Sometimes I wish I had strayed a little more from the applied sciences of engineering when I made my blazing run through university. I love to kick back at times, and let my mind ponder the higher things in life: why are we here? how can we solve the problems man faces? However, I have no exposure to the great philosophers, other than the few I've read on my own -- believe me, they are few. So with apologies to the reader, this amateur is about to take on questions that have stumped others with skills of greater depth and more finely tuned than my own. Care to read on, and see how well I do?

If you have read any of my previous posts (they're posted in reverse chronological order, so that the topmost journal entry is the most recent post), you will gather I am a person of faith. Faith must have an object, and the object of my faith is an invisible Person, Whom I've never actually seen. And here, in the modern era, most would point out the problem they perceive: how can you believe in something/Someone you've never seen? Let me turn the question around. What or whom do you believe in? How did you arrive at your beliefs?

The amateur philosopher pauses for breath, and dramatic effect.

The one sentient species I'm aware of, man, starts off pretty helpless. Usually mom and dad provide for the young one's needs: food, shelter, education. At some point, the tender young thing begins to make decisions for himself. Along the way, he picks up values and principles from role models in his life. Some personality quirks are ingrained (nature), some are caught (nurture). The lucky ones have a rich family heritage, one where mom or dad will tell funny stories about grandma or grandpa, or great-great-so-and-so. These stories take on epic characteristics, where the subject seems larger than life. But we listen with enjoyment, understanding that the main part of the story is based on something that actually happened.

Imagine that chain of family heritage is broken, as with ancient civilizations that have dried up and passed away. Who's left to tell the stories? Broken pottery, dilapidated stone structures, ashes from campfires long cold -- sounds like archaeology. The archaeologist combines an artist's rendition of the story of a forgotten people with the polkadotted facts he is able to gather from his digging. Not quite as rich as mom or dad passing down the traditions directly, but hopefully some of the story rings true.

So were you there when your mother and father had the romantic interlude that resulted in your conception? No? But you're pretty sure it happened, right? I wasn't there when the Big Bang happened, but thousands of scientists the world over have scraped over the evidence and put together the highlights of a story that strike pretty close to how things played out, so we guess. But the scientists' story can never convey the rich family heritage by merely poring over the facts. Just as a child grows strong and confident by the personal contact from a loving mother and father, lovingly passing on family values and rich heritage -- conversely, so too does a child wither and grow into less than a full person in the void of a loving family's nurture. Who did this, this marvelous work of creation? This beauty that surrounds us, whether through a microscope, or through a telescope, or by the unaided eye -- this beauty cries out for its Author to be acknowledged. The missing element of the science of our origins is the rich, personal contact found in family life. "Mom, tell me the story of how you and Dad met." Stories put the fact into a framework that has meaning. Apart from this framework, facts are devoid of meaning. Scientists tell the dry story of what they read in the facts they find. But how are they at inferring the story?

The amateur abruptly shifts his focus.

So whether you believe in God, or don't, comes down to a matter of a choice. The facts are open to interpretation. Every scientist knows there is more than one theory supported by the facts. You choose the theory you believe in. I deliberately choose to believe that an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God has caused the physical world to exist for His purposes. Further, I believe part of His purpose involves a personal relationship with me, and with every other member of the human species. And how did I come to this conclusion? Much like inheriting a rich family legacy, I had personal contact with someone who told me a story. This believer passed on the meaning behind the facts. I made the choice to believe. If you're trolling the Internet looking for the meaning of life, give it up. What I mean by that is, you will most likely be frustrated trying to reason out the story apart from a relationship, just reading the words on a web page -- it's just like family heritage! It takes personal contact to fill in the meaning! Find a warmblooded human being to share a living story with you. I am willing to be that contact -- let me know how I can help.

Sloganeering is an interesting science. Much as George Orwell predicted, those who control the meaning of words have gone much of the distance towards controlling the people. Sometimes I get pretty frustrated trying to have a normal conversation because I have to spend so much time clarifying what the word "is" means! What a brave new world ...

So the phrase pro-choice comes to mind. If I can distance myself from the sloganeered hijacking of the term, then everything about it resonates positively within me. It sounds as if it describes a hands-off attitude. I trust your ability to make the decision that's best for you. Comes pretty close to one of my personal mottos: live and let live. Before I get too high and mighty, I'd better explain where I'm coming from.

