the same would be true in 1985 and in many cases in 1995. For Gen Xers and especially for Baby Boomers, all of this was well within their lifetimes. So were agnostics and atheists (say Ayn Rand) in 1965 and even beyond ‘theocrats’? Of course not. This is precisely why the ‘theocrat’ charge is so misplaced. It utterly lacks perspective and fails to acknowledge that the left has experienced sea changes with respect to how it sees human sexuality and sexual ethics .

The “culture wars” that we have experienced for so many years aren’t a result of “fundamentalist Christians” seeking to “impose a theocracy” on the rest of America. They have taken place because the left changed its beliefs so radically and much of the rest of American society, especially traditional religious believers did not. Traditional believers had this fight thrust upon them. They didn’t start it. In short, if we have a “culture war” it is one that the left started and continues to wage, all while propagating the myth that it is the other way around. There simply is no major effort to impose a “theocracy” on America. In fact, take away major issues associated with differences that have arisen over sexuality such abortion, gay rights, pornography, no fault divorce, permissive sex education programs, and the social acceptance of cohabitation and out of wedlock birth and the “religious right” would disappear over night. In other words, if you want to end the “culture wars” and bring American society to a point when there was a broad consensus on sexual ethics between almost all members of society, liberals and conservatives, religious, nominally religious, and non-religious, then take us back to the "status quo ante bellum." Take us back to 1965.

So what should the Republicans propose? Some suggestions

So if the Republicans weren’t nearly worthless and had any credibility, and if they had any ideas worthy of offering the public, what might they propose as an alternative to what the Democrats are currently doing? The Republicans should actually propose real conservative ideas, though tough economic times do require some ideological flexibility. It’s easy to be negative and sit back and criticize the Democrats. The Democrats did this for years with Bush. It didn’t help them any and made them appear as simply a bunch of nay-sayers. Some of their criticism of Bush were correct. But they didn’t go anywhere because they went over the top at times, came off as bitter and hateful, and above all didn’t have any new ideas or alternatives to offer. The Republicans need to avoid this and while in the opposition should offer a real alternative instead of just complaints. I would offer the following general suggestions:

1. Cut the size of the federal government, especially unnecessary programs.
2. Cut back our defense budget by reigning in our commitments abroad. We have no need of an Empire and it will bankrupt us in the long run.
3. We need to avoid too much government debt and inflation via printing money. There is a real possibility that some of the policies currently being pursued could weaken or even destroy the value of the dollar, which would be a disaster.
4. We need to do something about illegal immigration, the loss of industry, and our dependence on foreign imports. While there is nothing wrong with a service based economy per se, our fundamentals do not seem solid for the long term.
5. Something needs to be done to prevent entitlement programs from eating the federal government’s budget alive in the future. Some real entitlement reform needs to be discussed.
6. Some temporary government spending on infrastructure (roads, bridges, the power grid) might not be such a bad thing. Investments in alternative energy that would help free our dependence on oil would be especially worthy of government spending. After all, in the long run our current energy situation is both an economic and security problem that needs to be addressed.
7. We should have across the board tax cuts, but especially on the middle class and small businesses. These would stimulate spending and create jobs.
8. The public loathes the idea of government bailouts because they seem to reward greed and reckless incompetence. Bailouts should only be a last resort to prevent a recession from turning into another Depression. When at all possible, the market should be allowed to take care of itself. Some people who bought too much house should have their homes foreclosed on. Some banks that made reckless loans should go under. But we shouldn’t stick to free market principals to the point that it plunges us into a Depression.
9. What about companies who took bailouts? If a bank or company takes government money, there should be some serious strings attached. For example, the CEOs who made the poor decisions that put them in such dire straits should have to forfeit all the big bonuses they were awarded for the bogus “profits” they made their company in the form of back taxes and penalties. Bailouts should mean their golden parachutes get turned into lead. If said corporate leaders get fired, go bankrupt, lose everything they own, or even go to jail, too bad. This would send a clear message to the corporate world about what happens to people who take such reckless actions. It would also play well with the public who hates the idea of those responsible for this mess being rewarded i.e. “bailed out” for their stupidity.
10. It is clear that the banking industry needs to be regulated more. The government especially needs to zero in on preventing fraudulent lending the future.
11. Finally, we don’t need to lose focus that many individuals, banks, and corporations in America did not act recklessly. Regulations and taxes should not be allowed to hurt those who did not act foolishly. They already have to pick up the tab as taxpayers, so why should they be hurt twice for things they are not responsible for? Truth be told, the government should try and ensure conditions in which responsible people, banks, and corporations can take advantage of the stupidity of others in the market.

