No, the Supreme Court Does Not Have a Final Say on What the Law is

Recently, Megyn Kelly remarked in a Fox News interview that the Supreme Court has the final say on what the law is.

     Sadly, this is one of the most common misunderstanding the American people have on the Supreme Court.

     She (and those who agree with her) erred in two ways: 1) There is nowhere in the Constitution that says that the Supreme Court has the final say on what the law is, and 2) the Court has no power to give itself more power.

     Now, it is true that the supreme "judicial Power" was vested to the Supreme Court. What, then, is the judicial Power? It is a power to judge, that is for sure. The Supreme Court has the final authority to reverse a ruling of lower courts. But that does not necessarily have the consequence of the Supreme Court being the supreme arbiter of the law. The intended power of the Court, and further the practical power of the Court as it ought to be, comes from two faucets: its suggestive power and its ability to check tyranny.

     Its suggestive power is to compel the people into following a particular law by way of the legal elites' superior legal reasoning. It has the ability to use logos into compelling the people or any of the other branches of government. It then becomes the necessary piece to check the tendency toward tyranny that can be advanced by either the Congress or the Executive branch.

     Supposing the fact that the authority to become the final arbiter of the law is absent in the Constitution, let's say, in accordance to what Mrs. Kelly said, the precedent was set through Marbury v. Madison (let's just assume so for now... but the fact is that she read the case wrongly). This is a ridiculous assertion in that the Court cannot give power to itself by setting precedents. Furthermore, through no mode of Constitutional interpretation can one reasonably conclude that there can be implicitly drawn the power to give power to itself. Such an interpretation would completely undermine the spirit of the Constitution which emphasizes a three-branched government with checks and balances.

     The question is thus this: Where did this notion that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the law come from? The answer is simply the fact that the people recognize it as thus; the idea is in their heads and won't leave. The plain fact is that there is no such thing as supreme arbiter of the law. Neither the people themselves, nor any branch of the government. This fact, the fact that there is no supreme arbiter of the law, is in plain sight in that a Court's ruling can be overturned either by the Court itself, in effect by the people by voting a president who will appoint a new judge, and also through Constitutional amendments. If this notion does not go away, we would have lost an element of democracy. If this notion does not go away, we would have a judicial tyranny where the Justices rule in favor of their political agendas or the President's agenda unchallenged. We already see in the history of the Court justices taking advantage of this perception of their judicial Power.

     What, then, can we do to resist unlawful rulings? Abraham Lincoln, as remarked by Brown in the interview, resisted the Dredd Scott v. Sanford ruling by the Supreme Court. Lincoln saw the Court's interpretation of the constitution to be incorrect and thus unlawful. So he actively resisted the ruling. He was also not alone in the act. A multitude of people, citizens and politicians alike, dissented to the ruling.

     Consider also Plessy v. Ferguson where the Court ruled in favor of segregated public facilities. The people, that is to say individuals, both in office and out, who conscientiously objected to the Court's ruling influenced the overturning of the case through Brown v. Board of Education. What can we say about this fact? The people also has a say in determining what the law is and has the ability to influence the Court. Let us also look at the prohibition movement. The early feminists influenced the government to pass an amendment to ban alcoholic drinks. The people also have a suggestive power that can compel the Court into judging the law in a particular way, and also the ability to influence the other branches of the government. The people as a whole are, in effect, a very powerful arbiter of the law. (On a side note, it should be recognized that a mob rule should be avoided... Each facet of the political system can give way to abuse of given political power.)

     Since Obergfell was mentioned in the interview, I will use it as an example of an unlawful decision. Many people in the liberal camp celebrated, and, at the same time, mocked Scalia and Roberts when they said that the decision was not about the Constitution. I will put that impulse to test.

     In order to rule, the Court, by way of the 14th, the Equal Protection Clause in particular, suggested that marriage, a fundamental right, should be extended to all regardless of one's sexual orientation, beyond a union between a man and a woman. But what the Court has to presuppose to pass this ruling is to redefine the definition of marriage. The definition of marriage as understood by the law comes from a long-understood cultural definition of marriage, both religious and secular, for the advancement of the social good. In turn it means that the legal definition of marriage is contingent upon the social definition of marriage. Now, where in the Constitution does it say that the Court justices have the power to become philosophers, a bunch of relativist philosophers at that, and change the definition of marriage as understood by the society? Nowhere. The Court's judicial Power is limited to the reaches of the law under the Constitution, not to determining socially accepted definition of institutions as accepted by the law. Such powers to rule based on mores were vested upon state jurisdictions, not federal. This de-centralized view of the court system is even more evident in our common law tradition. The decision indeed was not about the Constitution... It was a struggle for the political dominance of socially liberal agenda, pressed upon by Ginsburg and the likes. The Court exercised a power they do not have, that much is true. But the people simply gave way to it, content only on the fact that they got what they wanted, and ignorant of the fact that the Court used a power that it does not have to pass a ruling such as Obergfell.