I believe in an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, very personal God who is responsible for creating the physical universe we see around us, as well as the spiritual dimension of the universe (of which we're not always aware). My understanding of this loving being is that He believes in free will and self determination. I admire Him so much that I want to be like Him (I understand I'll never be omni-anything). So in as much as I have a say over my own character, I want to shape it (and ask Him to shape it) to be as much like Him as possible. Therefore I believe in free will and self determination. Which leads me to an uncomfortable paradox, one I've examined in other journal entries: how do I reconcile this strong leaning towards personal freedom with God's explicit directives to honor temporal government? Duh ... I don't know. I'm still working that out. Besides being omni-everything, He is perfectly holy. Every living soul -- past, present, and future -- will give an account to Him for how they lived their lives. (An aside: those who reject the existence of God will note here that I draw my morality from my God-based belief system.)

Back to this sloganeering concept. It's regrettable that chop shops, such as Planned Parenthood, have co-opted the term pro-choice to enshroud their propaganda and hate crimes. (See? Aren't slogans fun!?!) A woman has the right to choose what happens to her body! OK, choose not to engage in an activity that invites new life into your body. What?!?! Abstain from sexual relations if you don't want to get pregnant. Every act of sexual intercourse is (should be) a holy act of one man and one woman, partnered for life, inviting God to reproduce life from their life together. Any sexual act outside this partnership is on par with murder. I find no fault in contraception, but it's foolish to believe that sexual intercourse will never result in pregnancy. The 99.9% means 1 in 1000 gets through! For righteous sex, get married, stay faithful to the one you marry, and be prepared to raise kids together. (By the way, there's your AIDS prevention campaign in a nutshell.)

(Enter stage right, tired old argument ... ) Dude, what about rape and incest!?! Let me see if I have this straight.
1.) Man forces woman to have sexual relations.
2.) Baby is conceived by this unfortunate incident.
3.) The woman wishes to terminate the life of the baby.
You and I have a vastly differing sense of justice. The baby qualifies as an innocent life, with the same rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as any other soul in these great Untied States. The rapist deserves castration or death. Not the baby! It seems as just to terminate the mother as to terminate the baby! What has she done wrong? Nothing! But then again, what has the baby done to warrant ending its life? You want to see a dramatic decrease in sex crimes? Then stop rewarding the rapist by removing the product of his crime! Hold him accountable! Make him pay alimony! Castrate him, so no further crimes can be committed! Cruel and unusual? Ask the victim about unusual cruelty! Make the punishment fit the crime!

I never was good at debate. Anything that requires emotional distance from the facts -- no, I can't handle it. Unemotional survey of the facts? Ever read Perelandra? Intelligence, in and of itself, is not "good". It can be used for evil. The storyline in Perelandra involves a study of an intelligence, bent on evil, applying facts to his argument. Facts are merely observations. Observations are based on ability to interact with the surrounding environment. Those who refuse to acknowledge the spiritual have limited observation -- a willfully self-imposed limitation! -- with respect to spiritual truths. Choice is a matter of the will. Belief is a matter of the will. Spiritual truths exist, whether you willfully refuse to believe, or willfully choose to believe. We hold these truths to be self-evident ... Our nation was founded on the assumption that these spiritual truths would be acknowledged by future generations. (So much for that idea.) If you refuse to acknowledge the spiritual dimension of life, then you can be controlled by deception of a spiritual nature. What if you say, "I refuse to believe until you show me the facts." What if the answer is, "You will never be able to observe [witness these facts] until you choose to believe." Yep, the old paradox: believing is seeing. Much like saying, "I don't believe in stars." Why not? "I've never seen a star!" Have you ever looked up, at night? "No." Then how do you know they don't exist!? "Believing" is the turning of your head star-ward, and "seeing" is the light of the stars hitting your retina. Unless you direct your soul to believe that God could exist, you will never have the corresponding reaction of your soul "observing" His existence.

So I'm all about free choice. Free your mind! Try this experiment: say, "God, I choose to believe that You are real, even though I cannot taste, touch, smell, hear, or feel you. I believe. Now let me see that You are real." But that's your choice. Got Questions?

I have no idea who reads Slashdot. I'm pretty self-absorbed with respect to my fellow Slashdotters, all half-million plus. My navel-gazing reverie was shattered the other day when I read GigsVT's sig on several of the comments to the the EU hate-speech story.