I don’t pretend to have all of the answers. And I freely admit that some of these ideas are vague at even possibly at cross-purposes. But I do think that in general if the Republicans sought to return to a more authentic form of conservatism and offered alternate proposals that were based on a mix of fiscal conservatism, pragmatism, and basic fairness that they might get a hearing with the public. They might actually contribute to what the government does and help us recovery as a nation and the Republican party as a credible party. With the party’s current group of leaders and commentators, however, I’m not holding my breath.

Republicans and the stimulus package: A lack of credibility

Daniel Larison has an interest post over at his blog "Eunomia" on the current Republican party and the economy. It is worth reading, so I've posted it below:

http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2009/03/07/look-on-the-bright-side

"It seems to me that implicit in a lot of conservative criticism of the stimulus bill, the mortgage plan, and Obama’s cap-and-trade scheme, among other things, must be the odd notion that things would have been very different had McCain won the election. While we can be sure that McCain the crazed earmark-hunter would still be with us (no doubt keeping us safe from volcano monitoring and gang tatoo removal), let us recall that McCain supported cap-and-trade (even if he didn’t necessarily understand what he was talking about when he said so), proposed an insane mortgage bailout plan that pretty much everyone hated, backed TARP and differed from Obama on taxes largely in that he refused to raise any rates. In the end, the main difference turns out to be a disagreement about whether to return the top rate to its Clinton-era level or not. I guess that is a bit more than a dime’s worth of difference, but it isn’t much. Of course, this is why so many Republicans were relieved that McCain lost, because had he won they would have ended up backing a whole host of policies that they are currently denouncing as disastrous. At the same time, we would have had an old, irritable President prone to fits of bellicosity in international affairs and moral grandstanding about any issue he doesn’t understand, and behind him would have been an unqualified VP. However bad things are, remember that they could have been far, far worse."

As Larison notes, as much as the Republicans (rightly in many cases) complain about the stimulus package, it is doubtful that a president McCain would do things much differently if he were in office instead of Obama. Perhaps more importantly, the Republicans don't really have a lot of room to talk after all the problems of the Bush years. Bush and the Republicans in Congress wastefully spent money on pork barrel projects. They spent money like drunken sailors and increased both the size of government and the national debt. Moreover, they got us into the war in Iraq, which has turned out to be an unnecessary disaster that has cost tens of thousands of American and Iraqi lives and hundreds of billions of dollars. Congressional Republicans were also involved in a number of scandals. And last but not least, the Bush administration played fast and loose with civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism.

In short, the Republicans did not act as real conservatives in the first place and certainly were not responsibly with power and money. Unfortunately, so far they don't seem to have learned much from their mistakes during the Bush years. Granted, it hasn't been all that long since the November election. But there has been no indication that "mainstream" Republicans have even began to question the disastrous and fundamentally unconservative radicalism of the neocons. Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are still widely seen as authentic spokesmen of conservatism. The rank and file of the Republican party haven't exactly turned to Ron Paul for leadership or to paleoconservative publications such as "The American Conservative" or "Chronicles" for new ideas. I wish I could say there is a chance of this happening in the coming years, but I doubt it.

I suspect that the stimulus package may do more harm than good. It appears to have some good aspects, but will certainly increase the size of the national debt and government all while quite possibly doing little to kick start the economy. Politically, the problem is that the Republicans don't have any new ideas and consequently aren't able to present much of an alternative to what Obama and the Democrats in Congress are doing. Not only are the Republicans intellectually exhausted, but they have very little credibility in the eyes of the public. As skeptical as I am about the stimulus package, Republican (and I include talking heads such as Limbaugh and Hannity here) attacks on the stimulus package look a lot like the pot calling the kettle black. I'm sure the same is the case with much of the public as well. The Republicans are going to have to wander in the wilderness for several years. After the follies of the Bush years, they deserve it, though unfortunately in the meantime Obama and especially Congressional Democrats may do damage of their own to our country and economy.

