On Church and State

Ever since the founding of these Unites States of America people have been trying to deal with the complicated issue of the proper relationship between Church and State. Perhaps the most important phrase in that discussion was one made by Jefferson in a letter during his presidency. It mentions a "wall of seperation" between the two. This has since been adopted as tantamount to constitutional canon, despite its almost entirely personal nature (it was from a private letter, which under any understanding of the Constitution cannot have the force of law). This phrase has come to be the definitive interpretation of the 1st Amendment that states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there of." People say that the 1st Amendment establishes a complete and inviolable seperation between Church and State.

Let us then examine the wording of the Amendment in this regard. "Congress shall make no law" is pretty straightforward. Congress, or the House of Representatives and the Senate, are prohibited in the exercise of their enumerated powers from making any law whatsoever that would violate the amendment. This does not limit the powers of the President, of officers or officials who are not members of Congress, or even of the operations of Congress itself outside of its lawmaking duties. "... respecting an establishment of religion..." is also clear. The aforementioned outright prohibition on legislation applies to each and every issue that is in respect to establishment of religion. This means that Congress cannot by law forbid any other part of the Federal government (that is, the several States, the other branches of the General government, or other such bodies, including private institutions) from establishing one or more religions as the official religion of said body. This would apply to States such as Virginia (which might decide to establish the Methodist Church as its official religion) or Massechusetts (which might establish some form of reformed or Puritan church as its official religion), just as it would apply to a college (for instance Fordham might make Roman Catholicism its official religion, while Brigham Young University might establish the Baptist Church as its official religion). So too could the President declare that all officers of the executive branch must hold whatever religion he so chooses to be the official religion of said branch of government. However, it also applies in the other direction. Congress cannot force any institution to adopt a particular religion as its offical one (so if Virginia wanted to disestablish its church it could do so without interference, or if the President wanted to secularize the executive branch then he could). Finally, "... nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This is the most problematic section, and the one most often ignored. It means, quite simply, that Congress cannot make any form of law that would limit the ability of the People freely and openly to practice their religions. This would mean that public prayer, open wearing of religious symbols, and all other such trappings of faith are untouchable by any act of Congress. And since all legislative power has been reserved to Congress, the States, and the People in their respective spheres, if the People decide to practice a religion and the States allow them to do so then Congress cannot interfere (nor can any other part of the General government, since only Congress can pass laws; courts, I'm looking at you here).

There are two major problems with the above analysis. First, what about religions like Druidism or Baal worship that entail human sacrifice (infant sacrifice in the case of the latter)? What about other religions with similarly evil practices? It is my conclusion that the religion itself remains protected. Only those specific practices of that religion that violate other laws can be prosecuted, and then only because they violate other laws. A law cannot be passed that says that women are not allowed to wear veils in order to limit their right of exercise of religions like Islam. However, laws can be passed that prohibit murder, which would prevent human sacrifice as an incidental effect. Second, there is the 14th Amendment. Though not broadly applicable when it comes to restricting the several States by the limitations of the Constitution, by stretching its wording it can be argued that a State establishing a religion would thereby be abridging the privileges and immunities of the citizens of that State who were not members of said religion. This is a tenuous argument, though, since the 14th Amendment is most clearly read when it is interpreted to refer only to such things as voting rights, criminal rights, and other such matters of basic personal protections, rights, and responsibilities inherent to citizenship.

In conclusion, it is my opinion that the 1st Amendment therefore prohibits Congress from imposing any limits whatsoever on the free exercise of religion, up to and including a State establishing (or disestablishing) a particular religion as its official one.

On the Electoral College

There has been quite a bit of talk over the last few years about doing away with the electoral college. The basis for the argument seems to be one of democracy. It is undemocratic for the president to be elected by having a high enough electoral count despite losing the popular vote. Indeed, the way the system currently is set up is very bad, since in many ways it is dishonest and fails to accomplish that which the electoral college was intended.

Currently each of the states is run by the parties (Republican and Democrat). They use their positions of control to ensure that each party must put forward a slate of electors who most people never actually know even so much as the names of. Said slates are then bound to vote for whichever candidate their slate was attached to. In a handful of states, the slate is assigned partially based on a proportion of the popular votes cast, while in the rest it is an all-or-nothing system.