     Should such a behavior continue, we would set precedents by which this democracy becomes more vulnerable to either an ignorant emotivist mob rule, or, in the worst, a tyrannical rule. It is about time that the people should wake up and face the fact that the Supreme Court is not the final arbiter of the law, and also the fact that there is no such a thing as advised by the Constitution. It is true that we should recognize the suggestive power of the Court and give consent to the precedents set by itself if their decisions are correct as they often are. But there can be times, as history would evidently tell us, where the Court can go wrong. A perpetual debate whether a ruling was correct or not is a suffering we must be willing to pay in order to maintain a proper democracy, or, perhaps, recover it.

Public School Systems Should Teach Religion (Properly)

It is to my opinion that the American public school system should teach religion in high school and in college as part of its curriculum. I am not saying that they should teach it in a way that endorses a particular religion; that would be against the separation of church and state. What I am suggesting is that the government should promote tolerance and knowledge of religious cultures the children otherwise might not be taught in their homes or disregarded through propagandas of the media by teaching and helping them understand key doctrines of worldviews of major religions, and also the alternative to religious life atheism, because it is apparent that what is included in traditional social sciences courses is not enough. Since the courses will teach both religious and non-religious views, the state will be impartial in its education. The reasons why the government should do so will be presented thus. I will not be writing about how the government can ensure educators being impartial in educating them.

    American public discourse is marked by gross misunderstanding of religion. The misunderstanding includes both particular key doctrines of religions as well as religion as a concept. This misunderstanding perpetuates both aisles. On the conservative side, an example would be misinterpreting Islamic doctrines to portray the religion as a religion of violence, and also mischaracterization of Catholicism by some evangelicals. On the liberal side, there is a habit of considering faith and reason mutually exclusive (which is epistemically incorrect), and, of course, misinterpreting religious doctrines (just look up a liberal article on Pope Francis).

(Let us quickly note with rough-cut analogies how religious beliefs can be rational. Consider first faith. I know very little about global climate, but the scientific community tells me that the global climate has been changing, so I believe them. Now, I do not have yet validated the particulars of the scientific findings, but I chose to put faith in their words anyway. Am I rationally justified? Yes. Consider the existence of God. Can science disprove or prove the existence of God? No. But I find, by rational principles of act and potency, I find it necessary that there must be a being of pure act, i.e. God. So I put my faith that God does in fact exist. It is of no question that faith is an integral part of our rational faculties.)

     These misunderstandings, as we can very well see, is toxic to both social cohesion and proper democratic decisions. Social cohesion cannot be achieved well, because, due to a disturbing level of misunderstanding between parties, frustrations arise and unbiased open dialogues become more difficult, since it is only human nature that inflamed minds tend to be partial. Furthermore, the liberal habit of holding faith and reason mutually exclusive leads to people thinking that moral beliefs based on religious viewpoints are irrational. This leads to many atheists thinking that conscientious objections based on religious convictions are meaningless. A baker who will not give support to a gay marriage, a clerk who only asked for a pardon on handing out homosexual marriage licenses, a doctor who refuses to suggest euthanasia... they are all irrational, so the secularists would like to say. The liberal secularists simply dismiss them as bigots who try to force their ways onto others, which is grossly false; conscientious objections do not necessarily equate to bigotry. 

     The secular liberals also temd to "hippify" Eastern religions like Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taoism. Of course, such tainting of religious doctrines is of grwt offense to the devout followers. The religious are tired of being pushed around by sociopathic apathy by their secular opponents. Surely, misunderstanding of religious doctrines lead to  social abrasion.

     It is further toxic to the democratic decision making process, because the representatives might end up misinformed people, making misinformed decision. Let's imagine a world where the government tracks all Muslims with micro-GPS devices because they fear that Islam is a religion of terror. If such a law is passed, we can be sure that such a law was passed on misinformation about Islam.

