Mirror of Justice: I . . . and she . . . and they . . . told you so

Quote

Posted on by
Reply

Source: Mirror of Justice.
by Robert George

Masha Gessen is a talented writer. Her widely praised (and sharply critical) biography of Vladimir Putin is only the most recent of her books across a range of subjects from Russian history, to mathematics, to the social implications of modern genetics.  On top of her exertions as an author, she has served as Director of the Russian service of the U.S. government funded Radio Liberty.  She is a self-identified lesbian and a leading activist in the U.S. and Russia.  (She holds citizenship in both countries.) Although she is anything but a fringe figure within the movement, she is notable for her candor in discussing its beliefs and goals. At last year’s meeting of the Sydney Writers Festival (audio here: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lifematters/why-get-married/4058506 ) she spoke plainly:

It’s a no-brainer that (homosexuals) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. . . . Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.

The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago.

I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally. . . . I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby’s biological father is my brother, and my daughter’s biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three. . . . And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.

Just imagine the uproar had, say, Rick Santorum said “Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what [they] are going to do with marriage when [they] get there — because [they] lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.”  But, of course, you don’t have to take it from Rick Santorum or other defenders of marriage as a conjugal union. Masha Gessen will tell you the same thing.

Although Gessen’s willingness to put the matter in terms of “lying” is startlingly frank, it is no longer uncommon for advocates of redefining marriage to acknowledge that the effect—for them an entirely desirable effect—of redefinition will be the radical transformation of the institution. The objective is not merely to expand the pool of people eligible to participate in it, as was long claimed. In conceding (and celebrating the fact) that redefining marriage will fundamentally alter the institution, transform its social role and meaning, and undermine its structuring norms of monogamy, exclusivity, etc., Gessen is far from out of step with other leading figures in the movement. She joins influential NYU sociologist Judith Stacey, Arizona State University professor Elizabeth Brake, “It Gets Better” founder Dan Savage, writer Victoria Brownworth, journalist E.J. Graff, activist Michelangelo Signorile, and countless other important scholars and activists.

Moreover, there seem to be very few prominent scholars and activists in the movement to redefine marriage who are criticizing Masha Gessen, Judith Stacey, Elizabeth Brake, and the others, and speaking out for the norms of monogamy and fidelity and other traditional marital and familial ideals. Many are quiet, but few actually deny that the abandonment of the conjugal understanding of marriage will have the transformative institutional and social effects that Gessen, Stacey, Brake and the others (approvingly) say it will have.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Why Do We Exchange Things?

Posted on by
3

We talk a great deal in the Orthodox Church about economia, but we do so without necessarily understanding economics. This is why I often post here about economics and business. While modern economics and economia aren’t the same thing, they aren’t so different as to be absolutely unrelated. If we’re not careful, our economic life can simply become the pursuit of wealth for its own sake. In this case, my economic life is simply a way of expressing my own self-aggrandizing wilfulness.

But economia can also be distorted. Rather than being the fruit of the Church’s prophetic  life it can just reflect the arbitrary will of a bishop or priest. In this case, as with economics, an appeal to economia is a thinly disguised justification for preferring one’s own will to the will of the Church.

While I don’t think the study of modern economics will in and of itself make me a better priest, I do think understanding how we make, for example, voluntary exchanges in the marketplace can help me understand how people think. More importantly, it can help me understand the value of cooperation both in the Church and in the larger society.

Take for example the video at the bottom of this post. Let’s imagine that you and I each  have a boxed lunch with the same sandwich, chips, a pickle, and a cookie, why would we consider trading what we brought? As my wife can attest, I REALLY like potato chips but maybe you rather have cookies. In this case, I offer to  give you my cookie for your chips. If you say yes, then we are both happier at lunch time.

The challenge in both the Church and in society is to learn how we can cooperate with each other in ways that make us all better off. This is especially important when, as is true both in the Church, our resources in terms of time, staff and money are often severely limited. Cooperation can help us overcome what initially might seem like our poverty and to do so in a way that makes everyone better off and even happier.

Take a look at the video by Professor Michael C. Munger. He suggests some ways in which offers exchange can make people happier even when they disagree about what’s the most desirable outcome. The ability to make people better off by simple exchange may seem like magic, Munger says, but it’s just markets. Take a look…

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Is Europe dying?