The sig: Prohibition strikes at the principles upon which our Government was founded -Lincoln

I have no idea who GigsVT is, what country this person is from, what belief system this person operates by, no idea at all. Given the link to the Drug Reform Coordination network, I'm taking a wild guess on what this person believes. An enemy of my enemies is my friend? Well, almost, unless he declares himself also an enemy of my friend. So reading on drcnet.org I see tidbits of propaganda promoting the legalization of marijuana, or arguments for syringe exchange programs -- ugh, enough to make my stomach turn. While I agree the "War on Drugs" should end, I disagree as to why. I have no desire to see people's lives ruined by drug addiction. Alcoholism is just as bad, but do you know what the Prohibition gained in the "War on Booze"? An enlarged police state and a thriving underground criminalized industry to deliver the outlawed booze. So while I agree that the "War on Drugs" is A Bad Thing, I disagree as to why.

Marijuana smoke destroys the lungs at a faster rate than that of tobacco cigarettes, by better than 4 to 1 (Dr. Harold Voth, senior psychiatrist, Menninger Foundation, Topeka, KS). Sustained use of marijuana by teenagers impedes brain development. Which part of the brain? The part used to focus, concentrate, conceptualize at an advanced level. One study at Columbia University show that marijuana damages the DNA in reproductive cells (ie, eggs and sperm) and another study demonstrates a 39% damage to the immune system suffered by casual users. I guess this is better than suffering excrutiating pain from a slow death by cancer, but not by much ... ?

So it's not that I advocate easier access to drugs. I don't advocate consuming alcohol or tobacco or any other mind altering chemical. I do think that the God-ordained free will of every human being, the right to choose one's own destiny, supercedes any governmental "right" to keep said human from destroying himself. So GigsVT seems (at first glance, since I don't claim to know the fellow) to be a civil libertarian of the same stripe as the ACLU. So what exception do I take?

Take a gander at The Real Lincoln. Far from a saint who should be idolized, Lincoln is just another opportunistic prick, like Clinton or G.W. Leave it to the governmental regime in D.C. to elevate the patron saint of centralized government. So isn't it ironic that a libertarian, such as GigsVT, would quote a proponent of centralized government, such as Lincoln? I'm all for live and let live, so it strikes me as rather odd to see an oil-and-water coupling such as a link to drcnet.org and a quote from Lincoln. To further the irony, the quote itself hearkens back to founding principles of our government. Gee, Abe, would that be something like a "voluntary union of several sovereign States"? Not. Spank that down with Ulysses S. Grant and what's-his-name Shermanator, not to mention the suspension of habeus corpus and posse comitatus. GigsVT, do you realize that the author of your quote is the same guy who, through excessive force, catapulted the federal government from the loose federation of the early 19th century into the stranglehold mammoth we know today? The same mammoth prosecuting the "War on Drugs" ...

A guy I love to quote, Joe Sobran, observes that the War on Drugs is carte blanche license for the government to swell without limit. No thanks. Can we tear down the Lincoln Memorial now?

Ah, the wonderful smell of politics in the air. It must be November of some even-numbered year in the land of the free and the home of the brave (sic). I'm not sure what it smells like where you come from, but down here in our neck of the woods it "yea verily stinketh". The potential for mudslinging among politicians never ceases to underwhelm me.

I would like to think that a person enters a political race with the utmost selflessness, seeking to be a servant of the public. This is the picture taught me by my civics class, albeit in a government-funded public high school. I would like to think that the media's fixation on negativity in politics only stems from the marketability of those stories. In other words, who wants to hear about ... *yawn* ... a public servant who's serving the public's best interest? Bribery, corruption, murder, deceit -- I expect these things from a banana republic when I watch a Tom Clancy novel-turned-movie. But, c'mon! My state capital? Washington, D.C.?

I'll be the first to admit that I have a limited perspective. I cannot see beyond the data available to me. My conspiracy-theory-mindedness probably directs me to the darker data first. Obviously, anything exculpatory is propaganda from "the machine," right? Maybe my dementia is leaking through here, but I'm really trying to examine the issues thoughtfully. I cannot see beyond the data available to me. But do I seek out data that confirms my worst suspicions? Do I seek out sources that, in the past, have given me such dark tidbits? How broad is my source base? If all I read is /. then that's all there is to know, right? Or what if what I read includes anarcho-capitalist or burned-out conservatives? How broad of a worldview can I sustain with such a narrow stream of input?

