The Night Before the Day.I remember that the night before the day seemed so much darker than usual. It may have been because of the wind. Living in Blacksburg I had seen strong winds before, but this, this was stronger.…Read More »
In the days following the shootings at Virginia Tech last year, a group of students gathered on campus to worship God together. The event was student organized, and was largely student run. The group gathered outside on the edge of the Virginia Tech campus, which is in the heart of downtown Blacksburg. The video quality is not great since the camera used was a little point and shoot digital. But it is a moving clip nonetheless considering the immediate context of the event.
Posted in: Other Tagged: 4/16/2007, Shootings, Tragedy, Virginia Tech
Tomorrow we remember a tragedy—several tragedies truth be told. It was one year ago today that a lone gunman claimed the lives of 32 people and injured countless others before turning the gun on himself. The incident, the deadliest school shooting in United States history, took place on the campus of Virginia Tech, the university from which I obtained my undergraduate degree four months before the shootings. It is perhaps uncomfortable to remember such a tragic event, but it is fitting that we do nevertheless.
We would be wise not to remember this day in mere sentimental tones; we had enough of that kind of superficial response in the immediate aftermath of the shootings last year. We ought not to say this year (as some said last year), “Well, 32 people are now in heaven trying to explain to God what a Hokie is.” We ought not to compare this year (as some did last year) the murder of 32 students on a college campus with the killing of elephants for ivory. We also ought not to stand up this year (as many did last year) and scream out “Let’s go Hokies” at the top of our lungs.
The media loved these things last year, and they will likely love them this year too. But that really is too bad, for part of healing from a tragedy is examining the meaning of the tragedy. And examining the meaning of the tragedy necessarily requires us to stare at the truth even when it hurts. We can say that 32 people are in heaven trying to explain to God what a Hokie is, but the problem is that this is not true.
Therefore, exactly what we ought to do one year later is remember and reflect honestly and truthfully. We are no longer in the middle of events unfolding; we are looking back at things already unfolded. We have altered the look of our front-page in remembrance of a tragic day, and we will spend this day and several following days reflecting upon and discussing various truths related to this tragedy. We hope you will pause and reflect with us.
Posted in: Other Tagged: 4/16/2007, Shootings, Tragedy, Virginia Tech
Having noticed yesterday that Mike Huckabee has a new website launch on the horizon, I casually wondered what was being planned. Evidently the folks at Hotair, a conservative website that I frequent, could not pass on the opportunity to speculate as to what the cryptic title “Coming Soon” means. It is no secret that many Hotair subscribers do not particularly like Mike Huckabee, and even a post about a Mike Huckabee web-page that says “Coming Soon” elicits some of the most ridiculous rhetoric.
Examine, for instance, this exchange between commenter EJDolbow and myself:
Me: It’s amazing how a website page that says, “coming soon” can compel such animosity. Sheesh.
EJDolbow: Mike Huckabee damaged the Republican Party. He needs to go away and stay away.
I might interject that perhaps the current Republican party orthodoxy might need to be damaged. But that is another discussion. Continuing,
Me: But, one thing is for certain: I thought conservative not only supported, but advocated, divesrity of ideas in the public arena. So why are some many self-proclaimed conservatives suggesting that “[h]e needs to go away and stay away?”
EJDolbow: The reason he needs to go away is because he is attaching himself like a sucker to this party. If he wants to split and start the Party of Pastors, that would be great.
I said in following comments that it is a bedrock principle of Conservative thought that the diversity of ideas should not only be defended, but advocated and advanced as well. What the particular commenter I have highlighted, as well as several others not highlighted, have suggested is that Huckabee needs to go away. To be fair, they probably do not really mean that he should literally go away (as in get out of politics), but I wonder what they really do mean?
Posted in: Politics Tagged: Hotair, Mike Huckabee
Dr. James Dobson was on Hannity and Colmes last night (3.30.2008), and he was asked whether he would participate in the elections this November. The question was likely prompted by Dobson’s quite vocal dissent against a John McCain Presidency. Dr. Dobson said that he hoped that “we won’t get stuck” with McCain, citing, among other things, his belief that McCain does not hold conservative positions on social issues like marriage and abortion.
