Day: June 13, 2002

Essay Question (25 points)

Select one (and only one) of the following and defend the position in an essay of no more than 1,000 words:

1) The American Catholic Church stands on the verge of a full-fledged rift with the Vatican, as American Bishops move towards policies that are more open and inclusive of the laity, while the Vatican hierarchy stands firm on the top-down command-and-control structures of the past centuries. Provide specific policy examples, and compare the current crisis with past upheavals in the Church. Extra credit: Outline the conditions that could lead to an American Reformation, in which the Church in the United States fully and completely splits from the Vatican hierarchy, and assess whether such a split would be a positive or negative development for Christianity worldwide.

or

2) The crisis gripping the Catholic Church will not result in significant reforms, to the detriment of the Church’s hold on its American faithful. Catholicism will wane as a significant power in American spiritual life; membership will plummet as formerly devout Catholics drift away from a Church they no longer trust. The financial base of the Catholicism in the United States will crumble, forcing a significant retreat for the Church, which will be compelled to significantly scale back social programs and other spending both in the United States and worldwide, resulting in a smaller, less worldly institution focused inward on itself.

or

3) A third way will be found, in which satisfactory reforms will be implemented which restore American Catholics faith in the institution of the Church, while simultaneously remaining within the bounds set by the Vatican hierarchy. Describe in detail the steps that must be taken by the American Bishops, the concerned laity in the United States, and the Vatican for such a solution to come to pass, and why you believe such an outcome is feasible. Students successfully addressing this position will likely be asked to follow up with a precise six-week plan to achieve full and lasting peace in the Middle East.

Submit all essays your section lead; exceptional responses will be shared with the class.

And remember: spelling counts.

Blatant Anti-Bear Propoganda

I am shocked — shocked! — at the speciesism on display at the WaPo. Observe columnist Kagan’s otherwise thoughtful analysis of U.S. – Europe differences on how to attack terrorism:

Because of the disparity of power, Americans and Europeans even view threats differently. A person armed only with a knife may decide that a bear prowling the forest is a tolerable danger — trying to kill the bear is riskier than lying low and hoping the bear never attacks. But a person with a rifle will likely make a different calculation: Why should he risk being mauled to death if he doesn’t need to?

Excuse me! What is with this killing of bears? Somebody’s getting a terse letter, I’ll tell you.

On a less disturbing note: I’m just not sure I buy this whole Europe-and-America-are-parting ways argument. Yes, Europeans and Americans are viewing the current crisis differently, and Kagan provides good reasons for why this may be so.

But my instinct, at least, is that this is less a fundamental shift than a perceived difference in circumstances.

Europe does not view itself to be directly under threat from the current war. If you doubt this, consider that even now, America is having difficulty remembering that we are under threat. When (fate forbid) a European city loses a few city blocks and a few thousand citizens, and al Qaeda (or some other group) declares the French to be their sworn enemy, the European tune will change. American unilateralism — otherwise known as “could you please come fix our mess again?” — will once again be back in vogue.

And I suspect that underneath it all, there is a current of relief in Europe that America is there to do the nasty things than Europe can’t get its consensual ass together to do itself.

So will we see the support we want from our European allies? Probably not in the ways we truly want, not anytime soon. Will they actively stand in our way? Also probably not.

So the rational approach is to keep doing what we’re doing: charting the course that we think best serves the interest of the United States, and best serves the interest of the world as a whole. Europe will drag its feet at times, but when the chips are truly down, they will come around. And the best way to make that happen is to ensure that our policies are not just self-serving realpolitik, but are genuinely geared at improving the safety and security of the planet. Simply because a policy is blessed by a consensus of gnomes in Brussels or Geneva doesn’t make it moral or just; nor is a policy conceived by a single nation by definition immoral.

If we use the power we have simply to advance U.S. hegemony, then Europe will leave us to struggle alone. But if we choose to lead the fight to defend the security and liberty of the world — Europe will follow. If not the gnomes of Brussels, than the men and women who they claim to serve. My faith in the European elites is slight: but my faith in the people of Europe is strong. If we show them that we’re serious, and that we’re interested in more than our own petty gains, they’ll come on board. Because they know the right side of this fight, even if their bureaucrats don’t.

Wheaton Ass-Kicking Update:

The Truth Laid Bear: Up to on the user rating

WILL WHEATON DOT NET: Holding steady at 4.0382695507488

So Wheaton thinks he’s better than me, huh? Well the numbers say he’s only 0.720087732567 better. And not for long.

Wesley, can you come stand on this transporter pad for a sec? I want to try something…

A brief from David Janes, which I quote in its entirety:

Sweden is modifying its constitution to ban criticism of homosexuality and alternate lifestyles. How if your alternative lifestyle is based on criticizing homosexuality? More seriously, isn’t the point of freedom of speech to be able to adopt and advocate positions that the majority disagrees with?

Yeah. It’s amazing how many people (and legislators) in supposedly enlightened democracies really don’t get that concept.

Douglas Turnbull over at Beauty of Gray us of the fifth plane to be lost last fall — American Flight 583. He’s got a wrap-up of the latest from the NTSB investigation — which has not released conclusions as yet, but has provided some info on their web site.

Jay Manifold thinks small is beautiful. Or at least, short is.

The topic du jour is about rebuilding the WTC, which from a safe distance of 1200 miles, I … still oppose. The density of central cities is an artifact of an earlier time, where the value of information combined with limited bandwidth and personal transportation to require close physical proximity … I have seen the future, and it’s about 50 feet high.

Well, sure, out there in the cornfields of Kansas City it’s easy to say that. But I would point out that Manhattan is an island. There ain’t no more space to build any direction but up there… and hasn’t been for some time. And so for some patches of civilization, I think you’re going to have those big buildings… not necessarily out of architectural hubris, but out of simple geometry…

Thanks to those who some votes over at The Weblog Review. I’m #4 on the “Readers’ Top 5” list, and am now up to a reader rating of 3.1428571428571.
Approximately.

New goal: Kick that punk Wil Wheaton‘s ass. He’s got a reader rating of 4.0434056761269. Approximately.

And he’s all that stands between me and that #3 slot.

C’mere, Wil. I’ve got this nice red shirt I’d like to lend you…