[Freud]Let me ask you about your father.[/Freud] Growing up, my father repeatedly made statements like, "Government is a necessary evil" and "If you ever want to screw something up, give it to a government agency." These were my formative years. It's pretty hard for me to swim upstream against the Pavlovian current to imagine anything good or beneficial emanating from anything governmental in origin. But this same father also raised me according to his faith (see previous journal entry). Welcome to my dementia. Pulled between two opposite forces: "Government is evil" and "Government is ordained by God". Well, well, well ...

So what do I make of these opposite poles in my brain? I'm not sure. Check back with this journal often, and maybe you'll see some kind of world view emerge. Until then, please accept this brief synopsis: Government is evil, because men are evil. The only good man is one who's given up his selfish interests to serve God's purposes on the earth. (The only way to give up your selfish interests is to encounter the living God.) The only good government will be the one established by the Son of God upon His return to earth. (I don't even trust a righteous man in the crucible of ultimate power one finds in modern governments ... he's bound to succumb to some selfish whim in that hot a fire.) Until that time of redemption, God chooses to use less-than-perfect vessels (evil men in evil governments) to effect His purposes on the earth, one of which is to restrain the deeds of evil men. So let's see if that makes sense: although governments are evil because the men who run them are evil, God is bigger and allows them to exist so that His purpose of restraining evil on the earth can be accomplished. You may have noticed a large jump there -- no, I don't suppose to speak for God, He speaks for Himself. But in order to buy that, you first have to come to grips with Scripture. And that's way beyond my debating skills for now. Suffice it to say that God is much bigger than you or I or anyone can describe, so it's trivial for Him to intervene in the lives of men in order to have His words preserved in print. The point, the point, aren't these things s'posed to have a point? My ideal government would be one that exists ONLY to effect the moral law of its constituents. "Limited government" will always exceed its bounds. Some of the aforementioned anarcho-capitalists propose a privatized version of crime and punishment. Works for me. What I completely reject is what I see all around me: the nanny state, that provides cradle-to-grave coddling. That amounts to idolatry, when a person relies completely on another entity for all manner of provision and well being.

Bah! I've gone too deep. I've touched some primal emotion that prevents me from capturing my thoughts in rational terms! I'll have to stew on these thoughts a bit before I spew any more journal entries. Until then, my good reader ...

In his latest editorial, Joe Sobran suggests that the so-called "War on Drugs" effectively bolsters the federal government's steady erosion of the rights of its citizens.

There are a lot of things right about America. However, the fun things to grouse about are the things "wrong" with America. I personally have this tic that requires me to generalize "lessons learned" to the bigger picture, so I wonder if things "wrong with America" also apply to other people groups, even other time periods?

Read the article. Mr. Sobran mentions enough good points to save me the time to mention other points, or at least focus (fixate?) on the highlights. Drugs are "A Bad Thing" (tm). But isn't the overconsumption of alcohol also "A Bad Thing" (tm)? So Mr. Sobran's analogy of the Prohibition to the modern War on Drugs merits some thought. What did the Prohibition accomplish? It taught us that Sunday School teacher prudery has no business in the federal government. Don't get me wrong. I will put prude Sunday School teachers on my local school board all day long, so I have no problem with prudery in government. The problem I have is government that is too far out of reach. I can have an arm-over-the-shoulder brother-to-brother talk with the school board member, because he lives two blocks from me. What level of interaction do I have with my elected federal representatives? The last letter I wrote netted one canned response, towing the Democrat party line. Since I am neither Republican nor Democrat, this canned response repulsed me. That was my congressman. I wonder what I can expect from my senator? Or the president? The empty set, I'm sure. Zero. Because I am not the sole proprietor of a multimillion dollar enterprise, I have no bearing on the direction of this nation. One vote, you say? Bah! Votes can be bought, or resurrected, or outright manufactured. Democracy is a failure. But I won't back up my bitterness with fact right now, that's a later diatribe.

So what's the solution? Working within the framework of the current instantiation of these Untied (sic) States, I propose the deliberate and far-reaching dismantling of every federal agency not expressly delineated by constitutional order. Isn't that what you do with your desktop when applications go awry? You hit the reset button, which directs the computer to go back to the original marching orders and start over. Why not? Inertia is overrated, so is momentum. The tide can be turned. Oh, let's keep borrowing tired cliches: the sleeping giant must be awakened! Which giant is that? The sleeping masses of these Untied (sic) States! You and I!!! Wake up and smell the stench! D.C. is corrupt beyond belief, and needs to be brought to a reckoning! (No, not armed revolt, you dolt! Just a level-headed steady-handed application of the Constitution! Not some dreamy-eyed liberalized "living document" -- RTFConstitution!)