Quote

Posted on by
1

Source: ekathimerini.com.

By Nikos Chrysoloras

Until 2007, the Europeans were able to enjoy an enviable standard of living for two reasons: The first was the existence of a political consensus, the first in history, for the redistribution of produced wealth via social programs; the second was that enough wealth was produced to sustain this model. We may disagree as to whether the former still holds. But as far as the latter is concerned, there are strong signs that it will soon disappear. In other words, the stagnation of Europe’s economies over the past two years, at a much lower level compared to the years before the crisis, may not be a coincidence.

Let’s take a look at the factors that have historically contributed to the economic well-being of nations and empires: a rising birthrate, access to natural resources, education, technological progress and military power. The last has usually, but not always, directly relied on the others. Which of these conditions are in place today? Europe’s access to natural resources is limited. Whereas the US has fully exploited the shale gas revolution in a bid to strengthen its energy independence – thereby changing the geopolitical equilibrium – Europe is in terms of energy still largely dependent on Russia. In terms of defense, things are even worse as Europe has neither the ability nor the ambition to project its power on a global scale and is fully dependent on Washington. More worrying, if the current demographic trend continues, then in just a few decades almost a third of Europeans will be over 65.

Furthermore, according to the World Bank’s recent Golden Growth report, Europe is a laggard in terms of R&D even compared to states like India. “What has been more perplexing is Europe’s generally poor performance in the most technology-intensive sectors – the Internet, biotechnology, computer software, healthcare equipment, and semiconductors,” the report says.

The same report emphasizes that European productivity is on the wane. Meanwhile, the global ranking of European universities is getting worse compared to those in the US as well as in Asia. OECD studies on schoolchildren’s performance in reading, math and the natural sciences show students in most European countries lagging behind those in Korea, Japan, Canada and elsewhere.

Because of policy mistakes in dealing with the crisis, confidence has been tarnished in Europe’s financial system, the safety of transactions and the abilities of its economies. Unless the trends are reversed, our continent – whose geopolitical role is in decline – will be further downgraded economically. Soon it will resemble little more than a romantic tourism destination for the people of emerging economies who will visit us to admire the great monuments of our glorious past and observe the senile inhabitants of our tiny states (smaller than some Beijing districts) scuffling, wanting to break up into even smaller statelets. It’s a dark forest that we can’t see.

Turning away from the facts, eurozone leaders are appointing second-rate politicians to the senior posts of European institutions in order to cling on to their powers. They are cultivating the impression that dealing with the crisis means having the virtuous North rescuing the South, as if the former has not benefited by the single currency, as if it would escape unscathed from a breakup of the common market. North and South are both conjuring up imaginary enemies, engaging in moralizing and doing everything they can to awaken ghosts of the past. Soon it will be too late to change the game.
Tuesday April 9, 2013
Copyright:  http://www.ekathimerini.com
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

St Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary: Conference on Poverty

Quote

Posted on by
Reply

Source: St Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary.

SUMMER May 31-June 1, 2013: Conference on Poverty

SUMMER PROGRAMS HOME PAGE

“Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him to fish and you feed him for life!”Jay RichardsJay Richards

What can Orthodox Christians do to re–think how we respond to the issues of poverty, and how will we contribute positive solutions to address the needs of the poor? This conference is a collaborative effort with the Acton Institute, and is offered as a tribute to Dn. John Zarras, a 2006 SVOTS graduate who earned his M.Div. degree over a period of several years as a late–vocations student. Deacon John also served as a member of the Board of Trustees and the president of the St. Vladimir’s Seminary Foundation.

Fr. Chad HatfieldFr. Chad HatfieldAdditional participants will be Jay Richards, author of Money, Greed, and God and Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute, andSusan R. Holman, adjunct lecturer at Episcopal Divinity School and senior writer at Harvard Global Health Institute.Susan B. HolmanSusan B. Holman
 

REGISTER ONLINE TODAY!! $50 registration fee is WAIVED until May 15!
  • Registration and Workshop—$50  
  • Room & Board—$70
  • Total—$120.00 

On–Campus Accommodations

On-campus housing is in non-smoking, non-air conditioned, dormitory rooms with shared bathrooms. Because there are a limited number of single rooms, they will be given to the first registrants. Staying on-campus includes meals at the refectory, which are catered, without individual meal options. The seminary staff will provide sheets and towels. Please bring your own personal items (such as soap, shampoo, toothpaste, and small fans.) Wireless access to the Internet for personal laptops will be available in the Library when the Reading Room is open, but wireless access in dormitory rooms cannot be guaranteed.

