The Daily Detour

Should she pull out?

With Obama's lead widening over Hillary, the pressure continues to mount as calls for her to quit the presidential race are steadily growing. Even on her recent trip to Indiana last week (can you believe a presidential candidate actually has to care about us Hoosiers this year?), she made it clear that she was sticking it out.

As we talked about before, the understandable fear among Democrats is that if this battle royale continues, it will ultimately pave the way for a Republican victory in November. That's the argument I've been putting forward here for the last year.

So, I put this latest question to you: Should Hillary quit?

I hope she stays in, not only for the sake of my prediction of last March, but more importantly, for two particular reasons: 1.) This Democratic presidential race playing out as it is has proven to be a very revealing mirror into the very heart of the Democrat party. When the gloves come off, one gets a chance to see what the politicians really think, and not just what makes for a good soundbite., and 2.) A fractured Democratic party will make it difficult for a Democratic victory in November. And, as difficult it is to believe that John McCain is the current flagbearer of the Republican party, having him in office is a better alternative than what a Hillary or Obama presidency would bring to this country.

Of course, that's my opinion on the matter. What's yours?

A family "vacation" worthy of the Griswalds

Well, friends, just about the time I thought I could get back online to continue the steady commentary you've come to expect here at The Daily Detour, we went on another mini-family vacation that turned out (for me, at least) to be anything but. The intent was to have our extended family spend a few days together, but I spent more time in quarantine than doing just about anything else. And because we didn't have wireless access in the hotel room, that explains my mysterious absence from the blog.

The plan was to hang out with Jean, my mom and dad, brother Stephen, and brother Doug and Natalie (and all of our 7 kids), from Wednesday to Saturday. We all stayed at a hotel back down in Brown County, Indiana. Doug and Nat couldn't get there until Friday morning, and brother Stephen was sick from the get-go. (He never did fully recover.) Jean came down Wednesday afternoon, but had to go to work on Thursday (and was off to Chicago after work). So, my mom and I had all the kids. When the adults are out-numbered by the kids, you never know what you're in for. By Friday, my dad was down at the hotel, and mom was heading home, having picked up what Stephen had.

I'll cut to the chase...by Thursday night I couldn't go out to eat with the gang, because I was back at the hotel room with Caleb who was sicker than a dog. It culminated in his sitting on the toilet dealing with what the dictionary calls "abnormal frequency and fluidity of fecal evacuations." And it wasn't just that he was struggling with diarrhea, but while he was sitting there, I was holding the trash can while he simultaneously threw up. (I tried to reassure him that I had never in my life known anyone who was that sick. It made him feel a little bit braver.) Needless to say, Caleb did his best to hurry to the bathroom each time the next bout came on. He only came up short once and I didn't get the trash can there in time, leaving a nasty mess which we did our best to clean up. (It was complicated by the fact that all the other little munchkins were running in and out of the room and wanting to see what Caleb had done.)

Well, Caleb's stomach pains only lasted about 12 hours, and we were out of the woods...or so I thought. Just about the time I thought I could relax, Andrew came down with the same thing yesterday evening. So, while Caleb was back in action, so was I, wearing a path in the carpet between the bed and the bathroom. Poor little Andrew isn't as in tune with his body as Caleb is, so we had quite a few false alarms. But when it proved to be the real thing, I was glad he was standing over the toilet when he let go like a little fire hose.

And Caleb, having quite a bit of sympathy from his own experience the day before, was holding the ice bucket and walking alongside Andrew on the way to the bathroom. As Andrew was leaning over the toilet crying, Caleb stood there rubbing his back. (I wish I'd have had a camera. :)

We were planning to stay longer today, but I mistakenly assumed that Andrew was better than he was this morning. We took the kids for one final swim, but had to cut it short when poor Andrew accidently had another case of diarrhea while standing by the side of the pool (reminscient of another "joys of parenthood" moment). He started crying, and I ran for the nearest towel. Fortunately, I was able to reassure him that it was nothing to be embarrassed about, because he was trying his best. We got it all cleaned up, but decided to abort the rest of the day's festivities in favor of heading home sooner than expected.

I've never been so glad to be back home (and I will be very glad when Jean gets back from Chicago later tonight). Both boys are better, but I'm starting to feel the symptoms. Man, I need a vacation!

Who will win the Democratic nomination?

Jean and I had a lengthy discussion yesterday centered around her question to me about the Democratic presidential race. She asked me, "Who do you think is going to win the nomination coming out of the Democratic national convention?" A very interesting question indeed, given the turbulence of this particular race.

