Hiatus Returns

Barroco Cervantes will be on hiatus until February 1, 2008. Comments and guest submissions are welcome in the meantime. Just leave a comment to this post with your submission content, and I will look to add it. Finally, if you have a blog, feel free to add Barroco Cervantes to your blogroll to increase our readership!

Don't forget to check in daily for the daily scripture on the sidebar.

The Weekend Five Ruminations - 11/17/2007

[1] CNN reports on the American Academy of Religion's study of the completely insufferable concept of the "flying sphaghetti monster" at their annual conference. The idea was thought up by a graduate student as a satire of the intelligent design movement. While I have no severe nor direct quarrel with satire, this attempt to level a derisive barrage on religion contains too much danger to be taking humorously, much less seriously.

I believe there are better ways to intellectually debate concepts like intelligent design. Whatever your views on that subject, this satirical method comes dangerously close (and in my book crosses) the line between discussion and outright mockery, or even a form of (at least) indirect idolatry; which implicitly connotes rejection.

Even if, as some proponents might suggest, the purpose "between the lines" of the satire is to point out that if one method gets time in the classroom then others should as well is inherently dangerous on two points. One, that organized religion is inherently on par with the monster. I need not expand upon this. Second, and more crucially, that the concept inherently mocks not only intelligent design, but ultimately religion and theism itself. The true between-the-lines commentary of the concept is that religion is mutually exclusive to science and knowledge, and thus religion and its contents should suffer the exile of societal irrelevancy. That logical chain demonstrates the severe rejection dangers.

[2] On an infintely brighter note, I would like to point out that on the sidebar, directly below the picture of Don Cervantes, there are two new additions. Courtesy of TNIV (Today's New International Version), we have a bible search function (by keyword or passage) and a scripture feature updated daily via RSS feed.

[3] Regarding an earlier post (and its comments) on Mr. Robertson's endorsement of Mr. Giuliani, I have an additional point. The use of "religious right" has received I believe the same villification that terms such as "neo-conservative", or even "liberal" (years ago) obtained. I am not entirely sure if the sense of its use connotes politicians expounding religious viewpoints, or the entire politican-and-bloc of religious adherents. Either way, I fear that the mere mention of "religious right" has the sole use of mockery and derision. It should not blanket conservative voters who identify with religion.

[4] I would hope that Pakistan can settle their governmental dilemma. It seems there is a spate of governments in peril, or rather the inverse (regarding the public) in places such as Burma. One prays that the resolution arrives quickly and peacefully.

[5] Back to the presidential elections. In the interest of winding up the Weekend Five with some brevity, all I will say is that with so many choices there are so few. Time will tell, but I am not keen on the current election cycle.
-------
Sources: [1] CNN. [2] TNIV.

Neuhaus on Religion and Politics

Over at the First Things blog, Richard John Neuhaus recounts* a debate sponsored by The Economist last week in New York. The discussion concerned a proposed resolution (surprise) that politics and religion should always be separate. Neuhaus presents his quite admirable opening statement in his post (all bias aside). Much of his argument aligns with my thoughts on the matter, and while I highly recommend reading through the entire statement, I will relay some quotes:

"It is not true that our society is divided between a moral majority of the religious, on the one hand, and an immoral or amoral minority of the nonreligious, on the other. Atheists can have moral convictions that are every bit as strong as the moral convictions of the devout Christian or observant Jew. What we have in the political arena is not a division between the moral and the immoral but an ongoing contention between different moral visions addressing the political question—how ought we to order our life together...

...[t]he idea that some citizens should be excluded from addressing that question because their arguments are religious, or that others should be excluded because their arguments are nonreligious or antireligious, is an idea deeply alien to the representative democracy that this constitutional order is designed to protect. A foundational principle of that order is that all citizens have equal standing in the public square."
------
Source: [*] First Things [Richard John Neuhaus].

Christian Types

Over at Christianity Today/Leadership Journal, Helen Lee reports* on a new (and quite detailed) survey which attempts to chronicle and categorize Christians into various classifications, or levels, as it were. Factors include church attendance, relationships, and media.

While I tend to be somewhat cautious about categorization in general, as such surveying does not always serve to keep us focused on God and our duties, I must say that this particular report caught my eye. The list at the bottom of the report, while not nearly exhaustive (nor is it meant to be), asks us quite blatantly where we stand in our day-to-day faith.