For questions about this event, please contact Tanya Penkrat, Special Events Coordinator, at tpenkrat@svots.edu, or 914.961.8313, x351 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Real First World Problems

Quote

Posted on by
Reply

Source: Acton PowerBlog.

I have a hearty appreciation for jokes about first world problems. The fries are too cold. The Brita filter is too slow. The phone charger is all the way upstairs. That sort of thing.

Consider this round-up:

But although it’s healthy to poke fun at some of the pampered attitudes that come with widespread prosperity and convenience, plenty of real problems have also emerged. (“Pampered attitudes” are somewhere on the list.)

Focusing on a recent trip to Hong Kong, Chris Horst of HOPE International dives in on this point, observing that although markets have brought great prosperity to the once-impoverished land, materialism and greed appear to be active:

On my way to a lunch meeting, I noticed something peculiar: Upscale jewelry stores sat on every corner. That in itself was intriguing. But the concerning sight was how these stores were all mobbed. With teenagers. And they weren’t just browsing; they were buying.

Groups of adolescents entered and exited these stores adorned with Chanel watches and Cartier necklaces. Bags hung on every elbow. This was extreme materialism.  Their parents felt the pains of prosperity too. Parents I met lamented the culture of workaholism.

Greed, obesity, hedonism, isolation, spiritual apathy, lethargy and depression lurked in the shadows of Hong Kong’s glassy towers. Hong Kong used to look like North Korea looks today—mired in grinding poverty and shackled by failing economic policies. People lived short, hard lives and many died simply for lack of food or basic medicine.

Without question, I’ll choose modern-day Hong Kong over modern-day North Korea. But the first world problems they experience in Hong Kong are not petty inconveniences. We joke about first world problems as if trifling annoyances are our chief concern. They aren’t.

Resisting the idolatrous “rationalism” of 20th-century communism has brought prosperity to many, but with any newfound economic freedom comes a temptation to yield to other, more comfortable variations of such rationalism. Retaining a careful and proper perspective of basic human needs, responsibilities, and obligations will be essential for achieving any kind of widespread flourishing—material wellbeing aside. Even in America, which was founded on a robust and well-rounded understanding of liberty, our position of economic prosperity has made it easy for us to neglect these roots and squander their fruits.

As Father Sirico writes in his latest book, we are constantly battling forces that seek to distort our understanding of “who we are”—”how we relate to nature, one another, and God.” Unless we take care to maintain a proper Biblical anthropology of human dignity, purpose, and destiny, we expose ourselves to being derailed and distracted further away from shalom and ever closer to vanity and materialism.

As Sirico explains:

The good news is that by rolling up our sleeves and digging for the truth, by retrieving a right understanding of the human person, we can turn things around. The tradition that gave birth to a morally animated liberty—not merely the power to do what one wants but the right to do what one ought (as Lord Acton observed)—is not a tradition of mere utility, selfishness, pleasure-seeking, or determinism. Freedom rightly understood is not a license to behave like spoiled adolescents but rather the noble birthright of creatures made in the image of God. As long as we refuse to sell this birthright for a mess of materialist pottage, hope remains.

first-world-problems-10There might not be enough dip for the chips or chips for the dip, but when invigorated by a “morally animated liberty” that’s determined and directed by the Almighty instead of the all-needy, hope remains indeed.

Read Chris’ full post here.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Why Do Economists Urge College But Not Marriage?

Quote

Posted on by
2

Source: Acton PowerBlog.

From an economics perspective both getting a college degree and getting married are beneficial for one’s earning potential. So why do economists promote the college wage premium while downplaying or ignoring the marriage wage premium? As Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry says,

In contemporary societies, there is a strong college wage premium. That is to say, people who go to college make more money on average than people who don’t. While a minority of economists (including Cowen) have questioned why this premium should exist, the majority of economists generally take the existence of this college wage premium to mean that college is good and important, that more people should go to college, and that public policy has some role to play in promoting and subsidizing college attendance. I would bet a goodly sum of money that if you picked at random ten tenured economists from top-20 economics departments, and asked them to list what an 18-year-old should do to increase his chances of getting high wages, a majority would say “go to college.”