Is it too early to predict? Never. With the back-and-forth pendelum swinging of the Democratic campaign over the last year, the national convention in August promises to be a very interesting event. Rarely are the candidates decided upon at the convention. Typically, as will be the case on the Republican side this presidential cycle, the nominee has already been chosen by the people, and the convention is nothing more than the official coronation of the people's decision.

Not so for the Democrats this year. In fact, Hillary continues to assert that this race is "a long way from being over", and that she will fight for the nomination all the way to the convention.

So, given what we've seen of Obama's charisma and Hillary's tenacity, who do you think will emerge the victor and why?

Will they kiss and make up? Should they?

Sorry, faithful readers. I've been off the grid for a little while at a retreat/business meeting down in Brown County, Indiana. Internet access has been limited. So, thanks for your patience, and I will be getting back up to speed as soon as possible.

I did want to leave you with this question, that comes from today's front page of USA Today: "What are the odds Democrats will field a "dream team ticket" with Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton combining forces?"

The Democrats are rightfully worried that the battle for the Democratic presidential nomination is so heated that it will split the Democratic party, the fear of an implosion we've been talking about for a year now. How can they unify the base? There's talk of "the dream ticket" with Obama and Clinton joining forces. Hillary herself floated this idea a couple of weeks ago, actually suggesting that Obama could be her VP. He laughed it off, by pointing out the obvious. How can the person who is in second place offer the second place position to the person in first place?

I don't know. I don't see it happening. But, what do you think?

UPDATE: BTW, one of the radio political pundits raised this question recently, "If Obama, who is being touted as the candidate who can transcend differences and bring people together, cannot even unite the Democratic party, how can we expect him to unite the country?" Is this message of national unity realistic, or just a idealist dream?

Did Jesus really rise from the dead? Many people think so

The blog's been a little quieter than usual this weekend. Some additional pastor responsibilities with the Easter holiday and some pressing developments on the home front (more on that later).

In a recent study in England, the public theology think-tank Theos found that "57 per cent of adults believe that Jesus was crucified, buried and rose from the dead."

According to the poll results, 3% of those questioned identified themselves as Christian but said they did not attend church regularly. Moreover, only 8% said they were Christian and went to church on a regular basis. (These statistics are consistent with what Jean and I discovered back in January.)

Paul Woolley, the director of Theos, made an interesting observation when considering this finding about the resurrection of Christ: “The fact that over half of Britons believe that Jesus rose from the dead is particularly striking and demonstrates that society is not as secular as we often imagine it to be.”

It is difficult to determine what signifies whether a society is becoming more or less secular. Certainly, a person's belief about this most significant of events provides some indicator, though I would argue that actions matter as much as, or more than, professed beliefs.

When it comes to the question about whether or not Jesus rose from the dead, it doesn't matter as much that 57% of the British population believes it. The critical question is, "Do you believe it?"

Does "moral relativity" really work as a worldview?

As is often the case with the conversations which stem from certain posts here at The Daily Detour, they sometimes veer off into other, very interesting, directions. If you've been following the conversation going on in the comment board of a recent post on Obama's pastor, you've probably already seen this part of that conversation. But, if not, I wanted to bring it to a blog post of its own (because it's about to drop off the front page, and more importantly, because it's a very valuable conversation for the larger TDD audience). So, with Resident Atheist's permission, here's the essence of that conversation:

Resident Atheist: John- you beat this drum that there are inherent truths that must exist, but time and again we stumble into the murky waters of interpretation. I don't understand how you can continue to question moral relativism when day after day you can't even get consensus from the people on this blog. I'm just curious...who do you think knows these truths, 100%?

John: RA, I'm not questioning the reality of moral relativity. (It certainly exists.) I'm simply questioning the viability of it as a sustainable worldview.

The idea that there are inherent truths is not mine. From my Christian worldview, it is based on Scripture, and ultimately comes from God Himself. That said, even science is based on some standard of truth by which we experiment and seek to understand the world. The question is, if there are immutable laws of nature (science), then are there equally immutable laws of morality? (i.e. Can one ever really make a justifiable case for rape or child molestation? It would be very difficult to do so.)

The notion of moral relativity is a seemingly-noble idea which attempts to elevate the perspective of each individual, and because of that people are going to continue to embrace the desire for subjective interpretation. The reality is, however, that within a larger community, moral relativity has unavoidable limitations which make it untenable as a practical worldview.

