5 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(11/10/04 12:00pm)
On Nov. 2 President Bush won a second term in office. This should not have come as too much of a surprise.
Historically it has been very difficult to defeat a wartime president. What is truly shocking, however, is that the majority of people voted based on their moral values, not the war on terror or the economy.
Why did this happen? Why did no one see it coming? For one thing, the media presented a slanted view. From watching television and reading newspapers, one might guess that most of America believes in gay marriage, that it is the wave of the future and there is no use trying to stop it.
And where did all of these conservative/religious values come from? When on the news have we ever heard something about religion that was not negative? When have we ever heard about the growth of the pro-life movement?
Certainly it is talked about here and there, but not with same enthusiasm that is given to liberal issues. If every small pro-life victory were mentioned, and the March for Life were given the coverage it deserved, we would understand just how vibrant the move toward traditional morality has been in this country.
The fact of the matter is that the liberal media misinformed us. Ironically, liberal bias in the media greatly hurt the liberal cause. Liberals did not see just how conservative the majority of America was when it came to moral values because, thanks to the media, it seemed that liberal causes were going so well.
As a result, the Democrats pushed too hard on extremely liberal moral issues and suffered a severe backlash.
That being said, we should also examine what this means for the future of American politics. Was it just an aberration, something that will soon pass? I do not think so. In the years to come, the push for the reintroduction of conservative values will only grow stronger.
This movement will really be unstoppable because an enormous amount of people will support it, while far fewer will remain to be advocates for liberal positions.
Liberal moral values have been put into law not because the whole nation was behind them, but only because the right people were in the right places.
Enough liberal judges were on the Supreme Court, so Roe v. Wade was put through and has remained legal. The same thing happened in Massachusetts when gay marriage was legalized. But when it comes to a popular vote, as we have seen, Americans will support traditional values.
Also, as time goes by, the conservative position will only gain more support from the rising generation. There is an increasing number of people in college
and in their 20s and early 30s who are part of a generational revival of conservatism, as discussed in the book "The New Faithful" by Colleen Carroll. I think this group will ultimately prove more influential than young liberals, who, while extremely fervent, are not getting the numbers they need.
We heard so much about how newly registered college-age voters were going to vote against Bush in large numbers.
I personally thought this might cost him the election in Ohio, where late at night many college students had not yet voted. But it never happened. The percentage of college students who voted was not significantly larger than in the 2000 election, according to the Associated Press.
At any rate, the election results show us that the Democratic party is out of step with most American voters on moral issues. It has alienated itself from many who might have supported it.
I believe that if the party is going to get back on track, it should take a more conservative position on controversial issues, thereby undercutting one of the Republican party's greatest strengths.
If it does, its strong positions on social justice could make it the clearest moral choice. I do not think this will happen, but either way I think extreme liberalism in the moral realm is losing ground and will clearly be overcome by conservatism in the years to come.
(10/20/04 12:00pm)
The recent findings about "hook-ups" at the College have attracted quite a bit of publicity. Many are shocked that such a large number of people are engaging in meaningless sexual activity.
I, however, think it is important that we now move beyond all of that and examine the human effects of this practice.
In particular, I would like to point out just how harmful hook-ups are to women.
Before developing my argument, it is necessary to treat some of the psychological differences between men and women.
For one, women care much more about interpersonal relationships than men.
This is evident when we listen to the conversations of the different sexes. When men talk, they usually discuss things like sports, the news or an academic subject. Women, on the contrary, will talk about other people and about each other.
One study also shows that often men do not face each other while talking. Women, conversely, will look right at each other, and are far better at focusing their attention exclusively on another person.
The psychological difference which makes men concentrate on things and women on people also carries over into the sexual sphere.
When it comes to sex, just as in conversation, men interpret the experience based on the objective content, the practical experience, which of course means the pleasure that comes from it.
Women, conversely, focus more on the effect the experience has on the relationship.
Thus men will sometimes, it is sad to say, see sex as something purely pleasurable, while women will see it as something that builds intimacy and emotional attachment.
From this information we can see that women are by nature more monogamous than men.