What does this do? It makes people think that they are voting for president, when in reality they are voting for a slate of people that they never even heard of. It also turns the election into a popularity contest where celebrity, demagoguery, and other such plagues of the democracies of the world can bring about their full corrupting effect. The result is such people as FDR getting four terms (the closest the US has come to a totalitarian dictator so far), Kennedy getting elected at all (a corrupt and incompetent president if ever there was one), and most every other president that we've had defeating the few potential good candidates (most of whom lost due to a lack of popular support, despite being the only ones who actually spoke the truth, obeyed the Constitution, and maintained dignity and morality in their campaigns).

How should things work? The electoral college was established to remove the presidency from the realm of petty politics and to elevate it to a more considered, more stable, and more principled manner of choosing. The state legislatures were supposed to decide how their respective states would choose electors, whether the governor would appoint them, the legistlature itself pick them, or the people vote for them by district, at large, or in some other fashion. This would make the choice not one of presidential candidate, but rather one of elector. The election would come down to picking those people who were most respected for their principles and wisdom, for their capacity to judge character and competence, and for their faithfulness to the needs of the people of their state and to the requirements of the Constitution.

How can we go from our current corrupted way of electing presidents to one consistent with the wisdom and foresight of the Founders? My favorite solution would be to have the several states remove the presidential candidates from the ballot altogether, indeed they ought to disallow campaigning for president completely. Rather, they should require that those who wish to take a seat in the electoral college run for that office. Turn the presidential race into an electoral college race. Require that candidates be citizens of the states in which they run and allow the people therein to get to know said candidates well enough that they can make wise choices about who to trust to pick their president. If all works as I hope, then the president would be chosen once more by a thoroughly vetted group of trusted people in accordance with the Constitution. Factional strife, demogoguery, and petty rhetoric would be limited in their impact, while true considered wisdom and though might actually return to the process. Shallow celebrities, blatant criminals, and other typical party candidates would no longer be likely to make the cut, while virtuous statesmen and honest politicians might finally have a chance at winning the presidency.

Free Market versus Regulation

There's been quite a bit of talk lately about the so-called failure of the Free Market, as exemplified in the recent banking/credit crisis. Naturally, all the progressive statists insist that the fault lies with unregulated wall street bankers, with the solution of course being increased, New Deal-esque regulations being imposed upon the entire financial system of the United States (and the rest of the world too, judging by events overseas so far). Here are a few things to keep in mind however:

1) The banks in question were not truly free market institutions, since they already operate under extensive general government regulation (especially programs intended to promote the lower economic classes, such as incentives designed to cause banks to make loans to dangerously unworthy homeowners without sufficient capital to sustain their purchases).

2) The government "bailout" and subsequent partial nationalisation of banking institutions by means of state purchasing of corporate stocks not only removes the main disincentive to taking foolish risks by proving that the state, and hence the taxpayers, will finance any failures that result, but also is a highly dangerous precedent that violates the Constitution of the United States, creates billions of dollars out of nothing, saddles the taxpayers with a huge load of unrecoverable debt (essentially meaning we will all have to pitch in to cover it with our own money), and will in the end serve primarily to extend the duration and thus increase the impact of the current financial difficulties by preventing the necessary correction (as exemplified by the collapse of several incompetent financial institutions that have proven their lack of worthiness to survive, a collapse prevented by radical government intervention).

3) A truly free market would have lacked the incentives to risk-taking that drove the housing and credit bubbles while simultaneously providing disincentives in the form of the knowledge that failure would lead to collapse. State intervention that pressured financial institutions into actions that were dangerous from a business standpoint, all in the name of ideology, combines with the removal of any real risk to financial institutions themselves (by transferring it to the taxpayers) to lead to rampant stupid risk-taking that creates the bubbles that inevitably will burst when the market attempts to correct for them.

4) Market corrections in a free environment can be painful, but they tend to hurt mainly those responsible for the problems. In a regulated environment, the corrections tend to have a harder time at fixing things, since the state injects artificial stimulation in an attempt to limit consequences. This results in longer, slower corrections that, though slightly less painful in the immediate present, end up being much harsher to a much wider portion of the economy, as the imbalances present begin to be exacerbated by interventions, thereby spreading the impact to more and more sectors of the economy.