Resident Atheist: I don't understand how you can say it is untenable as a practical worldview, when, in practice it is exactly what has, does, and must exist.

Even assuming there are immutable laws of morality, there is no way to precisely identify them, unlike laws governing our physical world. Because there is more than one person on this planet, and no way to definitively test for these moral laws, it is impossible that two people will agree on them (let alone the rest of the people on the planet).

So in practice each person defines what is moral to them. You may have groups of people that share many in common, but that doesn't negate the fact that each person has defined what is moral for themselves, relative to their experiences / beliefs / etc.

Once again, it really doesn't matter IF there are moral laws, if we are unable to determine exactly what they are. Until that time, no man's list of morals are better than the next. This will not change until some determines the 'scientific method' for morality.

John: RA, you wrote, "...in practice each person defines what is moral to them...each person has defined what is moral for themselves, relative to their experiences / beliefs / etc...no man's list of morals are better than the next."

From my perspective, you just described the problem with moral relativity. If indeed it is true that "each person has defined what is moral for themselves" and that "no man's list of morals are better than the next", how do we justify condemnation for Saddam's moral values (or Hitler's for that matter)? How do we condemn the moral values of the pedophile?

You have argued in the past that it is up to a particular group of people--a given culture or organization--to determine their moral values. True enough. But at some point the idea that no person's moral values are better than the next breaks down. Because at some point we (whoever the "we" happens to be) say, for example, that protection of children is a moral value we hold firmly to. By contrast, therefore, we equally condemn the values of those who would contend that sexual exploitation against an innocent child is morally acceptable. Is the moral value of the pedophile really no better than that of the victim? The notion of moral relativity genuinely applied would have to say, "Yes." If we each lived in a personal vacuum, the application of moral relativity might be tenable. But, obviously we don't live isolated lives. As such, the Law of Non-Contradictions seems to prevent the pure application of your definition above of moral relativity.

What I always appreciate about RA is his willingness to articulate his various positions from a very intelligent and candid perspective. Even if, as I suspect occasionally, some of RA's rhetoric is put forward simply to play the role of devil advocate at times (though I don't know that this is necessarily one of those times), it is very helpful for all of us to be able to thoughtfully engage with each other on these significant issues. So, I wonder what some of the rest of you think about this idea of moral relativity? Because, the implications of moral relativity are far-reaching for our culture and our future.

5-year anniversary in Iraq

For many Americans the "Shock and Awe" honeymoon phase has long been over in Iraq. In fact, the latest statistics support the gradual disillusionment with the efforts in Iraq. It is interesting to track the rise and fall of the American public's response to the war based on the events as they happen.

In December 2001 70% of Americans supported the idea of going into Iraq and ousting Saddam Hussein. And support for the war peaked at 76% in 2003 as Saddam Hussein's regime fell.

By May of 2007 the approval rating for the Iraq invasion had dropped to just 35%. And on this 5-year anniversary of the invasion the approval rating for the war is just under 40%.

The plummeting of the approval for the war is hardly newsworthy, but I have often wondered, "Why the considerable shift in support?" What has changed since we first invaded in 2003?

There are a number of reasons opponents of the war want the U.S. out of Iraq: 1.) The Bush administration lied to get us into Iraq (I've never fully bought into this argument, because it assumes that those in the Bush administration knew full well that there were no WMD's to be found, for example, but willingly perpetuated that lie in order to put our military men and women in harm's way because of some hubristic motivation. Faulty intelligence irresponsibly applied? Plausible. An outright lie? Difficult to realistically believe.)

2.) The cost of the war, both in money and lives, is a legitimate concern. However, the "no more blood for oil" rationale is somewhat hollow coming from anyone who drives a vehicle to work everyday, among other means of oil consumption. More importantly, this cost of the war raises the issue, "When does the cost of such an endeavor move from being worthwhile to being irresponsible?" Different people will certainly come down at different points on this issue. Regardless, however, are there still costly endeavors that are worth our sacrifice?

There are other reasons opponents give, but the point is this: What accounts for the significant swing in support for the war? Put another way, why did so many of us support the war at the beginning, when so many do not now? What changed?

Did our rationale for going to war change? The search for WMD's was part of it, but so was the intent to free the Iraqi people from the grip of a murderous dictator. To free people from oppression and violence is a noble endeavor. After all, there are growing cries for intervention in Darfur, just as there were during the 1994 Rwandan genocides.