The "stimulus package" passed

Well, the "stimulus package" passed (or rather was hastily rammed through) both houses of Congress. My impression is that neither the Congress nor the president actually has any idea how to turn the economy around. The "stimulus plan" is largely massive pork barrel spending that in many cases only stimulates Democratic special interests. This is quite similar to the neocons who wanted to invade Iraq for years and were able to use 9/11 as a justification. Now we just have liberal Democrats who are using the recession as a excuse to spend nearly a trillion on the wish list they accumulated in their years out of power. This whole thing is driven by left-wing ideology, just as neocon ideology drove the invasion of Iraq.

There may not be any real way for the government to turn it around. We may simply need to take our lumps and ride this thing out. Both reckless banks and people who took on an absurd amount of debt for things such as homes and cars the couldn't really afford, credit card purchases, and excess student loans got us in this mess. But it looks like those of us who have acted responsibly will end up bailing them out.

I have my doubts that the "stimulus plan" will do all that much to improve the economy. One thing is for sure, it will greatly add to the national debt, will increase the size of government, and may well lead to serious inflation. It's going to be an interesting ride ahead.

The "stimulus" plan

The current "stimulus" plan moving its way through Congress strikes me as more pork than actually stimulus. I suppose it shouldn't be much of a surprise that all kinds of things are being attached to this massive level of spending. After all, if we are going to spend nearly 1 trillion dollars, what's a few more billion here and there to a Congressman eager to pass some pet project?

It looks as if the Democrats just plan on spending money left and right on things they favor. Nevermind that many of these things aren't remotely related to stimulating the economy and getting us out of this recession. To their credit, with Bush gone the Republicans in Congress appear to have developed a spine when it comes to resisting foolish and unnecessary spending. They do have a reasonable alternative plan that consist of taxes cuts for individuals and businesses as well as modest cuts in government spending. I'd like something more radical than that, but it's a start.

The problem is that not only are the Republicans in the minority, but after six years (2001-2007) of wasteful spending by a Republican controlled Congress and after eight years (2001-2009) of wasteful spending and a whole host of other bad decisions on President Bush's part, the Republicans simply don't have much credibility. Obama is in his honeymoon phase with the public, so with his high approval rating will get much of what he wants. Unfortunately, that means clowns like Pelosi and Reid will get much of what they want as well.

What does all this mean? It means that people won't start listening to the more reasonable ideas the Republicans are currently floating until a few years later. By that time, we'll likely be in even greater debt than we are now and all that "stimulus" may not have done much of anything to help the economy.

Let's remove "In God We Trust" from our currency

Another new year is upon us again. Unfortunately, it appears that 2009 will be a doosie of a year. The economy is almost sure to get worse before it gets any better. This means that unemployment and foreclosures will rise. That in turn will translate to hard times for millions of Americans who lose their jobs and homes. And it probably won’t be any better in many other parts of the world.

The reasons for our economic problems are quite obvious. Beneath the surface of years of economic prosperity in the recent past lay greed, false expectations, excessive debt, living well beyond means, lack of accountability, and massive fraud. This occurred on all levels, from corporations and large financial institutions, to the government, to ordinary consumers. The chickens finally came home to roost in 2008. As a result, events in 2009 and possibly even 2010 or longer will in essence function as the hangover for years of partying. The sad part is that some people who had little to do with all this excess will suffer, while some at the top who played key roles in what happened will get away with what they did and indeed will remain wealthy.

What is to be done about all this? The American government should start by striking “In God We Trust” from all new currency. It’s pretty clear that many Americans don’t trust in God, or at least not the God that Christians worship. From what has transpired recently, one might conclude that the God of many Americans is Mammon. Instead of “In God We Trust” our currency should feature the phrase “For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil.” It’s not that money and wealth are evil per se. But the Bible is clear about the consequences of greed and of making money ones God. Recent experiences have only confirmed that. If Americans want to avoid another catastrophe such as the one we have on our hands now, they would do well to ponder this truth. It would be fitting if what is written on the very money they handle might cause them to do just that.