On the show yesterday, Dobson declined to elaborate whether he would support any of the three candidates running for President, but he did say that he would participate in the November elections because other offices besides the Presidency will be on the ballot. True to form, Sean Hannity tried to warm Dr. Dobson to a McCain presidency by trying to alleviate Dobson’s concerns about McCain’s social positions. Hannity told Dobson that just a few weeks ago John McCain pledged to support both the marriage and pro-life planks of the Republican platform.
But should this alleviate the concerns of social conservatives? I do not believe so. Let’s first examine the relevant exchange between Sean Hannity and John McCain.
HANNITY: And I think one of the areas that came up the most is would you leave the pro-life language in the platform and the marriage amendment in the platform?
MCCAIN: Yes. But as you know, I believe that the states should make these decisions on the marriage amendment. I am a Federalist and I believe that states like mine and other states that we should amend our state constitutions, and I will stick to that position until such time, if ever, a higher court says that my state or another state has to recognize the other status — another status of marriage.
I am committed to maintaining the unique status of marriage between man and woman. I think it can best be accomplished, and in keeping with my federalist philosophy that states should do as much as possible to have that done at the state level. But if it is overturned by a superior court, I will then obviously support the other path.
The Republican Party Platform calls for two amendments to the Constitution: a human life amendment and a marriage amendment. They read thusly:
We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.
We strongly support President Bush’s call for a Constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage, and we believe that neither federal nor state judges nor bureaucrats should force states to recognize other living arrangements as equivalent to marriage…Attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country, and anything less than a Constitutional amendment, passed by the Congress and ratified by the states, is vulnerable to being overturned by activist judges.
John McCain has acquired the reputation of being a “straight talking maverick.” I will not object to the label; I will only say that if straight talking is a virtue, it nevertheless is no virtue to “straight talk” out of both sides of one’s mouth. Hannity’s question was very carefully crafted in order to ensure that John McCain would not have to say that he actually supports the pro-life and marriage planks of the GOP platform. Hannity pulled this off by asking him whether he would leave the language of those issues intact in the platform. The fact is that John McCain does not support either a human life amendment or a federal marriage amendment. Consider McCain’s response to Hannity, for example. After saying that he would not seek to change the marriage amendment language in the Republican platform, McCain goes on to say that he does not actually support what that platform says.
Is Sean Hannity really comfortable going on national television and suggesting to social conservatives that John McCain supports their cause? He does not. What has become clear about McCain is that his straight talk really is just double talk. But what is worse is Sean Hannity’s attempt to advocate McCain’s candidacy to social conservatives by suggesting that he really supports the issues. Is it really supposed to be some consolation that, even though McCain neither supports a human life amendment nor a federal marriage amendment, he nevertheless does not have a problem leaving the human life and marriage amendment language in the platform?
Posted in: Politics Tagged: Abortion, Hannity, Marriage, McCainAn imbecile habit has arisen in modern controversy of saying that such and such a creed can be held in one age but cannot be held in another. Some dogma, we are told, was credible in the twelfth century, but is not credible in the twentieth. You might as well say that a certain philosophy can be believed on Mondays, but cannot be believed on Tuesdays. You might as well say of a view of the cosmos that it was suitable to half-past three, but not suitable to half-past four. What a man can believe depends upon his philosophy, not upon the clock or century. If a man believes in unalterable natural law, he cannot believe in any miracle in any age. If a man believes in a will behind law, he can believe in any miracle in any age. Suppose, for the sake of argument, we are concerned with a case of thaumaturgic healing. A materialist of the twelfth century could not believe it any more than a materialist of the twentieth century. But a Christian Scientist of the twentieth century can believe it as much as a Christian of the twelfth century. It is simply a matter of a man’s theory of things.
- Orthodoxy, G. K. Chesterton
Posted in: Philosophy Tagged: G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, Relativism