If we were watching children get repeatedly beat up by the bully on the playground, we would hopefully intervene to protect the innocent. To translate that analogy on a global scale is certainly more difficult, but the question remains, at what point do we have an obligation to intervene on behalf of the oppressed in our world?

In Iraq, there will be ongoing differences of opinion about whether we should stay or go. As I've written before, some may wish we hadn't gone into Iraq, but the fact is, we're in Iraq, facing a dangerous enemy. So, what do we do now?

More importantly, has the enemy we faced then changed? In fact, I've often wondered what our liberal friends believe will happen if we pull out prematurely? What will the terrorists do once the American presence is gone?

James Joyner asserts some very interesting analysis from Outside the Beltway regarding the dilemma opponents of the war face.

The truth is, the vast majority of Americans want our soldiers out of harm's way, myself included. The point of difference comes regarding how/when this should happen.

As I have articulated at various points on this blog, it is only the madman who relishes violence. But at times violence is a tragic necessity in order confront the evil which exists in our world. Do we have the perseverance to ensure that the job we set out to do five years ago in Iraq will be done in the right way? I hope so (and I presume the Iraqi people hope so as well).

UPDATE: Here's Colonel Oliver North's perspective on this 5-year anniversary.

Obama confronts race issue head-on

Barack Obama gave the "race speech" earlier today in an attempt to continue distancing himself from his former pastor (and spiritual advisor), Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. (Read the full text here.) While he did condemn what he called the "incendiary language" of Rev. Wright, he did defend Rev. Wright's racial anger.

One of the realities created through this current controversy is that Obama's teflon charisma and sudden rise from obscurity has invited very little real scrutiny...until now. That may be changing, which could make it difficult for him to sustain his "change you can believe in" theme over the long haul.

In fact, an editorial at The Wall Street Journal highlights Obama's apparent racial contradictions that are beginning to catch up with him amidst the Wright controversy. They also have an article describing the "black liberation theology" being espoused by Rev. Wright. They raise some issues worth considering.

If you saw the speech (or read it's content), do you think Obama helped his cause with this course of action? Or, did he hurt himself in his effort to secure the presidential nomination?

UPDATE: Here are a couple of columns from Kathleen Parker and Jonah Goldberg which express my perspective on Obama's speech about a succinctly as anything I've read out there.

Letters from the Front: Still hanging on

I got this latest epistle from brother Stephen this past weekend, providing an update on how things are evolving for him.

Sunday, March 16, 2008

Hey Brother,

Wanted to drop you a quick line and update you on the current siteeation around these parts. Oh, an' Happy (belated) Birthday too by the way!! Hope you all had a good time eatin' up there in big game country. [Loon Lake Lodge]

So yeah, as I told you, this week is going to be the 9-week boards, and I'll be a participant in the festivities. My suspicions of the 7-week showdown came to fruition, which was an experience in and of itself. It started mid-week, with an appearance in front of my ol' compadre, Major Kroll, as well as the rest of the company staff and my platoon staff. It consisted of me walking into his office, where he sat seated at his desk. Sitting in chairs surrounding the room were the rest of the big wigs of the company and platoon. So I was called in and marched front and center a few feet off his desk and was then bombarded with suspicions and accusations of my "continued trend of laziness and belligerence." About half the room took their turn, with Major Kroll having the final word. I responded to each with honesty and my own forthright assessments, which included my opinion that I have been inaccurately portrayed. I guess they didn't buy it, cuz both my platoon commander and company commander recommended me for disenrollment. This meant I had to go in front of the head of all honchos, Colonel Mancini, a few days later for the battalion board.

[See picture of Col. Mancini at right]

In the meantime, all of us up on the boards (which numbered about 20) were given a chance to call our OSOs (Officers Selection Officer), though for what I wasn't sure. Come to find out, we needed to update them on our situations and be given the required pep talk from them. Mine was pretty laissez-faire, apart from the good ol' "keep your head up and be confident" bit.

That Friday, I found myself, along with the 20 others, sitting in front of Colonel Mancini's office, awaiting the verdict. Again, we had to go into a room filled with big wigs, only this time, the battalion staff was added to the mix. The total numbered at around 12-15, though this time around all spectators were just that...there to scrutinize my every word and movement without saying a word. And once again, I marched into the Colonel's office and was asked to sit. I was happy about the chair too, I must say, cuz standing at attention for more than ten minutes can get your feet burning. Anyway, we went through the usual banter of why I was there, how do I explain myself, etc... Again, honesty was the name of the game, and I guess I said somethin' right cuz the Colonel decided to keep me on, at least for another two weeks. [Note: Stephen was taken off of all probationary status.]