My ultimate conclusion then is that the general government is taking exactly the wrong approach to this situation. They were instrumental in causing it by means of their regulations and incentives set up to ensure certain high-risk people could be approved for loans that they otherwise couldn't get. They have been instrumental in prolonging and increasing its effects by means of their bailout and further intervention policies, thereby preventing a localized correction from taking place. Finally, they are poised to cause it all to happen again, by setting the precedent of goverment intervetion to eliminate all negative consequences from taking stupid, economically infeasible risks that otherwise would have been prevented from happening due to the very real risk of catastrophic financial damage caused to those institutions that indulged in such nonsensical practices.

What can one do about it? Support those members of Congress who opposed the bailout votes. Fight to see that those members of Congress who voted in favor of the bailouts fail to be reelected. In short, transition control of Congress away from those who would turn us into a socialist workers' paradise with everyone accountable only to the state and toward those who believe in truly free markets, individual responsibility, and the rule of law as exemplified by the Supreme Law of the Land, the United States Constitution.

On the nature of nations and nationalism.

I think it is important to clear up some basic terminology, especially if I plan on having very many more posts of a political nature. This will deal with nationalism and its various related terms.

What is nationalism? It is a recent phenomenon (with roots in Europe in the Enlightenment period, if I remember correctly) that has spread throughout the world much like a systemic autoimmune disorder affects the entire body. Nationalism is the glorification of the "nation," a term which as been corrupted from a simple historical term useful for tracing tribal units and other people groups into some kind of mythical racial superentity. In the good old days, a nation was simply a group of people that shared similar linguistic roots. In the last few hundred years however it has shifted to be a genetic, cultural, racist term. Nationalism, then, is the promotion of the changed idea of nationhood into the most important defining characteristic of a state or of a people. For instance, a Turk is someone who is ethnically descended from Turkish ancestors, who speaks Turkish, who preferably lives in modern-day Turkey, and in many cases (though not exclusively) is a follower of Islam. A Greek is someone from modern Greece (or from formerly greek-speaking areas, such as Asia Minor, who was forced to move to Greece), with Greek ancestors, who speaks modern Greek, and who is a nominal member of the official Church of Greece. A Frenchman is a person who lives in France, who speaks French, who is either an enlightened atheist or a nominal Catholic, and who has French ancestors. A German is someone from modern-day Germany, with German ancestors, who speaks German, and who is either a nominal Lutheran (or German Prostestant or whatever they call it now) or a nominal Catholic.

The defining characteristic then becomes a sense of ethnic unity with one's fellows, with the assumption (though vigorously denied by all and sundry in the modern era) that one's specific ethnic background is somehow inherently superior (both in prowess and in moral worth) to all others (generally there is at least on specific ethnicity to which it is emphatically, even violently, opposed). Nationalism has resulted in the unification of Germany and of Italy, but it has also led to the dissolusion of a great many states. Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, modern Georgia, Serbia, etc. Nationalism is also responsible for warmongering and violence on a grand scale. Terrorism, world wars, and most especially genocides such as the Holocaust (against Jews, Gypsies, Russians, and others), the Armenian Genocide, ethnic cleansing in Darfur, and many others. All in all, nationalism is overwhelmingly a negative force, one which spawns violence, which leads to politics of the nation instead of politics of the ideal (dictatorship becomes much easier when one can appeal to nationalism, which incidentally prepares people mentally for the idea that one should sacrifice everything to promote the ascendency of the nation, making for very effective propoganda during times of war), and which promotes bigotry and racism instead of the meritocracy that directs all the most successful of states.