Much as the pendulum swings, we can easily find ourselves wavering between "professing" and "cultural" in our faith. Obvious points notwithstanding, I think this report's true purpose is not to advance a Linnaeus-esque classification scheme, but to serve as a vigilant reminder that our journey is always ongoing, and that we should not rest too comfortably, lest we take our faith for granted.

------
Source: Material linked above is copyrighted (2007) by Christianity Today/Leadership Journal [Helen Lee] and thus is not reprinted here. Please visit the link to see the report.

Death Tax Revisited?

Brian Reardon has an excellent guest commentary* over at National Review Online regarding the return of the so-called death tax, set to return in 2010. For those new to tax law this tax simply is applied against a person's estate upon their death.

It was repealed in 2001 and replaced temporarily with a capital gains tax. The more basic difference is in terms of valuation:

"People don’t really know what their estates are worth, so they also don’t know what will be owed on their estates when they pass. Most of the litigation surrounding the estate tax — and there is lots of it — involves disputes over the underlying value of an estate’s assets. But with a capital-gains tax there is no dispute. The value is the sales price."

Of course, there are advocates on both sides of the aisle, but arguably, this repeal really was solid public policy. Reardon closes with this point:

"What will the thousands of successful, hard-working people who are busy making their estate plans right now do differently if the death tax is permanently replaced with a simple capital-gains tax? The answer is they will make decisions based on what’s good for them, their families, their businesses, and their communities — and no longer worry about how to avoid or minimize a poorly thought-out tax."
------
Source: [*] National Review Online [Brian Reardon].

Republicans and the Religious Right

So, Pat Robertson endorses Rudy Giuliani . . . do we need any more proof that Republican politicos don't give a damn about the social issues so important to conservative Christians and are instead just interested in perpetuating their own power?
------
Source: NY Times

Collegiate Trends

National Review has an excellent guest article* today by Ryan T. Anderson (assistant editor at First Things). It's worth a read for those who are familiar with collegiate settings these days, and raises some interesting questions as well. Though I really recommend the entire article, I will introduce it with this quote:

"One wishes that this were an isolated incident, but it’s not. The Princeton administration practices a double standard so pervasive it doesn’t even notice it. It is extraordinarily sensitive to every minority under the sun — except for traditionalists."*
------
Source: [*] National Review Online [Ryan T. Anderson].

Brief October Hiatus

Barroco Cervantes will be taking a brief hiatus. We will return with all-new daily content on [Tuesday, October 16th]. We appreciate your patience and hope you will return! In the meantime, please feel free to leave your comments or suggestions.

Machiavelli Article at First Things

I must apologize for the delay in updates, but Barroco Cervantes is back this week with some new material.

Over at First Things, Luther College philosophy professor Matthew Simpson has an interesting post on Machiavelli, including some of the historical context for the former Republic of Florence in his writings. It's definitely worth a look.

------
Source: First Things [Matthew Simpson].

A Quick Request of the Readership

One of the inevitable pitfalls of a start-up blog is a lack of readers--readership can take a long time to establish. I think one of the best ways to bring in readers is by amassing information for ease of reading. You'll notice that much of the right column of this site is full of the latest updated items on a multitude of other websites, including First Things, National Review Online, Time, CNN, Christianity Today, and others. Every time these sites update their content, they are automatically updated on this site as well. Those familiar with my site will note that I frequently post on these items.

I understand the difficulties of beginning the conversations on a passive website, especially when evangelism is involved. Yet I also believe that with time, such events can and do become more frequent.

I close with a humble request: if you do enjoy (at all[!]) visiting the site, I would encourage you to contribute to the conversations as well. From comments to contributing posts, feel free to contact me if you desire to add to the program. I never intended for this to be a one-person show--there is always room for contributing writers.

And of course, if you feel so inspired, feel free in promoting Barroco Cervantes to those you know. I believe that the more people who are able to enter the conversation, the more interesting the insights and discussions can become. And of course, that would make your reading time all the more valuable.

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

This is the first time that 9/11 has fallen again on a Tuesday. I would hope that all would take a moment out of their day today to remember those who perished on that tragic day. I pray that God would be with each and every one of us, the families, the friends, and all of those who continue to suffer.

Goldberg's Comments on Vick

No one needs refreshing over the allegations against Michael Vick. The other day, Whoopi Goldberg rallied to Michael Vick's defense on The View. Mark Goldblatt has an interesting take on the significance of her words over on National Review Online.

I agree with Mark that her perception of geographical custom is somewhat questionable. While it is absolutely unquestionable that some of our nation's darkest history lies in the South, it would be hard-pressed to add this type of brutality to that terrible list.