So, here I am, after finishing week eight, which was a fun-filled week of bivouacking and 9-mile humping, endurance courses, and drilling. This week is winding down to the graduation festivities, though we have a few more physical activities to finish off before the finish-line, if I happen to make it that far.

[See Stephen, front right, in the accompanying photo]

Tomorrow, we'll be doing our final PFT (Physical Fitness Test), followed Tuesday by a Company Commander's inspection which consists of us in our dress Alpha uniforms and lookin' so fresh and so clean. Wednesday is our combat readiness test which involves us candidates dressed in our combat gear (Kevlar, war belt, H-harness, canteen, M-16, boots) and doing a 3-mile hike coupled with a buncha simulated combat obstacles. Ya know, the usual, climbing a 30-foot rope, crawling under barbed wire, doing a 50-yard fireman carry, and I can't even remember what else. Good stuff nonetheless. That'll be immediately followed by a pugil sticks contest in the woods with the other company. It'll be a 3-on-3, so it should be fun, especially cuz the Alpha Company crew are a buncha punks. :) We're fired up, that's for sure. That night, we're getting helicoptered over to the Basic School area where we're gonna set up a bivouac site, only to tear it down at midnight and go on our big finale, a 12-mile hump to the Basic School mess hall where we'll be having breakfast and going through an eagle, globe and anchor ceremony, which symbolizes our unofficial completion of training.

Somewhere in there, I'll be going up on the 9-week boards, so my schedule may differ from that of the rest. I'm figuring they'll be including us boarders on the bivouac and hump at the very least, but we'll see how it goes. I'm actually quite at peace about it all and have my continued faith that God is in control. In the meantime, I'm about to head back to OCS for another relaxing Sunday evening at the squadbay (a joke, by the way).

Anyway, hope all is well. You're all in my thoughts.

Love, Stephen

P.S. Tell Bull thanks for the correspondence, truly. I dug it.

As you can see, things have turned in a positive direction for Stephen. He told me over the phone that his interaction with Colonel Mancini and the rest of the battalion officers was quite intimidating, to say the least. But, he maintained his bearing with them, and was rewarded for his actions.

He is gradually nearing the end of his journey through OCS, so assuming he passes his 9-week board review, we are confident that we'll be able to celebrate his graduation ceremony with him in two weeks.

Grace Church: The Significance of the Resurrection

As I mentioned Friday I had the opportunity this morning to visit Grace Church in Mooresville, Indiana and speak in both of their morning services. It is always a privilege for me to come back to Grace, because I spent a lot of years in that church when I was growing up. Through Marti, our youth pastor back then, and a whole host of other people there, the groundwork was laid for much of what I do today in speaking, teaching, and writing. I always appreciate the chance to give back in a small way, as well as, reconnect with old friends that I haven't seen in a while. I wasn't disappointed. :)

This morning I focused on the significance of Jesus' resurrection, which we celebrate this Easter. (I've included the text of the sermon here, and once Grace uploads the talk on their website, you can download and hear it as it was given.) If you've frequented The Daily Detour over the last year or so, much of the content I shared this morning will sound somewhat familiar to you.

The essence of the talk today centered around the fact that the resurrection of Jesus Christ represents the very foundation of the Christian faith. For example, what would be different about Christianity if an archeological team actually uncovered the tomb of Jesus and found verifiable evidence of his bones inside? It would change everything! (In fact, the influence of Christianity on world history is so pervasive that the effect of that shift would extend far beyond Christianity itself.)

As Regis Nicoll over at The Point clarifies,

If Christ’s resurrection is true, it is the most important event in all of history. But if it is symbolic, the name Jesus Christ has no more significance than the name Clark Kent. As the apostle Paul himself asserts, “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile.” On the other hand, if Christ is raised, we are left with one and only one conclusion: that He is the Lord and Savior that he claimed to be. And that makes all the difference. So which is it?

That is the issue: Did Christ really rise from the dead? If He didn't, life goes on. He's just another historical figure who had a certain impact on the world. On the other hand, if He really did rise from the dead, then there are profound implications for all of us. Try as we might, we cannot get around those implications.

It is only because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ that we have a genuine hope of life after death. Without Christ, there is no hope. We each need to ask ourselves, "Where is our hope?"

UPDATE: Here's the recorded talk for those of you who are interested in hearing it.