Compare this to how things used to be. Under the Hellenistic governments of the Macedonian Successors, Greek as a language was vital to effective administration. It brought with it naturally many elements of Greek culture and civilization, but ultimately it was not a racial or ethnic thing in any way. All that one needed to do in order to succeed was to learn Greek. An Ethiopian, a Persian, or a Jew would be equally able to rise to the highest of positions in the administration of one of the successors' empires simply by knowing Greek and being competent. Look too at the Romans, the world's paragon of meritocracy in premodern times. There are Isaurians (barbarians from the mountains of Asia Minor), Armenians, Thracians, Arabs, Italians, Greeks, and any number of other ethnicities that managed to rise to the highest office ever instituted among men: Emperor of the Roman Empire. Did their race or ethnicity, or even their native tongue matter at all? No! All that was required of them was that they learn Latin, and later Greek, and that they be competent (in many cases supremely so). If someone saw the opportunity and took it, he could rise from stableboy to Emperor in almost no time at all. Indeed, some of the best rulers in the entire history of the world were spawned by a line founded by one such stableboy. Look at Justin and Justinian, a pair of country hicks who were not even literate when they moved to Constantinople. The former rose to be commander of the imperial guard before becoming emperor, while the latter educated himself and became one of the greatest, most well known rulers in history. Indeed, if not for the plague that broke his empire's finances, he likely would be ranked above all others in his achievements. Would any of this have been possible if nationalism existed in its modern form at the time? Resoundingly no! Such outstanding people would have been relegated to second- or even third-class citizenship, if they were not unlucky enough to be killed off-hand in a spat of racial violence. Could Rome itself, as an empire, even have existed if nationalism were present? Again, no! Rebellion by local ethnic minorities, pogroms by local ethnic majorities, and general unrest due to nothing more than a desire to be ruled by a despot related to oneself instead of by an "other" would have torn it apart. Look at what happened to the Ottomans. They were one of the most cohesive, widely diverse states in the world until the rise of nationalism combined with inherent religious tensions (caused in no small part by oppressive anti-Christian policies enacted by various rulers) to destroy the country in a rapid series of rebellions. This was exacerbated by the rise of the Turkish nationalists, exemplified by the so-called Ataturk, who even now enjoys a near god-like reverence among his people.

Now to the United States of America. Is the US a nation? I hope not. Unfortunately, those who are most influential in shaping politics and the media in our country are trying constantly to turn us into one. We are at bottom a country, not a nation. We are unified not by a common ethnic, religious, or even linguistic unity (though English is overwhelmingly the most common tongue is use, and simple economics should dictate that those who hope to be successful on anything other than a purely local level learn at least basic speech and literacy with that language). Instead, we share a political ideal. Instead of promoting the nation over everything else, instead Americans value the rule of law and a sense of freedom and individual responsibility. Or at least, that was how things once were. During the world wars of the past century, and the polarizing Cold War, America began to see itself as something less, something more immediately obvious. People were told that they were a nation, and now most of them believe it. One can see the results in the way that our country acts, both domestically and in foreign relations. The US has become cavalier toward the sovereign rights of others states. It compromises on the highest law of the land, the Constitution itself, at every turn, simply in the name of making our nation great. People are expected to sacrifice everything, lives, property, but most especially liberty in order to promote the security and the glory of the nation. Look at the appeals about the state of education in our country. Instead of appealing to people's desire to improve the minds of their children, the pundits talk about competing with nations that have surpassed certain benchmarks. They speak of reclaiming our ascendency among the nations by improving our schools, with no mention made of improving the quality of life of our citizens for their own sake.

I don't know if I have explained myself well, but I hope that you come away with a sense of what our country, and indeed the world, has lost as a result of nationalism. It is a tool for division, a source of conflict and violence, and ultimately a means for despots and tyrants to sieze power in the name of greatness. Even the globalization movement uses nationalism well, for every instance of nationalistic conflict simply reinforces their arguments in favor of a single world government that would be above such petty differences. The problem is that it wouldn't be above it; rather, it would enable those in power to enforce their views on national differences. It would also make oppression easier. Want to keep "peace" in the Balkans? Station Greek troops in Turkey and Turkish groups in Greece. The so-called peacekeepers would be more than happy to maintain order at any cost, since they would hold the lives of those they were nominally protecting at less than the price of a bullet.

On foreign policy.