But the problem here is that the real issue doesn't necessarily lie in our collective history. The bigger problem is that her stance insensitively dismisses the moral and legal culpability of his actions in addition to denigrating an over-broad swath of society. Rarely--if ever--do you see our morality resorting to the so-called "boys will be boys" sentiment and then dismiss the wrongdoing.

Either Goldberg is taking the charges against Vick too personally (which one should find odd) or she's equally guilty of taking as long as Vick took to realize the nature of these horrid acts. Either way, one is unfortunately left to wonder the exact motive of her defensive advocacy.

------

Sources: USA Today [Associated Press]. National Review Online [Mark Goldblatt].

Relativism Revisited

For those with the time, I recommend this blog entry at First Things by Edward T. Oakes S.J. about the (sometimes) hidden absolutist tendencies in relativism. It may be a bit lengthy, but you will become all the better for having read it.
------
Source: First Things [Edward T. Oakes S.J.]

Farewell to Pavarotti

I am quite sure there are many saddened by this recent news: famed opera tenor Luciano Pavarotti has passed away at the age of 71. Whether you followed his celebrity escapades over the decades (or not), he was nevertheless revered throughout the world for his abilities.

If you read one article on this, make it [National Review Managing Editor] Jay Nordlinger's piece for a bit of context regarding the importance of the singer in our cultural history. It was written when Luciano retired several years back, but it fits quite well today.

If you must read more, then I also submit the following: Time's expose and Newsweek's article (with extra audio).
-------
Sources: National Review [Jay Nordlinger]; Time [Christopher Porterfield]; Newsweek [Cathleen McGuigan]

Dialogues on Justice and Judges

For those of you who, like Jeremy, are entering the legal profession (or already a part of it), you'll be very interested in the new issue of the Mars Hill Audio podcast. This issue, the first in a series entitled Dialogues on Justice and Judges, will feature discussions on the Supreme Court, its recent rulings, and the legal philosophies of the jurors upon its bench.

If you're not familiar with Mars Hill Audio, it's an audio journal produced by Ken Myers, a former NPR journalist and editor. Myers hosts a wide range of guests to discuss issues of religion, cultural, politics, and modern life. Mars Hill is well worth the subscription costs (the podcasts mentioned above are free), and I'd encourage you to check it out.

Rethinking "The Secret"

There is a book out there called The Secret*, which purports to instruct all of us how to cure our problems simply by harmonizing with the universe's frequency. I assume the book logically follows in the forward that if you aren't aware of this book, then apparently you aren't doing enough to harmonize with the publisher's frequency.

Fortunately, Anthony Sacramone has shed some (comical) light onto the book and its precepts: "Do you want to know the real secret? There are no secrets ... the real secret of The Secret—namely, that there’s a lot of money to be made in the self-help market."

* I am not linking this at all as an endorsement, mind you. Simply to point out this book does exist.

-------
Source: First Things [Anthony Sacramone].

The Weekend Five Ruminations - 9/1/2007

[1] Richard John Neuhaus has an uplifting entry regarding life choices at First Things: "I have had frequent recourse ... to one of the most liberating passages from Saint Paul, 1 Corinthians 4. He has been trying to explain himself and his apostolate to the Christians in Corinth. He doesn’t know whether he has succeeded, and then he says this: 'But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. I do not even judge myself ... [t]herefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart.' Do not judge before the time! I do not even judge myself! These are the words of a life set free from the tangled web of introspection and indecision." Source: First Things [Richard John Neuhaus].

[2] There is an interesting discussion occurring regarding my earlier tax post in the comments section. I am very curious what the rest of the readers think on the topic.

[3] I think the only thing really worth mentioning (at all) about the Craig scandal is that his resignation is warranted--I think it is unfortunate that many politicians who stand for family/moral values in the limelight have also been the ones lately to fall. Not only do we all have a duty to be witnesses, but those actively seeking the spotlight by their position or standing in society have an even stronger burden that must be met. Honesty is the watchword. Source: CNN [Bash/Crowley/Yellin].

[4] On an off-beat note, apparently there is a massive spider web collective in a Texas park. If this is the closest thing we get to other life forms incorporating into loose organizations with tracts of real estate, then we can consider ourselves lucky. Or at least move to a colder climate. Source: CNN [AP].

