Shaun Kenney | Politics and Religion in Virginia's Public Square


Thursday, January 30, 2003 "Life's a bitch", said our friend Schopenhauer "It is painful, it's hard and it's dour! I'm not pessimistic but just a statistic" and he slipped stepping out of the shower. The Cartesian method of doubt should have made ole' Descartes very proud were it not for the fact - 't was his method's effect - he forgot what he doubted about. :: the Second Annual Feral Living Romantic Valentine's Day Limerick Contest posted by Shaun Kenney \| 1/30/2003 12:36:00 PM \| 0 comments Well now! The BBC is reporting that no less than eight European nations have declared their support for the United States in removing Saddam from power. In a joint letter to various newspapers, the leaders of Britain, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Hungary, Poland, Denmark and the Czech Republic warned that the credibility of the United Nations would be on the line if it failed to ensure that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein complied with its resolution on disarmament. The statement is being seen as a calculated rebuff to France and Germany, the European heavyweights which sit on the United Nations Security Council and which have expressed serious reservations about war. The Bush administration has in the last few days made clear that it is prepared to go to war without the backing of the UN if need be, declaring it would lead instead a "coalition of the willing". The BBC's Ian Pannell in Washington says this letter gives that claim some substance. The timing of this declaration of support, he says, could not have come at a better time for the administration. France and Germany are staying put for now, demanding clear cut evidence that Iraq is indeed possessing or pursuing WMD. That should all be cleared up on 05 February when Colin Powell addresses the U.N. Security Council. posted by Shaun Kenney \| 1/30/2003 12:10:00 AM \| 0 comments Wednesday, January 29, 2003 I have to admit, I am really torn on this one folks. Fredericksburg City Council just approved $100K of the taxpayers dollars to cover legal expenses incurred as a result of the 18-count lawsuit rendered by former Councilman Gordon Shelton et al. The problem is who to be angry with for the cost? Council for hiring a $500/hr attorney or Shelton for bringing the lawsuits to light? I'm inclined to blame the latter, but $82,000 and rising for legal fees? On the taxpayers' dime? What did we do to deserve this legal fee? Of course, when you break it down by count, the cost of the legal fees per count is far less than the $7,380 bill for the FOIA lawsuit brought against Shelton and the 'Gang of Five' that the taxpayers had to foot the bill for. And polls are indicating that the president was effective last night in convincing the public on Iraq by nearly 11%. My favorite part of the State of the Union: This dictator, who is assembling the world’s most dangerous weapons, has already used them on whole villages - leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained - by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. Apologists for Saddam Hussein can rant all they want for peace, but peace without justice is not peace; it is tyrrany. Go get 'em, Mr. President! posted by Shaun Kenney \| 1/29/2003 10:44:00 PM \| 0 comments Tuesday, January 21, 2003 I just couldn't let this one go unsaid. Tacitus.org just gave one of the best rattling of the pacifists who are playing apologist for every brutal modern-day dictator. The full text can be found here. The article goes into great detail on how the organizers of last weekend's protest not only condone but support the regimes that propogated the Tiannemen Square Massacre, the bombing of Iraqi Kurds, the state-authored famine in North Korea, and the Sebrenicia Massacre. Excellent article with links to prove each one. I want to make one thing crystal clear: opposition to the Iraqi war is not, in itself, un-American or wrong. So let's get that out of the way. If you marched yesterday, or if you supported the march yesterday, I'm not interested in your opposition to the war. I'm interested in the moral free pass you gave to known proponents of tyranny and murder. Let's cut through the crap. Yesterday's antiwar protests were organized by International ANSWER, a virtual front organization for the Worker's World Party. The WWP, in case you didn't know, split from the old Socialist Workers Party over the 1956 Soviet invasion of Hungary. No, not to oppose it -- the WWP supported the invasion, and they've been staunch defenders of every manner of atrocity and horror in the name of socialism since. There's no moral difference between their murderous ideology and that of, say, the American Nazi Party. Both romanticize evil. Both condone tyranny. But of course there's a social difference. Otherwise sensible, patriotic people -- people who wouldn't dream of marching for law and order with the Klan, who can't imagine signing a Nazi Party USA petition for zoning enforcement, and who think that granting an interview to Southern Partisan disqualifies a man for high office -- have no problem standing to be counted with the loathesome men and women of the WWP and International ANSWER. It's time to ask them why. It's time to call them out. posted by Shaun Kenney \| 1/21/2003 03:31:00 PM \| 0 comments Saturday, January 18, 2003 A far cry from the 100,000 promised, about half as many anti-war protesters joined the small contingent of pro-war supporters in Washington today. The BBC reported: More than 50,000 Americans converged on the National Mall in the centre of Washington, in one of the biggest protests since the build-up for war began. The most popular chant was "No War For Oil". The crowds carried placards saying "Regime Change Starts at Home" and "Would Jesus Bomb Them?" In San Francisco, a group of nude women called for President George W Bush to rein in his "naked aggression" against Iraq. Nude women? In San Francisco? St. Francis would be ashamed, not to mention that the stunt was nothing more than publicity-oriented. Way to boost the level of discussion gals (guys?). posted by Shaun Kenney \| 1/18/2003 07:20:00 PM \| 0 comments Friday, January 17, 2003 All I can say is, it's about time! VATICAN URGES CATHOLIC POLITICIANS NOT TO DIVORCE FAITH FROM PUBLIC LIFE Doctrinal Note Touches on Abortion and Euthanasia VATICAN CITY, JAN. 16, 2003 (Zenit.org).