     Let's also imagine a world where the elected president attempts to coerce private companies to provide contraception and abortifacients, which the companies hold to be immoral from their adherence to their religious doctrines, to their employees as part of an insurance program. Because the government essentially thinks the companies' religious beliefs are are irrational. the government by consequence thinks that the companies' reasoning is automatically disqualified under the government's rational interests. If such a law is passed, or even attempted to be passed, we can know with certainty that the proponents of the government's regulations were infringing on the most precious of rights - (rational) private conscience - whether they were aware of it or not. If in fact they were unaware, it would then be due to a misinformed judgement that religious beliefs are irrational, thereby unworthy of fair consideration for the companies' first amendment rights. We can therefore see how misunderstanding of religious doctrines can be toxic to informed democratic decisions.

     What, then, would relieve us from such problems? The answer is simply to have the general public better educated on religious matters. Since each individual families and communities would be inadequate in educating students about different religious viewpoints including atheism due to their lack of diverse knowledge, the solution should be offered by the entity which has a vested interest in a well-functioning society, i.e. the government. In so doing, the government would promote tolerant dialogues where both parties understand each other, thereby increasing social cohesion and the propensity toward informed democratic decisions.

   

Why Socialism is Bad for Global Charity Works

There is quite a disturbing trend that has risen among college-aged people as the U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont has ushered in a trend of accepting and favoring of socialism among young American citizens. Now, it has long been true that college students were more disposed toward socialistic ideals. Yet, historically, the zeal for socialism is at its peak. Here, I argue against this new-found zeal for socialism on grounds that socialism or any form of statist ideologies is not conducive toward global charity works.

(It should quickly be noted that, in my economic view, the sets of policies that counts as a "statist ideology" in practice differ by countries for there are matters of practicalities to be considered, e.g. density of the population by sectors, population size of the country, geographic size of the country, GDP per capita, etc. Although we may hold conceptually what a statist ideology may be, no economic system will fit tightly into the concept unless we take practicalities of a system.)

     In pursuing global charity, it is of necessity that we should eliminate, or at least mitigate, practices of grave evils. Now, many may disagree between the conservative-liberal divide on what counts as evil. For example, many would surely be against me opposing abortion and legal redefining of marriage. But only those few who have deviant consciences would be in support of grave evils of systemic oppression of ethnic or religious groups and human trafficking.

     It is of no debate that, in order to improve the conditions, wealthier developed countries need to contribute in aiding the impoverished parts of the world. Now, there are two ways of going about this topic. One would obviously be foreign aid by countries. Another would be works done by NGOs and individual charity works.

     A socialist might say that, if a country gets more money from its citizens, it would consequently have more money to aid other countries in need, thereby benefiting the global community. This claim would of course assume that the bureaucracies of socialist (or statist) countries would be willing to send money to other nations, foregoing the opportunity to use more money on domestic projects. This is not always true. Denmark, who earns less than, U.S. consistently gives more in foreign aid in proportion to their GNI. Generally, the coveted 0.7% GNI targeted by the UN is not achieved by that many countries... only 5 countries achieved over 0.7% in 2013.

     Another objection against the socialist's claim is the fact that foreign aids are not flexible. They are tailored by contract to be used in particular areas and oftentimes given to the government that needs the aid. Now, it may be the case that the determined purpose for the funds may outlast its practicalities, and there is also the problem of being able to trust a government that may or may not be corrupt with large sums of money. If the central bureaucracy judges that they cannot trust unstable governments of third world countries, they would likely not trust them with their foreign aid. NGOs, however, due to their non-governmental nature, can spend their money on the people of the country they are aiding by tailoring to their needs, instead of giving money to the foreign government.

     Much can be said about the socialist's claim, but I will not address them due to spacial concerns. But I can say that socialist and statist policies that hinder charity through NGOs and individual charities. Suppose that we burden the top 1% of our nation with 90% tax rate. Some would be compelled to leave the country. For those who stay, they will nonetheless be significantly hindered in giving large sums of money to charity organizations. Here, we have a scenario where neither the government and NGOs can fully benefit. A large part of our world's charity works are done by Christian churches, the Catholic Church being the dominant one. Now, if the wealthiest are heavily taxed up to 90%, then they will also lose their capacity to tithe - a 10% of their income - to their churches. We are all familiar of how the Catholic Church is active in third world countries in helping out the poor. Imposing a socialist or statist policies would hinder their projects and actions of good will.