I guess that is a legal drug ... the drug of wishing and dreaming for Constitutionally limited government. there's no such thing [as a free society], because every attempt at [establishing] a free society has ended by a centralization into a totalitarian state. (to quote myself)

That way lies madness ... asking the "what if?" questions ... "what if Lincoln restrained himself to the Constitution instead of destroying the Constitution in order to save it?" ... "what if FDR had reverted the US back to the gold standard instead of embarking on a lunatic's crusade (aka the New Deal)?" ... "what if the executive branch (ie, the office of the President) limited itself to the enforcement of the law instead of acting as virtual dictator for four year terms?" ... "what if the judicial branch actually served as a check and/or balance instead of advocating the unstemmed growth of federal hegemony?" ... "what if Congress made no laws where the Constitution says, Congress shall make no law ... ?" ... madness indeed.

According to the Apostle Paul, government's God-ordained purpose for existence is to punish those who do wrong. So he encourages his readers to obey the law and pay their taxes, and to give honor and respect to all whom it is due. That's all fine and dandy. Yep, that suits me just fine. But what happens when the government is no longer honorable and respectable? Hmm, let us pause and focus our thoughts on that. Paul wrote an epistle or two from the inside of a Roman prison. In fact, he worshipped a God whose human life was ended on a Roman cross. Yet he never advocates the sword. To the contrary, his life was an example of a drink offering poured out as prayer for his oppressors. It comes as no surprise, then, that I think the God of the Christian Bible is legit. I want to choose my actions in life in such a way as to honor Him. I want to maximize the amount of time I spend with Him, in His tangible or intangible presence. But not all who read the Bible are Christians. Not all who claim to be Christians are Christians. Sometimes a Christian's worst enemy is a so-called Christian. Those who are called by God lead lives of faith. Faith is a hope in something not (yet) seen. Faith is action; God says thus-and-so in His Word, therefore I will live my life based on what He says. When so-called Christians take up arms and resist whatever government oppresses them, they sacrifice their greatest weapon: faith in God. Taking up armed rebellion against an oppressive government is faith in action, but faith in the wrong god. "For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal" -- the writings of Paul admonish the Christian to lay aside the sword, fall to his knees, and implore the God of heaven to shake the earthly powers-that-be. Prayer is the weapon of the Christian.

I quote the Bible, but my life doesn't always hold up to scrutiny (does yours?). I guess I am somewhat ashamed to admit that, contrary to what Paul wrote, I see governments as inherently evil, since I view every member of the human race as born into evil, therefore we are each capable of commiting the most terrible evil. (Maybe Paul was saying government should be limited to only this one basic function, which is to curb the evil actions of evildoers.) What happens when all power is concentrated into a small population? Well, you have the governments of the twentieth century. You have Washington, D.C., a seething, writhing pit of snakes and vipers. So, when a so-called Christian organizes a political group to coalesce power to work within this snake pit, I question that person's motives. My self image may be self-deprecatory (a la Groucho Marx, "I would never join a club that would have me as a member"). I may project that mentality on others (to the tune of "I would never vote for the type of person who would run for public office"). But my poor little brain cannot reconcile the concept of a person of genuine faith in the Living God integrating with the operating scheme of holding public office in these Untied States. I can leave room for the person of faith, responding to God's call, who like Daniel serves in the king's court. But even David was an adulterer and a murderer. I have no faith in a "Christian" government, unless you're referring to the government seated on Christ's shoulders. Anything based on the bottom-line of a human being ("Christian" or otherwise) calling the shots -- will never have my trust.

So where does that leave me? A mere mortal treading the weary sod of this earth? Wary, but not without faith. Not without hope. I do not cast my vote, wishing and hoping that G.W. will solve the world's ills. (See how well that one worked out?) Neither do I join the militia, singing the song that the new regime will right all the wrongs of the old. (Look at all the banana republics down south. Same tune, different sod -- do you think that white skin enables you to overcome evils that hindered those with skin of brown? WRONG!) I will stand with my brothers in the faith, singing the seemingly futile song that Jesus will return, though we wait another 2000 years, His return is very soon. In the end, nothing else matters except the faithfulness of your own heart to what is true. He is true. May I be found faithful.

Aren't these journal entries supposed to make sense?