[5] I wouldn't be living up to the blog's namesake if I didn't issue a reading challenge once in a while. I thoroughly encourage all of you to read Don Quixote at least once. Cervantes really did create a masterpiece that speaks to all of life's facets. Give it a read, it might be long, but I guarantee you won't regret your time. [I recommend this edition for those seeking to purchase an English translation of the novel]. Source: Amazon (booklink).

Legal Tax Ethics - Meal Deductions

Here's an interesting legal tax question to ponder:

Typically businesses can deduct costs of running a business from their gross income. This includes situations where business personnel take clients or potential buyers out to lunch or dinner.*

In 1986, with the advent of the current tax system, the rule was changed to allow deductions of only 50% of the cost of food and beverages. Why?

Allowing tax deductions essentially subsidizes business costs, which makes sense so that gross income is equivalent to normal wages. However, allowing (more often than not wealthy) folks to spend time in nice restaurants and then deduct the total from the company's gross income was considered unfair since normal personnel had to bring in lunch or go to cafeterias/vending machines. Thus the 50% limit was to prevent a social inequality among workers and still allow a reasonable deduction schematic.

My question is, for a Christian ethical system, is it right to deduct the 50%? I suppose this addresses more than this narrow tax question.
------
Source: [*] Internal Revenue Code Section 274(n)(1).

CNN Analyzes Religion

I don't have much time today for a new post, but I highly recommend First Things' interesting blog entry about CNN's new series on religion.
--------
Source: First Things [Nathaniel Peters]

Electoral College: A Keeper?

I have always been partial to the electoral college--the system we use in this country for presidential elections. A National Review Online article* by Matthew J. Franck* describes California's wish to revamp their individual electoral vote process. Instead of the vote winner receiving the entire state, they would only receive the electoral votes for each district.

It seems to me this is a slippery slope trend towards a populist outcome, which doesn't really affirm state rights as much as the present system does. Perhaps I am wrong, and a political guru out there can explain otherwise, but it seems to me that if California sets forth this transition, then there is nothing stopping New York or Texas, leaving an all-or-nothing run by the states to join suit. What would stop the exodus from the college?

----------

Source: [*] National Review Online [Matthew J. Franck].

Professional Responsibility: Series Goal

It has been several days since the last update, and a new year in law school begins.

For starters, my earlier postings on Law & Christianity should give a good refresher for this series: my goal is to determine how Christian ethics can be implemented into the legal practice. Of course, ethics is a broad term: it encompasses the range of morality types. My hypothesis is that while a number of ethics systems will serve the public good, the Christian set is one of the best.

Of course, this blanket statement will bring the ilk of many who might believe that Christian ethics are too strong and divisive for society. Yet my goal will be to provide some weekly updates on how professional responsibility is taught, and then apply some basic Christian principles to compare.

My guess is many will match up, though the stringent level of the match may vary.

As an aside, this series would function much better as a stepping-off point for discussion--to this extent, I humbly request all viewers (or readers, as it were) to offer their thoughts on my analysis, or provide commentary regardless of your theological knowledge or basis. I think we could get an interesting dialogue if people across the faith board weigh in.

A New Day

Today I will be starting a new year at law school--I will be sure to give regular updates on the Law & Christianity series!

Ad Hominem Arguments Revisited

You might recall my earlier post regarding ad hominem arguments. I made the point that "[t]he 'chickenhawk' style of argument is merely a superficial trap to bait targeted individuals into giving equally superficial answers."

Over at DailyKos we're unfortunately seeing the same thing again, with the same results. We've seen it before. Typical scenario: a few young war-proponents give apparently superficial excuses for not enlisting, opposition ensues. Of course, it is extremely easy to discredit someone in the public's emotional opinion by having them give a "lame excuse." The only difficulty here is for the discredited to try and remain credible in the public's opinion (not that such an effort is always noble, I concede).

But is it really logical to make this leap: the hesitation that young war-supporters have morally--or even logically--demonstrates the war's lack of foundation. Perhaps, if one's basis is moral relativism. Simply put: the debate doesn't even consider natural or absolute truths, only the relative authority of people to hold their own opinions. Sadly, it seems the only consistency in that argument is an adherence to moral relativism.

The Weekend Five Ruminations - 8/18/07

Author's note: since this blog is currently updated only weekdays, I thought I would start a perpetual weekend post series as well, designed to give a glimpse of my thoughts on five (sometimes random) topics.

[1] It seems Hamas is continuing a show designed to instill martydom wishes amongst Palestine's youth. While this deplorable story speaks for itself, this quote tells the show's previous incarnation best: "'Tomorrow's Pioneers,' a weekly, hour-long Hamas television children's show [is] best known for bringing the world a militant Mickey Mouse look-alike and then having him killed off by an Israeli interrogator." Source: Foxnews/Associated Press.