There also exists a marriage wage premium, which is roughly as significant and as consistent as the college wage premium. To say that the marriage wage premium doesn’t get the same amount of attention is an understatement. Economists recoil at the idea of praising marriage and supporting public policies that increase marriage. They are much more likely to dismiss the marriage wage premium as reflecting selection bias (it’s not that marriage makes people earn more money, it’s that people who would have earned more money anyway tend to get married) or intone that “correlation is not causation”–criticisms that apply equally to analyses of the college wage premium. I would bet a goodly sum of money that if you picked at random ten tenured economists from top-20 economics departments, and asked them to list what an 18-year-old should do to increase his chances of getting high wages, none of them would say “get married and stay married”–even though the data on the marriage wage premium supports this conclusion to the same extent as it does going to college.

Gobry posits that the reason is bias: economists have an education bias because to become an economist requires numerous years of higher education and they have aliberal-cosmopolitan bias against government encouraging people to make intimate choices.

I think this is generally correct. Almost every marriage promoting economist I’ve ever seen has been politically conservative and/or Christian. In other words, they have pro-marriage biases that are as strong, if not stronger, than their education bias. I also believe this is why the heated debates in our country over social issues have a parallel in the economic realm. The “Culture War” is a heated clash while the economic-social is still a Cold War struggle. But they both are rooted in modern society’s two primary principles which are, as James Matthew Wilson says, autonomy of appetite and free consent. Because marriage and family limit our autonomy of appetite (and our free consent in engaging in the modern sexual buffet), it is considered by many elites to be gauche, if not downright immoral, to imply that people should voluntarily restrict their intimate choices by signing up for a (potentially) life-long commitment.

This also explains why, as Gobry notes, economists tend to “almost exclusively focus on productivity growth and completely ignore population growth” despite the fact that population growth leads to economic growth.

Economists have countless ideas on how government might do things to improve productivity growth, but the idea of using government to improve population growth is, quite simply, taboo. If economists are biased by a perspective which finds the idea of natalist policy squeamish, this makes perfect sense. If economists are dispassionate analysts, it doesn’t.

Of course, economists with a liberal-cosmopolitan perspective could certainly not openly endorse, much less propose, pro-natalist policies. That is why their preferred method is population growth is increased immigration: they want to take advantage of other countries pro-natalist attitudes.

We’re unlikely to change the minds of economists who have biases against getting married and having babies. But we need to be aware that such biases exist. By understanding that certain policies aren’t preferred solely because they are the optimal option, we can counter with our own preferred—and admittedly biased—approaches to economic and social policy. We may not be able to take bias out of economics, but we can at least insure the right biases are put in.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Does Environmentalism Hurt the Poor?

Quote

Posted on by
Reply

From: Acton PowerBlog.

Many of us function under the assumption that our role as stewards of God’s creation is to to leave things as we’ve found them. Fr. James V. Schall, S.J. would disagree.

A significant error of environmentalists is the assumption that the purpose of man on this earth is to keep it in the same condition that it was when man first appeared. Behind this theory is a subtle denial of the whole issue of the resurrection of the body. Man’s ultimate end is not this earth but God. The earth and its development by man are themselves the arena in which the drama of each person’s relation to God could be and is worked out. It is also true that this “working out” concerns one’s neighbor and man’s relation to fellow man.

Further, Fr. Schall wants to make it clear that certain types of environmentalism put the environment ahead of people, and that hurts the poor. We find the basis for this in the book of Genesis in

…the admonition that man was to increase, multiply, and subdue the earth. The implication was that precisely by providing for man’s needs and purposes, the earth would be a better place. The purposes of both matter and man were directly connected. It would be a misuse of matter if it no longer could serve man’s ends. The earth was not simply given for it to sit there unused and uncultivated. It was rather to be a garden, the work of human hands. It was intended to support the purpose for which man existed. It was not itself the purpose of creation.