The United States of America are in a tough position, put there by the leaders of this country over the last century or more (primarily Wilson, FDR, and the Cold War presidents). What is our situation? We have soldiers scattered all across the world, we send money to people everywhere (in many cases to people on opposite sides of a single conflict), we rush to impose our will by means of economic sanctions (which tend only to hurt the masses of a country, while the elites take advantage of it to rail against us as the great enemy, thereby solidifying their control all the while enjoying an undisturbed standard of living at their citizens' expense) or by military intervention (Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, Iraq, Iraq again, Lebanon, the list keeps getting longer), we simultaneously preach about civil rights and sovereignty while pushing the UN with its terrible record on both issues (indeed, the latter is considered the enemy by proponents of the UN, while the former is ignored whenever the UN finds it expedient to do so) and while treating many other countries as if they were little more than protectorates without any of the rights of sovereign states. This cavalier attitude toward the rest of the world is harmful both to us and to them. It allows dictators and tyrants to point to us as the enemy, fueling their propoganda and making their domination of their peoples both easier and more complete. It hurts us economically, as countries everywhere see us as exploiting them and therefore try their hardest to exploit us back, by means of everything from extensive subsidies to entire industries to easy access to dirt cheap labor in large quantities. There are countless other problems caused by the pattern of behavior set by our progressive internationalist leaders over the last century, with consequences that we are even still just beginning to feel (and more loom ever closer on the horizon, such as the growing military threat in China and nacent communism resurfacing in Russia's recent policies).

So what can be done about these things? Is it too late to correct the situation, or are we stuck with a bad hand and must simply play it through to the end? All that is really needed is this: a return to Constitutional government at home and a consequent return to the basic principles of limited government, personal freedom and responsibility, and fair and moral treatment of others (both domestically/personally and internationally). Simply applying the Golden Rule should make things much better very quickly. We want other countries to treat us as a free and sovereign state, so we ought to treat them in the same manner. No violating their borders, interfering with their internal politics, or supporting unpopular or dangerous regimes with vast sums of money. End all foreign subsidies and aid, thereby cutting the government's budget by an immense sum. Eliminate our overseas bases (with the possible exception of a handful of naval stations for convenient resupply of carrier groups), bringing our troops home from wherever they may be (be it Iraq or Germany). This would not only remove a lot of the onerous presence that so many people object to, it would also make our country vastly more secure against foreign military threats (after all, who would be dumb enough to invade the USA when its entire armed force is available to oppose them instead of being scattered to the four corners of the earth?). As for trade, eliminate the various so-called free trade agreements, which are anything but free. Instead, institute a fair trade policy, where our government matches whatever subsidies a foreign state puts on a particular industry by imposing tarrifs to match, while also matching whatever tarrifs other countries put on our goods (so those who pursue a protectionist policy wind up suffering from one themselves when they try to send goods to us). This in general should promote fair trade practices, by making subsidies useless and discouraging high tarrif barriers. Let the quality of American goods speak for itself on the market; if they aren't worthwhile, then they shouldn't succeed, but if they are then their own qualities should ensure their success. The UN and other international organizations are another matter. We have ambassadors and allow embassies on our soil for the express purpose of communicating with our fellow states. Why do we need an international body with its own power, its own agenda, and its own political sensibilities (most of which are at odds with American Constitutional government) to do a job that we already have the means to accomplish? Did the UN actually stop World War Three? I think not. Indeed, by getting us into Korea and countless other conflicts, it has pushed us closer to another general war than it ever pulled us away from one. NATO may have served a certain purpose during the height of the Cold War, but now what does it really do for us other than spread our troops around to defend and increasingly hostile Europe from monsters of their own making? Mutual defense alliances and treaty organizations are a very dangerous thing. All it takes is one member deciding to go to war and suddenly we find ourselves fighting overseas for who knows what reason. Not only is that an unsafe proposition, but it is patently illegal. The warmaking power is reserved exclusively for Congress (contrary to popular belief, being commander-in-chief does not allow the President to start wars unilaterally; instead, it only allows him to direct our armed forces after Congress declares war) and is not meant to be delegated to foreign powers that most likely do not have our best interests in mind.