- Catholic politicians must be consistent with their faith in their political life, says a new Vatican document. The 18-page "Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life," written by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and approved by John Paul II himself, supports firmly the action of believers in democracy and exhorts them to be consistent with their convictions. In particular, the document highlights the current "cultural relativism" that advocates "ethical pluralism," namely, the rejection of absolute truth as "the very condition for democracy." The note is signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the doctrinal congregation, and by Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, until recently secretary of the dicastery. (He is now archbishop of Genoa.) The document, published today, states that "such relativism, of course, has nothing to do with the legitimate freedom of Catholic citizens to choose among the various political opinions that are compatible with faith and the natural moral law." For a Christian, democracy "must be based on the true and solid foundation of non-negotiable ethical principles, which are the underpinning of life in society," says the document. According to the note, "Catholic involvement in political life cannot compromise on" the principle of "respect for the human person," because "otherwise the witness of the Christian faith in the world, as well as the unity and interior coherence of the faithful, would be non-existent." The note further makes it clear that Catholics can never collaborate with those laws that attack the person. Civil laws regarding abortion and euthanasia are "not to be confused with the decision to forgo extraordinary treatments, which is morally legitimate," the note says. In this field, the document demands utmost respect of the human embryo and the family, based "on monogamous marriage between a man and a woman, and protected in its unity and stability in the face of modern laws on divorce." "In no way can other forms of cohabitation be placed on the same level as marriage, nor can they receive legal recognition as such," the text stresses. Catholic lawmakers must also defend "the freedom of parents regarding the education of their children [...] society's protection of minors and freedom from modern forms of slavery (drug abuse and prostitution, for example)." The list also includes "religious freedom and the development of an economy that is at the service of the human person and of the common good, with respect for social justice, the principles of human solidarity, and subsidiarity." It also says Christians must be committed to the service of peace. "Certain pacifistic and ideological visions tend at times to secularize the value of peace, while, in other cases, there is the problem of summary ethical judgments which forget the complexity of the issues involved," the document warns. Peace is always "the work of justice and the effect of charity," the note adds. It demands "the absolute and radical rejection of violence and terrorism and requires a constant and vigilant commitment on the part of all political leaders." The document ends by explaining the concept of the "rightful autonomy of the participation of lay Catholics." In this connection, the Vatican explains that to promote "the common good of society, according to one's conscience," has nothing to do with "confessionalism" or "religious intolerance." For Catholic moral doctrine, "the rightful autonomy of the political or civil sphere from that of religion and the Church -- but not from that of morality -- is a value that has been attained and recognized by the Catholic Church and belongs to inheritance of contemporary civilization," it emphasizes. In a word, the document exhorts Catholics to be consistent with their faith in their political life, noting that in "recent years, there have been cases within some organizations founded on Catholic principles, in which support has been given to political forces or movements with positions contrary to the moral and social teaching of the Church on fundamental ethical questions." "Such activities, in contradiction to basic principles of Christian conscience, are not compatible with membership in organizations or associations which define themselves as Catholic," the document clarifies. ZE03011604 email this article: http://www.zenit.org/senglish/send_friend/index.phtml?sid=30047 posted by Shaun Kenney \| 1/17/2003 07:17:00 PM \| 0 comments Monday, January 13, 2003 Justice Scalia spoke briefly at a ceremony commemorating the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom. His speech was nothing short of excellent, and his insistence that the Establishment Clause of the Constitution is erroneously understood and applied is well taken. Justice Scalia, along with Justice Thomas and Father Richard John Neuhaus, are at the forefront of the new conseravtive movement that espouses natural law theory as the foundation of American governance. Simply