     Further, it should be noted that the importance of NGOs, when counted as a whole, is their flexibility and their ability to give insights. Different NGOs focus on different narrow aspects of injustice. For example, there is an NGO that builds schools for girls to be educated in hopes of rescuing them from systemic oppression of women. But another NGO finds out that, on her way to the school, she is raped. It is further found that, due to the ineffective law enforcement of the country, the rapist would reign freely without a fear of conviction. This fact compels her and other girls to skip out on school out of fear, and their parents to stop sending the girls to school. So the NGO would focus on improving the law enforcement of the country in need. This problem with the law enforcement would not have been noticed by the NGO seeking to educate, and they would consequently have wasted their money. It was through the NGO that focuses on legal justice the former were able to educate girls. This symbiotic relationships of different NGOs cannot be matched by what central bureaucracies can do alone.

     Another reason why socialism and statist ideologies can hinder the efforts toward global care is that, if NGO activities are lessened from people having less money to spend toward charity organizations, the NGOs will consequently have less people they are able to hire. In effect, they will have less experts to aid particular issues. There is a wide array of experts NGOs are able to send. Among many more, they include: lawyers, criminal investigators, educators, engineers, geologists, doctors, and social workers.

(An obvious objection from a socialist would be that the state can replace the charitable manpower lost. But of course, as stated above, this is assuming that the state bureaucracy would be willing to spend more money toward foreign powers instead of domestic interests, a foolish assumption to be had. Further, there is the problem of the central bureaucracy detecting problems of other countries.)

     As can be seen, socialism and other statist ideologies are not conducive to global charity. In fact, it appears that some liberal progressives' support for socialism is incompatible with their narrative of global progress by potentially limiting the resources - capital, specialized manpower, and innovations - sent to less developed worlds.

Marvel's Daredevil and Jessica Jones: A Tale of Two Cities

WARNING: SPOILERS

Netflix recently released two shows based on Marvel comics: Daredevil and Jessica Jones. They are both set in New York City within the Marvel's cinematic universe. Though set in the same city, the two narratives tell of two distinct cities.

     New York City portrayed by both shows are within the Marvel's cinematic universe, meaning that it is a city once battered by the alien invasion that occurred in The Avengers. Its citizens are still trying to recuperate from the damages of the alien invasion while criminals are taking advantage of the harsh situations of the city. It is a dark city overrun by evils of men.

     In Daredevil, however, all is not lost among the darkness. The show's main character, Matthew Murdock, also known as the Daredevil, is a Catholic whose motives for becoming a hero is deeply rooted in his moral conscience. The show is not stingy when it comes to highlighting his Catholic identity; the show starts with Matthew in a confessional with a priest. Furthermore, at the end of episode 1, the show ends with the protagonists talking of virtue, a word that is quite rare in modern moral language apart from the religious. In recognizing that he is gifted with superhuman senses and advanced martial arts techniques, he finds himself suited to fight against the evils that corrupt the city. In becoming a hero, his alias "Daredevil" gives new meaning to the word. Daring to go against the tide of evil is indeed audacious in line of the traditional understanding of the word. Yet he is a person who dares to go against the devil, someone who dares the devil. In fighting evil, he does not become evil himself; in defeating the villains, he refuses to kill.

     Matthew is a lawyer, a morally conscious lawyer at that. The profession in the show, however, is not portrayed in such a way. Lawyers are portrayed as Machiavellian individuals who show no sympathy for the disadvantaged. In fact, they work their hardest to exploit the disadvantaged. Matthew stands out among other lawyers in the show in that he has a sense of purpose driven by his moral convictions. New York City in Daredevil is thus a ruined city with hope wherein a hero delivers divine justice through his deeds.

     Jessica Jones is quite different, however. The heroine Jessica Jones, although gifted with super strength, is a victim of a mind controlling villain Killgrave. Under his control, she lived in a hell.... She was forced to kill, forced to show affection toward him, and force to have sex with him (which is in effect rape). She wanted to do them while not wanting to do any of them; her sense of autonomy was totally depraved under his control, rendering her super power irrelevant. She is portrayed as a victim, to be sure. She suffers from PTSD and behavioral issues that impede her from having meaningful relationships with people.