[2] On a positive note, I will take an opportunity to give an unsolicited plug to LiftKids, an organization dedicated to bringing disadvantaged communities educational systems. They are pursuing some pretty amazing ambitions, and we will keep their efforts in our prayers. Source: LiftKids.

[3] The current Chinese toy recall is a reminder that despite our advances domestically in safety, there is always room for improvement, and we must be vigilant with imports from countries lacking similar regulations and standards. Here is little guide for parents regarding the recall. Source: Time Magazine [Katie Rooney/M.J. Stephey].

[4] An excellent article by Thomas Sowell on NRO discusses the ramifications of improving our nation's infrastructure by raising taxes. In economics, it is well known there are points on the scale whereby increasing taxes can actually decrease tax revenue for a variety of reasons. Source: National Review Online [Thomas Sowell].

[5] To close out this weekend, while Barroco Cervantes is a start-up blog intended mainly to aid Christians in applying faith into day-to-day activities and current events, we realize there is potentially a broader audience. There are those who may not share the faith; those who are seeking it, or those who may not even have considered it. Our prayers always are with all of you, no matter who you are, so that God will open all of our hearts and comfort those who suffer, and that all of us will come to know Christ more--no matter our background.

Building Past Excess

Everyday we hear of bigger and grander buildings. We are well versed with mansions rivaling major universities in space and Versailles in extravagance.

Case in point, BusinessWeek has an article* on these behemoth estates (with slide show for the unbelieving). Groundbreaking is the roughly 60-story building to be constructed in downtown Mumbai; built to house India's richest man, his family, and (of course) the-better-half-of-a-thousand servants.

Most of us are, unfortunately, desensitized to the wealthy: we expect commerce's multi-billionaires to inhabit obscenely immense properties. But usually they reside in suburban upstate New York, a quaint bay in Northwest Washington, or yes, even a downtown metropolis. But near sacred land? While we can be sure that rental rates near the Vatican are high, we are nonetheless still sensitive enough to be shocked if another building overshadows St. Peter's square.

Michael Linton notes in his First Things** blog entry, "there are those trinket shops next to almost every Christian sacred site, but I think that a lot of Christians view them as embarrassments." We can likely claim this with a degree of certainty for St. Peter's, or the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, or Mecca.

Well, actually perhaps not Mecca. An enormous mall and luxury living compound is under construction adjacent to the holy mosque--or over and above, depending which cardinal direction you're facing (we can assume to the chagrin of many Muslims, to be fair). To truly comprehend this, one must read Linton's blog entry (with many links to pictures and articles concerning the complex).

As Linton notes: "My guess is that the memory of the story of the Lord whipping the temple money changers makes us edgy about linking religion too closely with commerce."

It should.
-------
Sources: [*] BusinessWeek [Maya Roney]. [**] First Things: On the Square [Michael Linton].

Educational "Tolerance"

National Review Online (which, by the way, is an excellent and highly respectable website) has an article* today on the concept of tolerance and its boundaries as a peacemaker. I can't possible summarize the article and then keep this post short, so I simply submit that it really deserves a look. I do offer this quote from the article:

"Tolerance is a cardinal virtue when it entails parties disagreeing over questions of beliefs, values, and culture, but respecting the rights of their opponents to live and politic within the confines of the American constitutional order. However, in today’s colleges and universities, tolerance has too often evolved into a watery, uncritical acceptance of illiberal behavior." (emphasis supplied).
------
Source: National Review Online [Frederick M. Hess].

Anger in Atheism

I realize this will be my second post on atheism today, but here goes. I do enjoy keeping up on current events, which leads me to read diverse opinions. This in turn leads me to sites such as DailyKos, which perhaps best (or worst it seems, in some cases) represents the far left's blogosphere. Anyways, there are often angry posts on this site and unfortunately many delve into emotional anti-religious tirades, usually accompanied by even more vitriolic comments and superficial debates.

To tie in with the earlier post, I suppose my question is why such anger is often directed at religion itself. Maybe it is noble to try and minimize events that cause people to react with anger at Christianity, but at the same point, one can't make the goal of pleasing everyone. After all, our ultimate mission isn't to uphold some relative secular sense of "anger" but instead to glorify God.