put, I was honored to march in the parade and listen to Scalia's remarks. "The establishment clause was once well understood not to exclude God from the public forum and political life," Scalia told a crowd of nearly 150 gathered to commemorate the 226th anniversary of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. Scalia, whose son Paul is a priest at St. Patrick Catholic Church in Spotsylvania County, said the nation's founding fathers acknowledged a sovereign God in establishing the government--as did the men who framed Virginia's statute in Fredericksburg in 1777. That statute served as the model for the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Scalia concluded his remarks at the Religious Freedom Day observance with a request. "On this day, when we're celebrating our constitutional heritage, I urge you to be faithful to that heritage--to impose on our fellow citizens only the restrictions that are there in the Constitution, not invent new ones, not to invent the right because it's a good idea." My brother Jason seems not to like political weblogs that don't allow comments at the bottom. I'm not so sure I want someone coming onto my website and posting their opinions. Not that other people's opinions aren't valuable (they most certainly are), but political sites are often volatile - and are meant to be so. Giving someone the opportunity to vent on your website may seem charitable, but not altogether appropriate. Now if there was a way to create a posting board (the Free Lance-Star's Fred Talk comes to mind) that would be much more appropriate. But the Movable Type or Blog Back idea is a neat webtrick, but just not the right idea. posted by Shaun Kenney \| 1/13/2003 07:01:00 AM \| 0 comments Sunday, January 12, 2003 AHA! Philosophy Now! reprinted the article on Just War doctrine! Read it! When is it right to go to war? How should war be waged? The Church in the Middle Ages developed a complex doctrine of the Just War, which is still of philosophical interest today. The source of many of these ideas was St Augustine, but his ideas were refined and extended by mediaeval philosophers and theologians, most famously in Thomas Aquinas' essay De Bello. According to the Just War doctrine, waging war was justified if and only various conditions were met. The exact number and nature of those conditions varies from writer to writer although there is a great deal of overlap. Aquinas says there are three conditions for a just war: 1) Auctoritas (Just authority). Only the legitimate rulers of the state may declare war. [This is because people below the rank of sovereign can settle their disputes in the law-courts. It is only sovereigns who have no higher authority to arbitrate.] 2) Causa (Just cause). In general, nation X may wage war on nation Y only if Y has done some injury either to X or to X's allies or friends. [It isn't clear whether Y having harmed Y's own people is also a just cause for X to wage war on it]. 3) Intentio (Right intentions). The intentions of the warriors taking part must be the achievement of peace and of the just cause - not revenge, the desire for plunder or the suffering or destruction of the people on the other side. Other thinkers such as Alexander of Hales, Christine de Pisan and Hugo Grotius gave additional conditions, notably: 4) Proportionality. The anticipated good must not be outweighed by the bad likely to be caused along the way. 5) Probability of success. There must be a reasonable prospect that the war will succeed. 6) Last resort. Peaceful alternatives must all have been exhausted first. Later thinkers worried not only about when it was just to declare war, but also about how justly to conduct a war once it had started. The conditions for justly conducting wars were: 1) Proportionality (again). Acts of war must not be out of proportion to the provocation or the needs of the situation. 2) Discrimination. No killing of innocent civilians or of noncombatants such as medics and camp-followers. The various philosophers all tended to agree on some, at least, of the central criteria for a Just War. Where they very often disagreed was over the casuistry - the application of these principles to actual cases. As can be seen from the list above, the conditions are open to widely varying interpretations. posted by Shaun Kenney \| 1/12/2003 01:17:00 AM \| 0 comments Doing a bit of research as far as current philosophical conferences and call for papers is concerned. During this search I stumbled upon the website of Dr. Stephen Norquist. He has a number of interesting articles and unpublished works, including: Kant's Critical Religion which is the beginning of a twelve volume examination of Kantian ideas of religion Quantum Causality and Kantian Quarks, which I have yet to read, but it looks real interesting This and a host of Stephen Norquist's other writings can be found here. posted by Shaun Kenney \| 1/12/2003 12:39:00 AM \| 0 comments Tuesday, January 07, 2003 George Weigel has produced yet another outstanding defense of just war in this month's First Things. Kaplan notwithstanding, we can get to an ethic appropriate for leadership in world politics without declaring ourselves “pagans.” And, as Brian Anderson has argued in a thoughtful review of Kaplan’s book in National Review, we can get there while retaining “a crucial place for a transcendent ought that limits the evil governments can do.” An ethic for world politics can be built against an ampler moral horizon than Kaplan suggests. As a tradition of statecraft, the just war argument recognizes that there are circumstances in which the first and most urgent obligation in the face of evil is to stop it. Which means that there are times when waging war