A musing Beam

This is my second in a three-part series on a secular approach to how to come to a voting decision. My first was on related  concepts of earning, value, and property, and how these are societal constructions. (See  http://amusingbeam.blogspot.com/2012/10/voting-thoughts-part-1-foundational.html  ).  This entry will first touch on the concept of liberty, which will be my last "pure philosophy" concept, then I will switch to the role of government.  In particular, I will discuss the philosophy of legitimate government, then with what I think should be the focus of a "good" government.  Finally, I will discuss how our governments have worked historically. (Those enamored with our Founders and their concepts of liberty might take particular interest in that section.) Liberty Some ideas of liberty focus on being free from coercion, and these are sometimes classified as negative liberty.  I should not be compelled to believe a certain...

Introduction A friend recently suggested that I do a series on how to vote that didn't assume that the reader was Christian.  This is a short series on the subject. Now, remember, folks, that this is a blog--it's not a scholarly tract, so there will be quite a bit of painting with very wide brush strokes. This is not going to be anything like an exhaustive trip through history, political philosophy, or legal interpretations.  These are just a few thoughts on one way to approach how to make voting decisions. This will be a three-part series, with the first two covering some foundational principles, and the last listing values and applications.  You'll note that I will not give a party affiliation or an ultimate conclusion. Instead, I list values and suggestions for how some of them might apply. These first two entries will be a bit dry.  Sorry, but ... hey, foundational stuff is important.  And I will not be devoting a lot ...

Shortly after the events of 9/11/2001, there was an excellent episode of The West Wing ("Isaac and Ishmael") talking about the events and how to think about them.  It was written hastily, and discussing the events directly was pretty gutsy, that short after the event. Josh Lyman, talking to high school juniors and seniors, makes an SAT-style question: "'Islamic extremist' is to 'Islamic' as [blank] is to 'Christianity.'"  There are a few guesses -- religious fundamentalists, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.  Josh dismisses them (quite rightly), saying that, while the kids might disagree with what they do, those groups don't blow stuff up.  (See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VatPKqTgzh4 .) The correct answer is the Ku Klux Klan.  The Klan is a Christian terrorist group that has been operating since the middle of the 19th century (with a few decade hiatus at the turn of the 20th century).  It is widely known for killing people that disa...

I often find disconcerting the amount of time and energy certain Christians spend decrying specific, rarely (if ever) scripturally mentioned failings/sins, yet spending little if any time focusing on what seemed to Jesus (by weight of vehemence and sheer times mentioned in Scripture) the most important matters.  The discussion here takes as an assumption that the "normal" Bible is true and an accurate depiction of what Jesus says. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! When you read the Bible, many have noted the change in tone from the Old Testament to the New Testament.  While the Father is prone to bouts of anger (think the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc.), Jesus is much more often overtly nice, or, when not nice, he is often aimed at changing the minds of his audience instead of punishing them. One group, though, gets his full-throated ire:  The Pharisees. Why?  Because they were hypocrites.  It was not that they didn't know the law -- it was ...

This is the second part of a two part series where I discuss the problems I see with two prevalent forms of fundamentalism (the first discussed Constitution and fundamentalism: http://amusingbeam.blogspot.com/2012/05/problem-with-fundamentalism-part-1.html ).  In this part, I will be discussing biblical fundamentalism.  I will be referring to sources more frequently here, as I cannot claim the expertise I could for the last installment. Let me start by saying that I understand this is an extremely controversial topic, especially the stance I am taking.  My goal is not to offend, but it is instead to discuss why I think a fundamentalist approach to the Bible (and, in some respects, any text) has insurmountable problems.  I think that most Fundamentalists I know are quite willing to discuss why they believe their hermeneutic approach is the correct one, so my hope is that they are equally sanguine when someone explains why that pathway seems problematic. Here is t...

In this two-part series, I plan on discussing the major issues I see with two prevalent types of fundamentalism: constitutional and biblical.  Though the two need not be related, it appears to me that one often leads to the other. This first installment is on a fundamentalist interpretation of the Constitution.  I have some expertise here, given that I have my JD and an undergraduate in English, so I will rarely be referring to other sources (outside the Constitution itself).  In this discussion, I am defining constitutional fundamentalism as a combination of "originalism" -- look at what the words meant when they were originally written -- and "strict constructionism" -- go strictly by the words on the page, with no reference to anything external, avoiding inferences. Original intent Ethical considerations Before I get into a more textual discussion, first I would like to point out that the founders were extremely flawed, and the document they made was, to mo...

A couple of years ago, I posted about how my wife and I had embraced the Dave Ramsey plan.  (For my earlier post, see http://amusingbeam.blogspot.com/2010/03/daving-it.html .)  I thought I would give an update about how that has gone. For those that don't know, Dave Ramsey is a financial guru who says we should spend less, save more, and not use debt to live beyond our means.  As he freely admits, this is hardly revolutionary.  As WE freely admit, we were doing anything but living within our means. When we began this program in March, 2010, we had well over $100k in non-mortgage debt.  Paying all of that off would be very close to impossible on how much extra income we had.  So, we had to do a few things that might be considered "extreme": 1) We sold our new car (cost us $1k to do so) and bought a used truck with cash.  Total expenditure: $5k.  Debt reduced by: ~$20k. 2) No vacation in 2010.  We didn't take any. 3) Second job.  Be...