In short, the best option of the United States to follow is that of careful neutrality, economic fairness, and diplomatic and military firmness without needless intervention in the internal affairs of sovereign countries. To those who object to such things as the genocide in Darfur, ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, or human rights abuses in China, I answer that nothing is stopping them from taking action themselves. Whether they find an organization and donate to it, purchase arms and hire instructors to promote oppressed peoples' ability to defend themselves, or even volunteer to fight on behalf of the victimized, it is their choice and their freedom so to act. The General Government of the United States has neither the responsibility nor the lawful power to interfere, nor do other governments have any legitimate ability to do the same to us. Sovereignty and responsibility are not just for individuals, they are for states as well. Respecting those things in others and promoting them internally are the best policies available to people and to countries.

A strange conversation topic...

Here's something that you can always throw into a conversation if you are bored and want to shake things up a bit - if you were starving would you eat a mermaid? The same can be applied to centaurs, traditional fantasy dwarves/elves, and any other such creatures that in many ways seem human-like but are in fact not actually human. Another way of putting this would be to ask if one would be willing to eat any sapient non-uman creature. Here's my take:

It is natural for man to make use of the things around him to support and sustain himself and his fellows. However, this does not extend to making use of his fellow man in the same way as he would an animal. Yet what is it fundamentally that seperates man from beast? Contrary to the usual claim that it is reason, I would posit that it is in fact the existence of a soul. Animals lack souls, regardless of their capacity for reason (or lack thereof). Therefore, I think it would follow naturally that any creature, no matter its degree of sapiency, could legitimately be treated like any other animal insofar as man making use of it for his support and sustainance. Thus, it would not be morally reprehensible for one to eat a mermaid, an elf, a dwarf, or any other such fantastic entity. However, this hinges on the fact that such creatures are not related to humanity and therefore do not possess souls. Should it be otherwise, then it would indeed be a crime for one to eat such a creature.

On a related subject, what about creatures eating men? In my opinion the fundamental reason why maneaters are so feared and abhored across the world isn't actually because people fear being eaten. Rather, I believe that it is a crime against nature for animals to eat humans (for nature was established with the other way around being the norm). Thus people from nearly every culture of which I am aware consider maneaters to be abominations, and in the more primitive cultures they actually believe them to be demon possessed (of necessity, since untainted animals would never eat men).

Combining these two thought processes leads to an interesting quandary. Is it cannibalism for a man to eat a maneater? If a lion has begun to stalk humans at a bridge construction site, killing and eating them on a regular (and increasingly frequent) basis, then would it be immoral for the hunter that finally tracks down and kills the lion to eat it? After all, you are what you eat, or so the saying goes. Would that make it cannibalism (albeit indirect) for said lion to be served up for dinner at the victory feast celebrating its demise?

The main reason I bring these up at all is because I have found it to be an interesting way to modify the expected behavior patterns of the typical "paladin" style character in a role playing game. Though the paladin would still go out of his way to assist non-human entities in need of help, should they die (or should it be necessary to kill them for food) then the paladin would feel no moral compunctions regarding eating those entities. This can also go hand-in-hand with a sort of xenophobic paladin, one who believes that humans alone are superior to all other creatures. Treated correctly, I think that such a paladin could maintain a code of behavior largely consistent with the typical varieties of such, but with just enough differences to make for an interesting twist on the concept (with plenty of potential for the paladin's attitude to have an impact on the wider story).

I'll try to be a bit more serious in my next post, but for now, have fun pondering these few ideas.

On frustrations with the current state of modern young adult literature.

Recently there has been a rather large quantity of vampire literature published for the young adult market. This has proven to be rather irritating to me, largely insofar as every single author involved seems to be romanticizing vampires and their lifestyles. Do none of them retain a sense of what it is to be evil? Vampires are inherently abhorrent to nature, to morality, and to God Himself (even those with scientific explanations still require vile acts to sustain their lives). A vampire represents all that is base in humanity. They are essentially creatures of appetite. They fear death, and so have twisted immortality. They fear hunger, and so they need only the blood of their fellow men to survive (which is itself cannibilism). They typically are presented as alluring, whether physically, psychically, or simply by the attractiveness of the powers that they wield. Vampires do whatever they want without regard for any limitations of morality, ethics, or even basic politeness (unless being polite furthers their goals).

