Commonality

You know, it’s interesting, having a common name; it’s always evolved into something a bit more colloquial. That can be, both a blessing and a curse, as I am sure anyone can imagine. It’s one of those things that I sometimes take for granted. For instance, I don’t recall anyone ever mispronouncing my name or having to ask how to spell it. No – nothing of the sort has ever transpired. At the same time, however, there are the disadvantages.

“I know someone named Matt Johnson.” “Matt Johnson was a teacher of mine.” “Matt Johnson committed a crime in my town growing up,” etc… Like I said, it is both a blessing and a curse. The following is part of an email to the woman organizing programs for my church. I am co-leading a Confirmation/Teen “Sunday School,” this year, which should be fun. Like volunteering at the Boys and Girls Club, I enjoy teaching and helping kids learn. As I derive a nice amount of self-satisfaction out of the process, I don’t think I earn altruistic points, but with that, it’s great there is nothing better than a good win-win.

I should note, on the side, with Isaac and Aaron being co-leaders, I think I am going to have to start going by "Matthew," in order to keep things appropriately biblical. I am not sure how to put it otherwise. Isaac and Aaron both have the solemn tone and name-recognition associated with the Old Testament. Sure Matthew is a Gospel, but come on, every other kid in the Eighth Grade at North Middle School goes by "Matt," "Matthew," "Matty," or worse yet "Mattie."

I'd change my name to Mark, John or Luke, but I think I am beaten in those directions as well. Shucks, with Nathanael being from Bartholomew, I might have to start going that direction. Of course, then that lends itself to Simpson's references.

Can I be called Moses or Noah? I like Noah; that has sort of a Hollywood screenwriter feel to it...

Yeah, that’s it!
Best,
Noah

Misguided Faith – Means for Control

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/24/evangelical.vote/index.html

It never ceases to amaze me, the way those that speak so highly about faith and the bible in public life cannot academically and respectfully disagree with another person’s challenge to their respective positions. The link above is to a CNN story about James Dobson, stating that: "I think he's [Obama] deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology."

What Obama says in the speech cited from a few years ago is in the article. Please read it, and make your own judgments; however, please think about this. Is it that Obama has an issue with the bible? No, that’s not what he says.

Obama’s problem with the use of the bible in public policy is the same problem I have with it. Prior to faith being intertwined with law, that faith would have to undergo a synthesis, being transmuted from, in this case, the bible, and then written into law.

To whom do we go for such enlightenment? Who are appropriately learned in the scripture to intertwine their faith in our laws? For Dobson, I am sure he would cite maybe not himself, but other religious leaders that could be involved. Of course, who selects these leaders to be those who interpret the bible? What about those of varying faiths?

What if one day, the US, following this precedent became an Islamic state? Would it not then make sense to follow Sharia? I know; I know, the slippery slope argument is a fallacy, but please see the parallel to what Dobson is saying. In essence, opening up the bible to our interpretations and evaluations, for the purpose of jurisprudence becomes an ugly and dangerous thing.

I started to write about Con and Transubstantiation, but held off on it. The point is the argument for incorporating faith in law, when there is a constitutional framework for their separation— for good reason, holds no water. How about this: why don’t we look to the bible, like we look to Greek philosophy for object moral axioms, and apply them to law? Thereby extrapolating these simple and objective axioms into different circumstances, and applying them to case by case by case. Following an agreed decision, citing conventional wisdom and previously decided opinions, we develop a framework of laws… My goodness, I am should be a framer of Early-Modern Constitutional Law, or a philosopher like Locke, Kant, or Mills!

The point is, when someone starts to reinforce their arguments using their interpretation of their translation of sacred texts, they are working to their personal morality. I think I am better off without James Dobson’s idea of Morality; he supports Bush, who put us in a war without substantial provocation.