This is common knowledge: it is a well-worn clich? that men find it harder to commit to a relationship than women.
Now, all I have mentioned above is a generality.
Members of each sex have a certain tendency to act in a certain way in interpersonal and especially romantic relationships and close friendships.
These generalities of course do not apply to everyone, and in any fully mature person things will not be so clear-cut.
No man or woman will have fully developed his or her personality if he or she have not incorporated some of the predominate characteristics of the opposite sex.
Even so, as general rules, these principles are true and valuable to our discussion.
My point in exploring the differences between men and women is to show that hooking up will have different effects on women and men.
If women are more monogamous than men, hooking up is sure to hurt them. What could be less monogamous than a hook-up?
The practice is especially damaging to women since they look to sex as a way to share and deepen intimacy.
This is of course impossible when two people have a sexual encounter without any emotional attachment.
There is absolutely nothing in a woman's natural instincts that would make her want to engage in such a practice.
I am forced to think that in most of these cases women become the objects of manipulation by men.
Men, driven by selfishness and a desire for self-gratification, no matter what the cost to others, try to hook up with girls.
Why do women go along?
I imagine in most cases it is the result of a root insecurity that makes them seek emotional bonding, even if only for a fleeting moment.
Even if a someone looks at sexual activity very casually, it is probably because of a deadening of emotions through repeated emotional hurts.
We should also note that when it comes to hooking up, society will sometimes praise men who are successful at it while denouncing women who participate in it.
Men will brag about and in some circles actually be respected for their sexual conquests, while promiscuous women are seen as 'easy.' How terrible it is to treat women this way. How much disrespect it shows towards them. Truly, it must stop.
Seeing the harm hook-ups do to women, I would encourage women to absolutely refuse to take part in them.
You deserve so much better than to be treated as an object of pleasure and then be forgotten about.
There is so much more to life than fleeting pleasure or excitement. Have high ideals, look for genuine self-giving, self-sacrificing love, which is really the deepest desire of your heart.
Perhaps you think that men who live up to these ideals do not exist. I assure that they certainly do; accept nothing less.
(10/06/04 12:00pm)
I like to read. I suppose this is why I enjoy being a history major so much. At the start of college, when I discovered that I could make a productive four years out of reading and writing (with a few math courses slipped in at community college over the summer), I could not have been happier. In fact, even when I am finished with my course work for the day, if I am not seeing friends or out jogging or playing tennis, I am probably reading. It certainly has its perks: I hardly ever get bored.
For my recreational reading, one of my favorite authors to read is C.S. Lewis, and the purpose of this column is to encourage other people to read him as well. I began reading Lewis in high school, although I probably took a different route than most people. It would have been normal to start with the Chronicles of Narnia as a child, but sadly I was never introduced to these wonderful stories until much later.
I do not remember the first thing I read by Lewis, but I believe it was one of his theological nonfiction works, and "The Screwtape Letters" soon after. Reading Lewis really opened up a new world to me. At the time I was experiencing a deepening religious conversion, but had I never made a serious study of theology, I would not have known where to begin. Lewis, however, had an ability to make theology intensely interesting.
One would think that studying theology would be tedious, but with Lewis it was never so. To take one example, he wrote "Mere Christianity," a general introduction to Christianity, for a radio audience.
It is written in a conversational instead of an academic manner. It is more a friendly Englishman talking to you about his beliefs than an old Oxford scholar delivering a lecture.
The "Screwtape Letters" are also remarkable. In them, we read the letters sent from a fictional older devil to his nephew, a fledgling tempter, giving advice on how to lead humans to sin. They are at once thought-provoking, profound and hilarious.
Perhaps someday I will read a dense theological treatise by Saint Thomas Aquinas on angels and demons, but I think for now "The Screwtape Letters" is good enough.
His other fiction is also noteworthy. Many, many people have read the Chronicles of Narnia as children, but I would heartily recommend rereading them again today. By doing so, we gain a deeper understanding of many Christian doctrines such as sin and grace, providence and free will, and heaven and hell.