The way that modern authors glamourise these monsters, turning them into heroes who get all the "benefits" of their evil unlives without suffering any of the traditional consequences (killing people and such), making them entirely sympathetic characters, makes me sick. Even more, it is the fact that so many authors are jumping on the "good vampire" bandwagon. I'd type out a cry of frustration, but without the ability to modulate tone in the printed word (other than the stop-gap measures of bold, italics, and all caps) it'd be an exercise in futility.

Therefore I have resolved to write my own vampire story, only this time the main character will not be eagerly awaiting his true love's final decision to "turn" him, nor will his fellow vampires, living out their unlives to the utmost, seem like viable rolemodels for anyone who isn't a juvenile sociopath with a sensitivity to sunlight. Indeed, rather than the end of my book being the final conversion of my protagonist from a human into a vampire (see Stephanie Meyer's work for the prime example of this), instead it will culminate in one of two things: either he is devamped or he is destroyed. No other options exist for a moral man suffering the curse of vampirism.

That's enough on this topic for now...

Something completely different...

I've had a few thoughts on the nature of the afterlife, and this seems like a decent medium in which to air them. According to a Christian (Eastern Orthodox) understanding, if I'm correct at least, then there must actually be two seperate and distinct afterlifes of sorts.

The first is that to which people go immediately upon dying. This would be the afterlife referenced in the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man, and to which the thief on the cross was headed when Christ informed him that he would this day be with Him in heaven. From what I can tell, this is a purely spiritual existence, considering that the body remains on earth. However, this cannot be the final state, for that would deny the truth of the Resurrection and the promise of the New Jerusalem. Indeed, it is itself an unnatural state, since man was created body and soul, not just soul, and so continuing to exist without a body, even if in the presence of God Himself, would still be an imperfect situation.

This brings us to the second afterlife. According to the Nicene/Constantinople creed, we "await the resurrection of the dead and the life of the age to come." There will be a general resurrection when Christ comes again, when all men, whether sheep or goats, will find themselves with renewed, perfected bodies. This then is the eternal afterlife, the life of the age to come. The New Jerusalem is a new creation, a new physical Paradise where men can finally live as they were originally intended, body and soul in unity with the Divine Energies of God (never the Substance).

So then arises the question: why do people focus pretty much exclusively on the temporary, imperfect spiritual afterlife when it is the eternal, perfected post-resurrection afterlife that really matters? The former is more of a holding area than anything else, with the peace of heaven being but a shadow of that which is to come, and the torments of hell likewise being but a shadow of the suffering that the newly resurrected will undergo in the Outer Darkness.

Speaking of the Outer Darkness, given the context of the situations when this term is used (namely after the wedding feast, which I understand to be the Second Coming, and therefore after the general resurrection), it would seem to me that the spiritual Hell of the immediate afterlife is more akin to that from the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man (ie a place of fire and whatnot), while the everlasting Hell of the age to come will be a place of weeping and gnashing of teeth, with each person consumed with isolation, loneliness, fear, sorrow, etc..

These are just some musings on the subject, so I thought I'd throw them out there and see if anyone cares to make comment upon them.

Initial foray...

Given the timing of this, my first entry, I think it is appropriate for me to begin with a bit of political discussion (conventions are quite the spectacle, no? Bread and circuses indeed).

I have to wonder sometimes, do people actually bother to learn about the forms and structures of the General government? Sure, civics classes are usually required as part of one's high school education, but apparently those aren't the most accurate (nor the most well-remembered) of classes. Therefore I think I'll open this with a short description of basic federalism as I understand it.

Fundamentally federalism depends on the proper relationship between the State and the General governments. When that relationship becomes unbalanced, for instance by having States assume powers reserved for the General government, or vice versa, then the system as a whole begins to break down. Power becomes concentrated in the hands of those for whom it was not intended, and tyranny eventually becomes the inevitable consequence (hopefully, but not necessarily, followed by revolution). Of course, there are integrated methods for righting that relationship, for instance the ability of the People to elect representatives, and for those representatives to punish or remove offenders from other parts of the various governments.