Fr. Schall questions whether some programs designed to help the poor actually put them under “state control”, regulating their lives to the point where they cannot escape poverty.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Report: Mass Murder of Christians in Syria

Quote

Posted on by
Reply

Source: Acton PowerBlog.

In his interview to the MEDIA, a Hierarch of the Antiochian Orthodox Church, Bishop Luke of Seidnaya, has disclosed the scale of persecutions suffered by Orthodox Christians of this region since the very beginning of the uprising against the regime of Bashar Al-Assad, reports Agionoros.ru.

By now, 138,000 Christians have been banished from their homes and at the same time Christian Churches are systematically destroyed. “They are killing people. A human life is of no value for them,” in such words Bishop Luke is describing the situation in the country.

Thus, in the city of Homs, anti-government forces have committed mass murder of Christians. Hundreds of people have been killed. Dozens of cases of sexual assault have also been recorded.

“The damage done to our Churches is great. They are burned, plundered, their walls are broken. If a human life is of no value for these criminals then will they spare our shrines? Our parishioners are beaten up and attacked. All this is obtaining “legal status” because revolution is happening and nobody is protesting against it,” notes the Orthodox Hierarch.

“Our ancestors settled in this land long before Islam appeared here. A great number of saints, who preached love, were martyred in this land,” notes the Very Reverend Bishop Luke who, in spite of all horrors described above, continues to call Muslims “brothers”. And how can it be otherwise, since Orthodoxy rejects hatred for other religious convictions?

Unfortunately, Orthodox Christians in Syria are now abandoned to their fate. They are becoming vulnerable victims of Muslim fanatics. And the only way they can oppose violence in this situation is prayer and hope in help of God, Who does not abandon those who trust in Him.

Damascus, March 29, 2013

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Building a Common Front in Defense of the Faith

Quote

Posted on by
Reply

Religion & Liberty Executive Editor John Couretas interviewed Hilarion in October 2012 at the Nashotah House Theological Seminary in Nashotah, Wis. He was at the Anglican seminary to receive an honorary Doctor of Music degree. noted composer as well as an accomplished Orthodox Christian theologian, he delivered a talk at Nashotah titled, “The Music of J.S. Bach as a Religious Phenomenon.” In the interview, the Russian bishop talks about the situation in the Middle East, the Balkans and North Africa, and ecumenical relations. You can read the whole interview here.

R&L: I’d like to close with a question about ecumenical relations. You spoke earlier here at Nashotah House about your warm feelings for traditionalist Anglicans, but also about the drift away from tradition as you see it in the wider Episcopal Church. How would you describe the state of inter- Christian relations with Protestants and Roman Catholics vis-a-vis the Moscow Patriarchate?

Metropolitan Hilarion: I think the whole field of ecumenical relations can be divided into two major sectors—for us at least. One is the relations between the Orthodox and the Catholics. And another one is the relations between Orthodox on the one hand and the Protestants—Anglicans, Baptists, and others. And here I see two very different tendencies. With regards to Orthodox-Catholic relations, I see that generally, on the worldwide level, these relations are constantly improving and that there is a sense of rapprochement between the two traditions. We more and more realize that we are not competing structures but that we are allies in the process of evangelization and the mission. We don’t have many common missionary projects, but we have a similar missionary strategy and I think we, in spite of certain differences in theology, essentially are united on all social and moral issues. And this provides us with the possibility to form a common front to defend traditional Christianity, in particular against the challenges of militant secularism and atheism.

With regards to Anglican and Protestant communities, of course the situation is very different. In many Protestant communities of the West and of the North, the process of liberalization has gone very far. And we can no longer regard these communities as representing the authentic church tradition. On the contrary, we see that theological teaching, moral teaching, as well as church order is gravely affected in these communities by liberal trends. And with some of them we have to break relations. For example, we had to break the dialogue with the Episcopal Church of the USA in 2003 in spite of the fact that we had been in dialogue with this church for over 30 years. We had to suspend this dialogue because of the unacceptable events happening in this church, in particular the ordination of an openly-practicing homosexual into the episcopate. And we are now more involved in dialogue with the conservative wing of the Episcopal Church, in particular with the newly formed Anglican Church of North America, with the representatives of whom I met here at Nashotah House. And I believe that we will continue to support them.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)