Truly, the description of heaven at the end of "The Last Battle" is among the most imaginative, intriguing and beautiful that I have ever read. It is worth buying if only for that.
I hope my cursory introduction to some of Lewis' more notable books will encourage some of you to read something by him. I think in our college especially we have a great need to do so.
To my knowledge, few if any classes offer a sound overview of orthodox Christian theology. Even if some do, I imagine that many people would not have the time to take them. But reading through a few of Lewis' books will certainly fill this intellectual void.
Certainly all Christians should read him in order to get a basic understanding of their beliefs. He was an Anglican, but I know he is a favorite of both Catholics and Protestants. His works explain the primary doctrines of Christianity clearly and well; all Christians will find them useful.
For more contested issues, we will have to search elsewhere and come to our own conclusions, but in the meantime by reading Lewis we would be doing a great service to Christian unity by focusing, as Pope John XXIII so often said, on what unites us rather than on what divides us.
I also would invite people of other faiths and even those with no faith to read Lewis. Even if someone does not believe in Christianity, he or she might still
want to know something about it. Since Lewis avoids complicated doctrinal disputes, his writing is the perfect place to start.
And also, if someone has considered becoming a Christian but never looked into it, why not start now?
I would especially recommend him to those who are attracted to Christianity but find it hard to become Christian because of intellectual difficulties, since Lewis can explain complicated and troubling doctrines better than most.
I know, for instance, that many people would like to believe but cannot understand why a good God would allow so much evil to exist in the word. Lewis wrote a whole book on the subject, called "The Problem of Pain," and I would recommend it to anyone who struggles with this issue.
Really, if this or any similar thing keeps a person from God, I am sure he will find it addressed by Lewis somewhere in his writings. Lewis lived through two world wars and the sexual revolution, and he did not live in the clouds. All of his writings are current and helpful to the people of our age.
Lewis really does have a universal appeal and anyone can read him with profit. So, the next time you have some free time and are looking for a book to read, I warmly recommend something written by him.
Whether you like nonfiction or fiction, the logic of theological and philosophical explanations, or the wonder and imagination of children's stories, Lewis is the writer for you.
For many years he has informed and inspired me, and he continues to do so to this day. I know that anyone who begins to read him will have a similar experience.
(09/29/04 12:00pm)
It is not difficult to see that our society does not value chastity. Most modern movies, television shows and books are saturated with sex.
For many, waiting until marriage to have sex seems outdated and overly puritan.
Even so, the benefits of remaining chaste are very great and I would like to outline some of them here.
Moral considerations aside, abstinence is far safer. Sexually Transmitted Diseases are on the rise and are quite dangerous.
For instance, it is estimated that 65 million people in the United States live with an incurable STD.
It is also estimated that one in four Americans has genital herpes.
Truly, those who have sex before marriage run great risks.This is not just among irresponsible people who use no contraception at all.
Most contraceptives are not nearly as safe as people think they are. Condoms, for instance, promise a 97 percent chance of success (in preventing pregnancy). This seems rather good, but let us think about what we are saying. If you have sex with someone who has an STD, there is a 3 percent chance of getting that disease.
That alone should make one feel uneasy.
Even worse, those are the statistics for perfect use. In actuality, condoms are only around 85 percent effective.
Remaining chaste before marriage, however, will absolutely prevent all of these. If you do not have sex, it is almost impossible to contract an STD. If two people who have never had sex get married, then they have nothing to worry about.
But health risks are not the only risks. Premarital sex also hurts our ability to love truly and authentically.
People often think that those who advocate virginity think sex is somehow impure by nature. We do not. In fact, exactly the opposite it true.
Those who save sex for marriage value it very highly. It is a gift too beautiful to share with just anyone. In fact, whenever we treasure something we use it sparingly.
We will keep a vintage wine for years, saving it for an occasion important enough to merit it, but we do not think twice about drinking a common beer.
The same is true with sexuality. If someone has had sex many times simply for the fun of it, without any emotional bond, it will become just commonplace.
Sex is meant to cement and increase love and intimacy, but its ability to do so will decrease with each new partner.