     The show doesn't portray Jessica as the only person incapable of meaningful relationships. In fact, the show portrays romantic relationships in general in an extremely poor light. Jessica gets into a sexual relationship with Luke Cage, a person gifted with unbreakable skin. There is a hope for romance between the two, but the relationship does not progress far; they end up using each other for sexual pleasure in hopes of curing their loneliness. A lesbian lawyer (keeping up with the portrayal of lawyers in Daredevil) Jeri Hogarth seeks to divorce her wife to be with her secretary Pam. Even with Pam, Hogarth is incapable of establishing a meaningful relationship... Pam ends up killing Wendy, Hogarth's Wife, while Wendy is trying to kill Hogarth by giving her 1,000 cuts as ordered by Killgrave. Trish, Jessica's best friend Trish gets into a romantic relationship with Will Simpson who turned out to be a villain. What is the show trying to point at through these negative portrayals of sex and romance? I believe that it is the moral depravity of its characters and the city itself.

     The failures of romantic and sexual relationships are grounded in characters' moral failures. Jessica is intemperate, Luke is lustful, Hogarth is manipulative, and Simpson is a cold-blooded killer. Apart from the main characters, the city is run amok with sexual vices. In fact, Jessica is a private investigator often hired by Hogarth whose clients are in need of exposing their cheating spouses in order to get more money at the divorce court.

     Sexual immoralities are "insignificant" when compared to the consequences of violent crimes, to be sure. But the same vices of main characters lead them toward causing violence. Out of her intemperance, Jessica delivers her heroic justice in morally questionable ways. She used Killgrave's parents to have Killgrave turned in to the police, fully recognizing the danger of the parents being killed (which they do), and she also tortures Killgrave, killing him by violently twisting his neck at the end of the show. Jessica, unlike Matthew, becomes evil to fight evil. Hogarth, through her manipulations, causes Killgrave to escape and consequently cause her wife to attempt to kill her.

     These signs of moral depravities is not hidden in the show's choice of words. The cuss-word of choice in this show is "god damn it"; the word is said by characters too often to be left unnoticed.  The choice is not a mere attempt for Marvel to keep the level of verbal vulgarity to a PG-13 level. The motive is to portray the city in a contrary light from Daredevil. Daredevil portrays New York City through the narrative of a hero with religious and moral convictions; it perhaps portrays a city werein the will of God is being done. However, Jessica Jones portrays the city as a city damned by God. In fact, Daredevil portrays religion, Catholicism in particular, in a positive light through Matthew Murdock whereas Jessica Jones does not. In Jessica Jones, Hogarth proposes to Pam despite her legal status of being married to her wife. When she does, Pam says that she can't because she's a Catholic. Here, the show uses Pam to portray a world where religion is meaningless; Pam commits adultery and homosexual acts, both of which are condemned by Catholic teachings, all the while calling herself "Catholic."

     To me, both shows were excellent. Their narrative styles were engaging and also their efforts to build up characters were better than most shows out there. I was pleased how Jessica Jones, a show that came out later than Daredevil, is in a quiet philosophical dialogue with Daredevil. It almost seemed to me that the writer of Jessica Jones was saying: "No, this is the kind of world the characters live in." Perhaps this dialogue will continue throughout the years, season after season, one I am anxious to spectate.

Is There a Better Way to Oppose Same-Sex Marriage Intellectually?

I was at a presentation listening to a Finnish philosopher present his argument against same-sex marriage. In sum, the basic outline of his argument followed thus:

1) Law affects human behavior and beliefs.
2) If the law permits same-sex marriage, people will understand marriage in a different way.
3) The different understanding of marriage is wrong and will ultimately result in negative societal "health."
4) Therefore, the states should ban same-sex marriage.

It appeared to me that he treated premises 1 and 2 as givens. I hold no objections against them. My problem, however lies in how he defended the 3rd premise.

To defend his 3rd premise, he presented a series of empirical findings and their implications. However, I found those arguments weak. Others in the audience thought so too, I believe; I saw rolling eyes and frustrated sighs. The presenter could not respond back on the spot, because he would first have to gather additional evidence before responding to them.

The argument was weak in that empirical findings leave room for subjective interpretations, and suppositions of possible interpretations. And indeed the arguments were followed by interpretive criticisms. For example, the presenter showed how homosexuals tend to be more promiscuous because of their views of sexual ethics. Someone in the audience objected by saying: It could very well be that homosexuals are propelled to be promiscuous due to societal pressures.

Another audience member said that, since a child never really is raised by just a man and a woman (relatives, siblings, etc), there is nothing wrong with same-sex marriage and raising a child in that environment. It is true that a child can be raised just fine between homosexual couples.