Interesting First Things Link on Atheism

As is increasingly apparent, I am becoming quite attached to the excellent blog on First Things' website (this blog has a newsfeed from First Things below right). Along these lines, I also would like to encourage you all to read this journal, there are always extremely insightful commentaries and articles.

I highly recommend this very intriguing post on atheism,* which--among other items--contains this story from physicist Steve Barr**:

"... a lecture Daniel Dennett gave last year at the University of Delaware, in which he claimed that Darwin had shredded the credibility of religion and was, indeed, the very “destroyer” of God. In the question session, a philosophy professor named Jeff Jordan suggested to Dennett: "If Darwinism is inherently atheistic, as you say, then obviously it can’t be taught in public schools.”

“And why is that?” inquired Dennett, incredulous.

“Because,” said Jordan, “the Supreme Court has held that the Constitution guarantees government neutrality between religion and irreligion.”

Dennett, looking as if he’d been sucker-punched, leaned back against the wall and said, after a few moments of silence, “clever.” After another silence, he came up with a reply: He had not meant to say that evolution logically entails atheism, merely that it undercuts religion."
--------
Sources: [*] & [**] First Things: On the Square [Joseph Bottum/Steve Barr].

Ad Hominem Arguments: "Chickenhawk"

It is crucial that one practices what he preaches: it is a Christian duty to live like Christ and pursue his message. Yet ad hominem arguments are levied too often in today's controversial issues. Too often it seems that pointed-out hypocrisy is then spun to abrogate the message itself: if someone doesn't fulfill their duty then the entire system they adhere to could subjected to ridicule.

Aside from the morality of war (worthy of posts or a series itself!), let's analyze a common "anti/pro-war" dialogue. I have witnessed many labelings of "chickenhawks"--those who support a war effort, but then not sign up for duty. It used to refer to the Vietnam era, where many sought to avoid the draft in various ways. Today it adapted to a non-conscription society and applies to those who support the war but do not voluntarily sign up for it.

Many correctly see this as superficial logic at best. Extending this argument to other facets shows that moral authority does not necessarily rest on intimate knowledge or experience. If this were the case, then people couldn't--or morally shouldn't--opine on our complex tax systems without obtaining economic degrees or CPA licenses. Likewise people couldn't demand more police or fire brigades without signing up to enter the dangerous situations inherent in them. Even if this argument at best stretches the analogy--the point is clear.

While there are some opinions that are morally questionable or even reprehensible, it does not always follow that the moral answer is to act upon the opinion to be qualified to hold it. If an anti-war individual brands someone a hypocrite for not fighting in a "immoral war", is the hypocrite thus redeemed by fighting the immoral war? Few would fail to see past this catch-22. Some might take my point and argue they are demonstrating the immorality of war. Point taken, but I would counter that there are better ways to go about it.

Nonetheless, ad hominem arguments lend themselves to claiming a type of superficial moral authority. Mind you, not by the morality of the cause itself, but by some personal connection to the cause. Claiming moral authority--as opposed to mere opinion-- only by means of experience and knowledge necessarily forebades or stifles opinions held by those outside of this grouping. The "chickenhawk" style of argument is merely a superficial trap to bait targeted individuals into giving equally superficial answers. Yet it trumps nothing about the opinion, just the person. And that keeps the debate at square-one.

Anti-war activism should legitimately attack the war, not simply its adherents. Likewise, those pointing out hypocrisy likewise must be capable of distinguishing the falliable individual and the message.

Credit Crunch Crisis

By now most have heard of the mortgage failures rippling throughout housing markets, with both domestic and worldwide effects.

One can argue that it is the duty of the homeowner to ensure a logical and reasonable mortgage when purchasing real estate. Many live beyond their means, or choose adjustable rate mortgages which often become dangerous in times of rising interest rates. "Too much house" can be tempting for those starting out, likewise for those who have worked for a long time to save up for a down payment.

However credit companies have themselves to blame as well, issuing too much credit to large segments of populations that may not be able to weather tougher economic labor or market periods. Some companies have fallen to the foreclosure explosion, thus filing for bankruptcy.

Companies and consumers alike must choose for themselves the smartest and most reasonable path in terms of issuing/obtaining credit, not only for their own lives but also for the security of our economy in general. Central to this would be scaling back on extravagant lifestyles via a refocusing of morals, but also smarter housing programs to ensure that the credit pinch does not keep those worthy of receiving credit from obtaining their own homes. Central banks can bail out the markets in the short term, but our society must rethink its position on real estate as investment and status tools.

