Author: Crowhill Report

Is Pope Francis lost?

I don’t follow news about Frank the Hippie Pope, but this one caught my eye today. It reminded me of a comment from an orthodox Catholic friend who said the pope is lost.

Republicans, Democrats, Santos, and “principles”

Note: I’m taking it for granted that Santos was a creep who didn’t deserve to be in Congress.

When it came to ejecting Santos, there were some people who were saying that at least Republicans have some principles — that Democrats always stick up for their own, no matter what they say or do. That’s not completely true, but it seems to be generally true. Democrats toe the party line a lot better than Republicans.

But “principles” can get complicated.

On the one hand, having “principles” means you don’t allow a creep like Santos to stay in office. On the other hand, having “principles” means that you don’t allow evil people to take control.

As an extreme example, imagine one party had a one seat advantage over a Nazi party. Kicking out some of your guys out of “principle” might mean handing over control of the Congress to the Nazis. Is that really the “principled” thing to do?

It’s been said — and I think this has been generally true until very recently — that Democrats view Republicans as evil, while Republicans view Democrats as misguided. So to Democrats, handing over power to the Republicans is like handing over power to the Nazis, while to the Republicans, handing over power to the Democrats is more like an unfortunate setback.

This would help to explain why Democrats protect their own — even their lunatics — while Republicans are more likely to abandon them.

Is the UAE a model for immigration?

I was recently in Abu Dhabi and learned that the population of the United Arab Emirates is about 90 percent foreign born. And it’s peaceful. Part of that has to do with surveillance, but I think there’s more to it.

Ireland had riots this past weekend over immigration concerns. But immigrants only make up about 20 percent of the Irish population.

Why is 90 percent okay in the UAE and 20 percent a problem in Ireland?

I’m not trying to pick on Ireland. We see the same problem in many countries. It’s just that Ireland is in the news right now.

I don’t know all the details, but it seems to me that it has to do with whether the leadership in the country believes in their national culture. The UAE has an unapologetic Muslim culture. They’re tolerant of other cultures, but they make no excuses for being Muslim.

Western countries, by contrast, don’t seem to know what they are, or what they stand for.

What does it mean to be an American, or an Irishman? We don’t seem to know.

The West seems to be suffering from an identity crisis, and I don’t think they’ll be able to come to terms with immigration issues until they decide what they are, and why, and what they want to be.

Objective vs. subjective religious obligation

I recently heard a sermon on the parable of the talents. (If you’re not familiar, here it is.)

“Talent” seems to be an unfortunate word here because in the parable it refers to money, while we think of a talent as an ability to do something.

The point of the parable is that people should “use their talents” in the service of God.

In the context of “using talents,” it’s almost always a question of a trade of one thing against another. For example, let’s say a person is a very good singer, but decides it’s more important to get an engineering degree in college, so he doesn’t pursue his singing. His friends say, “you’re burying your talents” (i.e., his singing).

Who’s to say which one he should pursue? Perhaps he’ll be a great singer. Or perhaps he’ll be a great engineer. Or perhaps he’ll be a middling engineer and provide for a family — which is a good thing. Nobody knows, but people are perfectly happy to lay a guilt trip on him on the basis of his “not using his talents.”

People can be wracked with guilt about such things. They agonize over it. They lose sleep.

Someone might say, “yeah, and all that struggling is evidence that God is pushing them to do the thing they’re not doing. If they ‘had peace’ about the decision, that would be fine.”

I strongly dislike that view of God and that view of moral obligation.

What if the person in question just gets obsessed about things from time to time? Or what if the people who are pressuring him are very persuasive? Is his subjective feeling supposed to be “the voice of God” to him?

I have always leaned towards the idea that we can only be held to account morally for things that are clear and objective. A commandment, for example.

However, I have to admit that there’s a strong tradition that makes conscience something like the voice of God, and I recall St. Martin Luther’s comment that it is neither right nor safe to go against conscience.

People pray about things and find some sort of peace about which way they ought to go. That’s not a commandment. It’s very subjective. And I’m a little uncomfortable with subjectivity — knowing how unhinged it can be, and how often it can lead people astray.

What do you think of this notion of personal moral obligations based on how people feel about things?