I would argue back that there are, both psychologically and biologically, undisputed facts that a child and its parents gravitate toward each other, and that it is highly beneficial for a child to share in both maternal and paternal bonds. This in effect gives reason to preserve the traditional form of marriage.

Yet, those who disagree with me will suppose other possibilities of the fact I presented, and I doubt not that they will come up with compelling interpretations by adding other sources. I can think of one myself. One may object to me saying that a second father acting maternally or a second mother acting paternally will solve the discrepancy (this field is yet to be extensively researched).

We tend to put much faith in sciences in guiding us, but sciences can seldom tell us about what is moral other than matters of bodily health.

Another point I'd like to add is that the negative societal effects of same-sex marriage, if any, is too minuscule to approach from a legal perspective (only 1.5 ~  3% of human beings are homosexuals). Further, to approach from a legal perspective will not rid the world of the negative effects of same-sex marriage (if any), because the premises that give support to the conclusion that is same-sex marriage is founded on a more fundamental belief.

So what is a better way to oppose same-sex marriage intellectually? As I sat there carefully trimming down my fellow students' arguments, it became clear to me that their understanding of sex and human relationships is different from mine.

Many of my fellow students did not see sex as something that should be had with both procreation and mutual pleasure in mind. They rather separated procreativity, nurture, and pleasure apart from one another. This, it appeared, was where the fundamental differences lie. I believe that it is within this premise where social conservatives most often find common opponents with regard to same-sex marriage, abortion, contraception, and as well as  sexual promiscuity.

This is the premise that gives support to same-sex marriage. Ideas have consequences. And this idea - an idea that took hold about two centuries ago, in combination with relativistic views (another opponent of social conservatism) - bore many fruits. One of the fruits is same-sex marriage. If sex can be had without procreation in mind, then is it not logical to conclude that fornication and homosexual relations are not immoral? The conclusion may not be sound, but it will at least be valid.

A person against same-sex marriage does not separate procreativity, nurture, and pleasure apart from one another. We believe that we are to have sex by pleasing one another with mutual love while being open to new life, and further willing to nurture that new life. To us, sex is not something to be had as premature pubescent teenage boys would have. We believe that our sexual desires are to be controlled, mastered, and used only for the common good. If it cannot be used for the common good, one should also be a celibate.

These are some of the reasons why social conservatives believe that masturbation, sodomy, fornication, contraception, and, of course, homosexual activities are wrong. I believe that it is here where the intellectual battle should be fought, not wrestling over interpretations empirical statistics.

So the better way to oppose same-sex marriage intellectually, I believe, is to ground the argument on sexual ethics rather than consequences of same-sex marriage. I also believe that it is a more plausible way; if we can somehow promote sexual temperance, and thereby traditional sexual ethics, in this culture, a culture where pubescent sexual desires do not run amok, a culture where the life of a celibate is again praised, we would see a cultural reversal toward the traditional view of marriage (I cannot see how this can ever happen; I can only see decline in traditional view of marriage).

What, then, is love? Do we understand the concept of love to have a right in saying this?

A Concern for Ethics in Future Warfare

     The current political climate is dangerous. The global community has enjoyed two decades of relative stability thanks to the unipolar international system dominated by the United States. However, two new great powers are on the horizon: Russia and China. Russia is pursuing its dream of being a superpower once more, and China is striving to live up to its namesake: "Center Nation". Historically, whenever there is a rising great power attempting to rival the strength of the most powerful, there has almost always been a war between them.

     We already see advances by the West to put a choke-hold on both Russia and China by empowering its allies. The reason why the West is risking the Iran deal even when there is a high possibility of Iran defecting from the deal in the future is to have a formidable military power become a buffer zone between Europe and Russia. As we can see, Russia escalated its struggle for the region by directly opposing Western interest in Syria. Further, Trans-Pacific Partnership - a partnership that covers 40% of world's economy - was drafted. China, however, is being excluded from it. A sharp comment by President Obama followed.  He said: "When more than 95% of our potential customers live outside our borders, we can't let countries like China write the rules of the global economy" (BBC). The potential for a massive war, therefore, is great, supposing that no country is dumb enough to detonate a nuclear bomb. And with this potential, the great powers are racing for better technology in order to have the necessary edge over their enemies.