Now look at the current situation among the United States today, as exemplified by a few easily found examples. The General government essentially runs the public education system, a power reserved to the States by the Constitution (by means of the much-ignored Tenth Amendment). Senators, the States' great check upon the General government, are now (by means of the Seventeenth Amendment) elected by the People instead of appointed by the States. There is talk at the General level of passing some kind of legislation defining marriage (which, unless done by means of an Amendment to the Constitution, would constitute a violation of the Tenth Amendment). These are but a smattering of instances wherein the General government has usurped powers and authority reserved by the Constitution to the States and to the People.

Indeed, with the sum total of all such usurpation on the part of the General government, especially insofar as they consist of regulations backed by financial incentives, I believe that it can be argued that the Federal system has become essentially defunct. The States, once partners in a Union intended to protect them from undue loss of sovereignty in a hostile world, have been reduced to little more than administrative provinces. I also believe that this situation is harmful to the entire body politic, General, State, and Personal. But what is the root of this problem, and indeed of so many of the problems that now face these United States of America?

My answer is that the true cause of the decline of Federalism, the rise of the modern National goverment (a term the use of which I may discuss in the future), and the loss of both personal liberty and, more importantly, personal responsibility, can be laid at the feet of certain fundamental assumptions that are no longer even discussed, with any who would do so labelled as radicals, extremists, etc.

What are these assumptions? First and foremost is the idea that the state is a positive force for good. This assumption is proven wrong simply by looking around you. Look to China, a country that exploits the masses to support a vast military and police apparatus, solely concerned with the continued power of the Party and its leaders. Look to Russia, a nominal republic that even now shows the influences of the old Soviet regime. Look to our own government, with harmful regulations imposed due to hysteria and fearmongering that led to nuclear power being choked nearly to death (a source of energy that even now gains favor among the green movement because of how clean and safe it is compared to every other viable source of power), along with corruption, pandering to lobbyists and special interests, and the violation of such basic rules of civilization as refraining from torture.

Second is the assumption that those who seek out the highest political offices do so purely out of an honest desire to work for the betterment of mankind. For some few statesmen that may be true, but for the vast majority of politicians in this country as in any other the real motivations have been far more base: money, power, and the various enjoyments that are derived from those two things. Find a congressman who refuses to accept donations from lobbying firms, major corporations, unions, or other such special interest groups and you'll have found either a total incompetent or one of those rare few who qualify as a statesman. The unending revelations of sexual misconduct, hypocrisy, corruption, etc. should be enough proof that the vast majority of politicians serve only themselves and those who have purchased their loyalty.

The third assumption is that it is the job of the General government to fix all the problems in the world and to elevate everybody to the same level of prosperity by any means necessary. To counter this, simply read the Constitution of the United States of America. Sure, the clause to "promote the general welfare" is included in the Preamble (the only part without the force of law), but if you read the document as a whole it is clearly intended as a structural outline for the body of government to be formed around, with only those powers as are specifically granted to it (again, read the Tenth Amendment). Nowhere does the Constitution allow the General goverment to regulate public education, to provide health care, or even to establish a National Bank or issue paper money (note that the Constitution only provides for coining money).

There are other such assumptions, but I'll end this with one final example. It is generally assumed that bureaucrats are the best qualified individuals to fulfill whatever function they are given by Congress (or with increasing frequency the President). From the Department of Education to the Department of Homeland Security, the number one solution to any sweeping problem seems to be to establish a new bureaucracy. To see the folly of this practice, all one need do is examine the performance of FEMA during the Katrina disaster. For an example of the unaccountability of bureaucracies, look to the Central Intelligence Agency and its torture scandals. Indeed, bureaucracies can essentially legislate by issuing directives and such, a power that the Constitution reserves entirely to Congress. This is a dangerous thing, as it grants mere hirelings vast powers, many of which the General government does not rightly possess at all.

The final question then becomes, where did these assumptions come from? I would argue that they have their beginnings as a cohesive body of thought in the Progressive movement. Modern inheritors of that tradition include the bulk of the Democrats, the entire Neoconservative movement, Socialists (and by extension both Communists and Fascists), and nearly every other variation on those themes.

I hope that I have left you with something to think about, whether you agree or not.