The New Dual Atheism

There is an excellent post on First Things’ blog* (see also “First Things: On the Square” feed lower right) concerning the “modern” atheism. Joseph Bottum relays an excellent series of quotes in his entry from Harvard professor Harvey Mansfield's recent Weekly Standard** article:

“Mansfield notes: ‘Atheism isn’t what it was in the eighteenth century ... the focus of the attack is not the Church, which is no longer dominant, but religion itself. [Historically] atheism uncovered tyranny behind the mask of religion, but it was content to point out the power of injustice.... Today’s atheism rejects this serene attitude and goes on the attack....

[Yet it] is not religion that makes men fanatics; it is the power of the human desire for justice, so often partisan and perverted.... In the contest between religion and atheism, the strength of religion is to recognize two apparently contrary forces in the human soul: the power of injustice and the power, nonetheless, of our desire for justice. The stubborn existence of injustice reminds us that man is not God, while the demand for justice reminds us that we wish for the divine. Religion tries to join these two forces together.

The weakness of atheism, however, is to take account of only one of them, the fact of injustice in the case of Epicurean atheism or the desire for justice in our Enlightenment atheism.’”

Bottum succinctly summarizes Mansfield's thoughts with this conclusion:

“It’s a nice point: the two styles of atheism—the angry and the wry—like half-religions on either side of religion. Each getting only part of the human problem, each convinced in its partiality that it sees beyond religion.”
--------
Sources: [*] First Things: On the Square [Joseph Bottum]. [**] Weekly Standard (by way of First Things) [Harvey Mansfield].

School for Money

Here is a poster story of incentives (courtesy of KVOA News)*:

"More than 20,000 Arizona teens dropped out of the class of 2006. To fight the problem, 75 students from low income families at Amphi High and 100 from Rincon high were picked for the new program. The students will get $25 a week as an incentive to stay in school. A local nonprofit will pay for the project."

Is monetizing a reward for attending mandatory school the best--or even good--answer? While it may be rewarding to the number of students in the program, it does not serve as any sort of long-term educational system fix. One can't really blame local officials, given their limited arsenal of tools. Even so, throwing money at a problem will--at best--keep something temporarily static.

Stepping back, we can see a bigger picture. Take a look at these statistics:

[1] Spending - when one converts international education expenditures into equivalent units, U.S. "education expenditures as a percentage of GDP" for primary schooling in 2000 was 3.9%. Germany: 3.4%. Japan: 3%. France 4.3%.**

[2] Results - "U.S. 9 and 13-year-olds performed at a level higher than most of their peers in other countries in reading, roughly the same in science, and lower in mathematics."***

Even if this point on spending and results is at all misguided because spending in this country tends to support administrative ends and not necessarily teachers and materials, then perhaps the over-arching lesson to be learned is that we must necessarily adapt the school system instead of simply attempting to increase funding. More studies need to be done to determine if current changes such as charter schools or other programs have merit.
--------
Sources: [*] WorldNow & KVOA [Ed Tribble]. [**] & [***] United States Department of Education - Institute of Education Sciences.

Honesty and the Profession: Part I

When people speak of the legal profession, off-color yarns will sometimes be spun. Notwithstanding the tiresome "note-worthy" cases in the media or the oft-popular neighborly anecdotes, it can be said with some degree of certainty that lawyers as a whole tend to follow ethical standards as a rule rather than the exception. Nonetheless, in Minnesota roughly 1,100 complaints* were filed annually from 2001 to 2005 concerning legal or ethical malpractice/misfeasance. To put this in perspective, in 2006 Minnesota retained roughly 21,100 attorneys in the state bar.** The ratio--or probability (for those concerned)--of lawyers having complaints filed against them speaks for itself and merits no additional discussion.

In light of this data, what should legal professionals do to minimize the risk of having their actions audited? What should lawyers hold as their model of conduct?

All states have their own codes of professional conduct in some form or another. Yet this raises an interesting question: what does one do when personal morals/beliefs are not always in line with the code? Of course, one can always set his or her personal bar higher than the legal standard. There should be no problem with actions under that regime so long as convictions are made clear at the beginning to potential clients or employers. Yet given our society today, professionals may find that a higher bar can lead to diminished business--not all potential cases can fit neatly into one's comfort zone of "ethical" practice. From this we must analyze the troubling notion of what "ethics" even means in an increasingly relativistic and pluralistic world.

This leads me to the question that will dominate this and later post series: what can a Christian lawyer do to ensure that they not only uphold the law and "ethical" code of their state, but more importantly that they also serve for God's glory?