     The current military world is a defense-dominant world; the military equipment favors defensive doctrines. One might observe the U.S. operations in the Middle East and say that our technology favors offense. But in all of the recent U.S. operations, the U.S. had superior weaponry and the terrorist factions did not have the tech to counter them. This is not true for wealthy powers.

     A single RPG can disable a tank, and a single stinger missile can demolish a jet. This means that, as long as there are soldiers who can operate them, defending against offensive armored charge and airstrikes can be stopped with greater cost-efficiency. Even if a stealth bomber goes past the radar, if it is seen by the naked eye, it can be shredded to pieces by a stationary AA gun or, possibly, a weaponized laser (which is in development). Further, a jammer can effectively put a stop to unmanned drone strikes... drones only appear to be an effective war machine for terrorists simply have no counter to it. With it, any future possibility of there being a large robotic (droid?) army disappears.

     What does this mean? It means that the future of warfare, despite our best efforts to have machines do all the work for us, will ultimately depend on infantrymen. Exoskeleton suits and invisibility suits for soldiers are already in development to give the infantry the edge required to defeat their enemies, and these will likely succeed in trials. With these developments, infantry and mechanized infantry will likely increase in number. With it, there is a temptation to make new technological innovations to kill numerous infantrymen fast. The U.N. protocol only bans certain chemical weapons... it does not say anything about vaporizing people in seconds with directed microwave beams. This, I think, is worthy of ethical examination. We can perhaps put a ban on certain weapons before they are invented.

   

On Christianity and Trees

The Eucharist is "the source and summit of Christian life" - CCC 1324

     I played a game lately in which a friend to the left of me was required to pretend that he was me. In pretending to be me, he said that he wrote a blog post concerning Christianity and trees. After celebrating the Exaltation of the Holy Cross and listening to Fr. Daniel's homily just two days after, I could not help myself but to write on the matter. My friend was right; I am exactly the person who would write about Christianity and trees and I am sure it was not an occasion of coincidental nature.

     Trees are depicted in the Judeo-Christian tradition as a nourishing element. In the book of Genesis we see two main trees, not just one. God planted in the garden the tree of knowledge of good and evil, from which Adam and Eve had their fill of the fruit. But there is also the tree of life. The tree of life does not signify the empirically perceivable life but of true life. It signifies, among infinite perceivable life (immortality), a fulfilling life in complete communion with God and all His creations. But, as we all know, this communion was broken by the faults of Adam and Eve, rendering them unworthy of true life. So as to not taint the purity of Eden, it was necessary that they were banished from it.

     Although their offenses were great, God did not destroy them completely. Although they were forbidden from the present of life, they yet maintained life in mortality and in difficulty communicating with God. In this way God made mankind work toward their salvation, toward their true state of nature before the fall.

     It should be of no surprise to Christians (especially Catholics who connect the Old Testament and the New Testament during mass) that some books of the Old Testament are at times prophetic, priming the minds of the faithful for the (first) coming of Christ.

     Further into the Christian narrative, God, in His grace, presented to us the tree of life. But it was presented to us albeit in an unsuspecting way. It was presented not in a literal form of a living tree but in the form of Christ crucified. The body and blood of Christ, the fruits of his salvific work and passion, flowed from the tree that is the wood of the Holy Cross.  In this act of grace by God the symbol of wrongdoing used by the Romans, the cross, the tainted tree of knowledge of good and evil, is made null. Through this act the cross is made into a sign of life.

     And what does this new tree of life, the cross on which Christ is crucified, offers us? The same as the one in Eden: immortality and full communion with God. But Christ offers more than the original tree of life in that He is willing to forgive our sins.

     However, it is still necessary that we be worthy to be in the presence of the tree of life. Further, we Catholics believe that the Eucharist is, literally, Christ Himself; it is literally the fruits of the new tree of life (for Protestants and atheists this may be very strange... Just be kind and take my word that this isn't that strange once you adequately understand it). For these reasons we Catholics make a firm and unmistakable act of confession to God through the sacrament of reconciliation, placing ourselves in a state of grace. Only in this state of grace can we partake in the Eucharist. Through the sacraments of reconciliation and the Eucharist, we are to meditate regularly how we are of fallen nature and practice thanksgiving toward Christ our Lord for allowing us to be saved.

     In doing these things we improve our faith and grow further into virtue both moral and theological. In this sense it is correct that trees be depicted in the Christian tradition as a nourishing element. Through the fruits of the new tree of life we are nourished and find true life. The Eucharist indeed is the source and summit of Christian life.