is morally necessary to defend the innocent and to promote the minimum conditions of international order. This, I suggest, is one of those times. Grasping that does not require us to be “pagans.” It only requires us to be morally serious and politically responsible. Moral seriousness and political responsibility require us to make the effort to “connect the dots” between means and ends. posted by Shaun Kenney \| 1/07/2003 12:47:00 AM \| 0 comments Monday, January 06, 2003 Reuters reported today that two studies performed by the Massachusetts Medical School/University of Wisconsin and Harvard Medical School/Massachusetts General Hospital have both concluded that "there is no firm evidence that giving hyperactive children stimulant drugs such as Ritalin leads to drug abuse later in life", a conclusion that is absolutely true considering that the children used in the study were clinically diagnosed with hyperactivity disorders. The real problem is whether or not improperly diagnosed cases of ADHD that are treated with stimulats such as methylphenidate (Ritalin) are suspect to future substance abuse. Contrary to the article, Ritalin holds chemical similarities to methamphetamines, not cocaine. While only 3-5% of all American schoolchildren are affected by ADHD, a staggering 10% of the school population is on some form of stimulant therapy for a problem they may or may not have. Add to the fact that there are some localities that have upwards of 30% of their schoolchildren on stimulants, and you can see where the potential (and actual) problems are. Ritalin - like cocaine - increases the brain's dopamine receptors much in the way that a 'runners high' does. The problem is that you can become psychologically addicted to a dopamine high. When you introduce chemicals into the mix, you pose a problem of adding a potential chemical addiction as well. To date, there just isn't sufficient evidence to determine whether Ritalin can be harmlessly prescribed, or whether the addictive properties of methylphenidate are to be considered when prescribing Ritalin as a cure-all for hyperactivity. To be sure, if you need Ritalin to counter the chemical imbalance that causes ADHD, then there should be no problems and there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the studies. But if you don't need Ritalin, studies show that the effects are just the opposite, actually inducing ADHD and potentially causing substance abuse problems for the future. Additionally, you can overdose on Ritalin, and if one is addicted to methylphenidate, you will go into a coma and die. Studies additionally show that methylphenidate is more addictive than cocaine, and hardly the harmless drug that the article seems to indicate it to be. The proper solution is to accurately diagnose ADHD. Often times hyperactivity that is induced by environment, family problems, or other unnoticed actualities get lumped together as ADHD, a decision that only covers symptoms without finding cures. ADHD is real, but it should be a diagnosis of last resort, not a first line of defense against hyperactive children. In short, Ritalin is not soma. It is a drug just like any other, and can be abused if improperly prescribed. posted by Shaun Kenney \| 1/06/2003 03:05:00 PM \| 0 comments Saturday, January 04, 2003 On Tuesday, the Silver Companies may announce a short list of new businesses moving into Central Park/Celebrate Virginia South during a business meeting with Fredericksburg City Council. The meeting will occur at 6pm this upcoming Tuesday in the second floor conference room. It's no secret that the relationship between the Fredericksburg City Council and the city's most prominent developer has been strained since three of Mayor Bill Beck's allies took office in July. But the council and the developer, the Silver Cos., will try to turn over a new leaf in a get-together Tuesday night at City Hall. They are planning to discuss the company's plans for the Celebrate Virginia tourism development and the concern of some council members that the city doesn't have enough control over the project. Silver Cos. Chief Executive Officer Larry Silver also may announce the names of two hotels to be built there and the name of a company that will build a convention center on the site, according to some council members. Short list of businesses I want to see: an Old Virginia Tobacco Company would be nice. posted by Shaun Kenney \| 1/04/2003 02:17:00 AM \| 0 comments Thursday, January 02, 2003 We made it back safely from Fort Leonard Wood, and it was a good trip all the way around. In addition, we discovered the location of Yakov Smirnoff in Branson, Missouri no less. For those of you who are not familiar with the city, Branson has sprung up over the past fifteen years to become the Broadway of the Midwest. Think of a cross between Las Vegas and Woodbridge. . . posted by Shaun Kenney \| 1/02/2003 02:00:00 PM \| 0 comments
	RedStormPAC $ JEFFERSONIAD POLL: Whom do you support for Virginia Attorney General? 1) John Brownlee 2) Ken Cuccinelli View Results About ShaunKenney.com is one of Virginia's oldest political blogs, focusing on the role of religion and politics in public life. Shaun Kenney, 30, lives in Fluvanna County, Virginia. Contact E-mail RSS/Atom Feed The Jeffersoniad Archives March 2002 April 2002 May 2002 June 2002 July 2002 August 2002 September 2002 October 2002 November 2002 December 2002 January 2003 February 2003 March 2003 April 2003 May 2003 June 2003 July 2003 August 2003 September 2003 October 2003 November 2003 December 2003 January 2004 February 2004 March 2004 April 2004 May 2004 June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 April 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009