A seemingly simple question at the outset, but one I imagine must be fraught with difficult questions and periods of reflection when encountered practically. Throughout this series I will provide some of my viewpoints as I learn more.
----------
Sources: [*] Annual Report of the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board June 2006 (Table II). [**] American Bar Association.

Plastic Tithing: Adaptations of the Church

Time Magazine has an interesting article today on the increasing prevalence of ATMs in churches, allowing their non-cash-carrying congregations to offer from credit or debit cards:

"[I]n 2007, the IRS will demand documentation for charitable contributions under $250. Once, all one needed was a diary entry to vouch for such donations.... [A]s a result of the new IRS rule, credit card donations and tithing are likely to increase too because such electronic fund transfers leave a paper trail.

The ... kiosks were [created by] Dr. Marty Baker, pastor of Stevens Creek Community Church in Augusta, Georgia.... [He notes] that total income from contributions has increased 18% since the first kiosk was installed in 2005. Coins and paper money now account for less than 5% of that total."

It is--on one hand--reassuring that the church is moving to adapt to the modern macro-economic financial situation. Aside from this, questions remain: will this inspire Christians to give back to God and their community, or will a church kiosk only bring further cynicism by outsiders and parishioners alike towards the the concept of tithing?

While it is one of our most important duties to offer our given blessings back to God, the process really is two-fold. Historically, the church was the bulwark of community support--government has replaced much of this foundation. Perhaps due to an increasingly secularized world or simply the governmental intervention precedent set with the New Deal, the fact remains that the church has been supplanted.

Unfortunately for many, the idea of the church having a real hand in community affairs frightens many; it invokes the memories of church power after Roman decline (cemented until early modern society). Even more unfortunate is that we often forget that some decades ago the church in the USA usually was the epitome of community support.

Nonetheless, in order for the church to adapt, there must be re-focusing throughout, not simply on monetary intake methods. Not only could--or should--tithing meet the financial methods of today's society, but there must also be a renewed promotion of the church's given role via outreach/serving/evangelizing efforts. While tithing ease-of-use technology may bring about additional resources, the true proverbial fishing lesson will be taught in the outreach effort itself.

---------
Source: Time Magazine [Rita Healy/Denver]

The blog has returned.

This blog has undergone some renovation and reworking. Gone are the days of the obscure and unclarified line rantings. In its place I hope will be somewhat frequent updates on my thoughts on various topics--under the patronage and influence of my Christian faith. Let me know what you think by leaving your (polite) comments and criticisms.

Disclaimer

This blog ("Barroco Cervantes") is subject to the following disclaimers:

1. Definitions

[1a] "Author" means any person or entity expressly authorized to submit posts within this blog. Authors may submit comments and therefore assume "commentator" status for such content.

[1b] "Commentator" shall mean any person or entity submitting comments to authorized posts within this blog.

[1c] "Outside parties" shall mean person(s), websites, groups, organizations, institutions, companies, or others whose blog content does not originate via posts or authorized (i.e. non-spam or non-malicious) comments.
[1d] Any person or entity not deemed to constitute an "author" or "commentator" shall be deemed an "outside party".

2. "Post" & "Comment" Content

[2a] Post content within the blog represents the personal viewpoints only of the individual author(s) submitting the post(s).

[2b] Comment content represents the personal viewpoints only of the specific commentator submitting that specific comment to a post.

[2c] Comment content does not represent the viewpoints of the post's author(s) or other commentators who did not leave such content.

[2d] Post and comment content within this blog does not represent the viewpoints of employers, companies, partnerships, organizations, institutions, groups, or other person(s) (including "outside parties") that may or may not be associated with any author(s) or commentator(s).

3. Alteration

[3a] Authors reserve the right to remove or edit any posts, comments, or outside party content within this blog at any time with or without cause; cause including (but not limited to) offensive or profane material submitted by authors, commentators, and outside parties.

[3c] Submitting content to Barroco Cervantes as an author or commentator demonstrates intent to be subject to these disclaimers within this post.

4. Outside Content

[4a] Outside parties submitting content within this blog cannot be deemed to constitute either authors or commentators.

[4b] Authors and commentators shall not be held responsible for the content of outside parties linked or expressed either by outside parties, authors, or commentators within this blog.

5. Citation

[5a] Authors and commentators shall take reasonable steps to ensure that all sources quoted in their content within this blog are cited appropriately to the original source location.

[5b] Quotations and citations referred to in posts should appear in red font.