One might argue that this is a good argument against promiscuity, but that it does not apply to those people who are not married and yet remain in monogamous sexual relationships.
At first glance, these seem to be fine, but they too are very harmful.
For instance, what if you and your partner do not get married after all?
By waiting for marriage, your love and respect for one another will only be strengthened. Plus, statistically, those who live together before marriage are more likely to get divorced than those who do not.
I think most of the problems in marriages today come from a misguided view of sexual relations. Obsession with sexual pleasure will of course result in broken relationships.
If in practice people cannot practice chastity now, how will they be able to practice chastity later?
If a man in college has sex for the most casual reasons, and looks on women as objects for enjoyment instead of as persons to be loved and cherished, how will he able to truly love his future wife?
The sexual revolution promised so much happiness, but it has resulted in an increase in divorce and a lack of respect for women.
The situation is rather bleak, but we can turn it around.
No matter what your past was like, you can pledge now to remain chaste until marriage. This may seem difficult, but it would not be true love if it were not.
And if we really think about it, it is well worth it.
If we have sex now, we may have temporary pleasure, but it will be over in a season and will at length turn into lasting regret.
But if we remain strong now and steadfastly wait until marriage, our small sacrifice will be transformed into intense joy, a joy which will only grow with the passage of time.
(09/15/04 12:00pm)
Even in our highly relativistic age we hold some moral values to be universal.
Some things are just acknowledged to be wrong; the varieties of time, place or culture have little to do with it.
As G.K. Chesterton commented, "Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable."
One of these universal laws says we should not love money inordinately.
The Bible teaches that the love of money is the root of all evil, and warns us that where our treasure is, there also will our heart be. Indeed, many great philosophers, moralists and religious thinkers have chosen poverty and decreed the danger of riches.
Even children's fables say the same. We all know the misery of King Midas and the loneliness of the dragon.
I imagine that most of us would agree with the honored testament of tradition.
Very few actually think that extraordinary wealth can bring happiness in and of itself.
Of course, we must seek a living, but surely we would count a man a failure who had a good job and lots of money, but had a poor relationship with his wife and children.
Family, friends, personal fulfillment, we should all agree, should not be sacrificed for material prosperity.
Yet, as we prepare to elect a president, money seems to be on everyone's mind. Workaholism is common, business scandals no longer scandalize, and even Donald Trump has a reality TV show.
Judging from these signs of the times, we should not be surprised that the economy is one of the key issues in the coming elections. Apparently, it is still the economy, stupid.
But is this a good thing? Hardly anyone would call money the most important value in his or her life, yet mostly everyone votes as if it was.
If it were not for the war, the economy would be the primary issue, as it has been for years in American politics. This is an unfortunate indicator of the state of American society.
Take the example of abortion. It does not make sense to me for someone who believes that abortion is murder to vote for a pro-choice candidate based on the candidate's economic policy, since a human life is infinitely more important than an economic loss.
To do so betrays a seriously unbalanced system of values.
Whichever side of the political debate we are on, we should examine ourselves to see if, as a nation and as individuals, we are making economic gains at the expense of our moral integrity.
By neglecting issues like health care, education and abortion, we are putting money before people, and this is sure to have disastrous consequences.
Let us all, then, fight against this disturbing trend, in the voting booth and in our daily life.
Mother Teresa once said that she did not work with the poorest of the poor, but that the poorest people in the world were the affluent in America.
If we want to change the country around, we must start by addressing this deep spiritual poverty on the national level by voting and on the personal level through our compassion, empathy and understanding.
As far as I am concerned, fighting greed on a personal level is far more important. If each one of us changes our basic attitude from one of selfishness to one of kindness and generosity, a better and more just political situation will surely follow.
Please remember, money does not bring happiness, love does.
For college students: as we choose a career and go out into the world, let us not abandon our deepest principles for unfulfilling material gain.
For spouses: you need not give each other many things, as long as you give yourselves to each other.
For parents: your children do not need toys, or video games, or cars, they need you.
Let us never place possessions before people. Truly, what does it matter if we gain the whole world and lose those who are closest to us?