I was reading various columns and comments this morning and I noticed that there were a lot of common (and frequently conflicting) themes to them. 

Some questions I derived from reading these columns and comments:

• Are American culture and ideals superior to those of other cultures? 
• What is moral and cultural relativism? 
• What is a constant moral or rule that will never require change or reinterpretation?

The answers to these require some critical thinking and a definition of what your goals are.  And, the fact of the matter is, that CHANGE is the only constant in life (except, maybe, taxes).  Change is not necessarily good and is not necessarily bad.  But, it's there and will always be there until you pass from this Earth into the afterlife.

So, I'll address my questions in reverse order of how I listed them.

What is a constant moral or rule that will never require change or reinterpretation?  Some would say the Ten Commandments qualify.  "Thou shall not kill." - I think this means thou shall not kill another human being. 

But, that statement requires a definition for "human being".  A couple of centuries ago, blacks were not considered "human beings" so it was therefore ok to kill them without having to ask for forgiveness from God for violating the Commandment.  Do you agree with that statement today?  Lot's of people on this site (myself, to some degree, included) have talked about nuking the Taliban or the Muslim regimes in the Middle East back into the stone age.  If we were to do that, there would be lots of civilian Muslim deaths in addition to our targets.  Are Muslims not humans?  Would that violate the Commandment?  Would we pray for forgiveness if we did that? 

So, my point is, the Commandment is a constant....but our interpretation is constantly changing based on what we define as a human being and the tradeoffs between honoring the Commandment at all costs vs. violating it in the name of self-preservation or fulfilling one of the other nine Commandments and then praying for Forgiveness and understanding from God.

Is that Moral Relativism?  To some degree yes.  But, moral relativism doesn't mean that all morals are equally good and cultural relativism doesn't mean that all cultures are equally good.  If you apply some critical thinking to my statement, some cultures are superior to other cultures and some moral codes are closer to what God intended when he created us than other moral codes. 

America has by and large chosen to follow the Ten Commandments as the foundation of our legal code (I know, I know, the Left is undermining that premise, but middle America still largely feels that way, I think) and our morals.  Therefore, you could argue that American culture is superior to other cultures that have a different basis for their morals.  But, those cultures are still filled with human beings - just misguided ones.

So, to relate this to the above, if America has the ability to spread it's core values (which again, many think have eroded beyond belief) to the world should we do it by the Sword or by teaching the human beings in other cultures?  We may have to use the sword to defend ourselves while doing this...but, we should do so only when provoked...and then being very careful about how we use the sword to minimize our violation of "Thou Shall not Kill."  Then, we'll pray for forgiveness for killing those who violently opposed us or tried to impose their morality on us by the sword.  At the same time, we'll accept and even embrace those we're trying to teach...whether they accept our teachings or not, as long as they don't get violent.  We'll have a healthy debate about what morals and cultures are superior.

So change is constant thus definitions of things change over time (relativism).  As a culture, we must establish (ideally, as the Pope requested, through a common understanding of God's intentions for us coupled with rational, critical thinking) a "good" implementation of God's preferred morals.  If America truly is a superior culture (though definitely not a perfect one) we have the power and responsibility to spread our morals to those willing to accept our teachings peacefully, accept those who won't accept our teachings, and kill those who attack us for trying to peacefully share our understanding.  We should not choose to abuse the very powerful sword we carry by forcibly spreading our way to the world.  Our way is, and should be, to present the facts to the other humans in the world and let them decide.  If they agree, great...we all become one, big happy family living in peace.  If they disagree but don't try to kill us (probably most of the world), then we live and let live while we still quietly show them the superiority of our culture.  If they try to kill us (and, I think, that's what only a small subset of the world's people really want to do in spite of what their leader's rhetoric might be), then we kill them as cleanly as we can to minimize violating our morals and the amount of God's forgiveness we have to ask for.

To summarize, the world is not a perfect place and we frequently have to choose the lesser of the evils, both culturally and morally.  This will require us to make choices about how to act and what moral takes precedence over another - and how to accept and debate those who will (peacefully) have different moral and cultural priorities.

--------------------------
Well, those are my thoughts this morning.  If anyone reads them, you'll probably blast me for being a relativist.  Now, I'm off to have breakfast with the kids and go to work.

Note that the following comments are random thoughts that I haven't fully considered...but, I couldn't sleep and just read William Rusher's article about pulling out of the UN (Must we put up with the United Nations?).

The intent of the UN, I think, has evolved into what could essentially turn into the  precursor to a world government (which I'm not sure is a good thing) if it doesn't collapse under it's own weight.  That was not it's original intent, but I think that's what it has become.

With that said, maybe it should be restructured into more of a republican body similar to what the UK and the US have.  In other words, there would be two voting bodies...one where all member countries are represented equally and the other where countries are represented by some other criteria - similar to our Senate and House of Representatives.

The first body would allocate an equal number of seats to each country and each country would have an equal vote on UN policy matters much as the Senate is structured today.

The second body would allocate a variable number of seats to each member country based on some criteria (not population because that would put the US at a serious disadvantage when compared to China and India).  Maybe the criteria could be GDP or the percentage of the UN operating budget provided by that member country's "dues".  Some might call this "buying votes", but it would reward successful economies.

The Secretary-General would be the equivalent of our Executive branch...but with less relative authority than our President has.  After all, the UN is not a governing body and I don't advocate expanding it into one...even if, as I stated earlier, that's the direction it may be going if it doesn't collapse under it's own weight.  In any case, the Secretary-General would be charged with implementing any Resolutions passed by the other two bodies.

The Security Council (with it's current permanent members as well as some rotating seats) would act much as it does today - a body that can overrule certain, if not all, Resolutions passed by the other two bodies. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that we set up a world government...but, if we're going to have a pseudo-governing body that tries to control global issues, I think it should be set up more as a republic than a true democracy.  The republic concept seems to have worked effectively in numerous countries while preventing the "mob rule" of a true democracy.

I don't think we can pull out of the UN (or some other equivalent world body) because our economy is increasingly global and we're interdependent with many, if not most, other countries.  However, I think we need to be able to exert more control over what the UN does.

This probably isn't a workable solution.  If we were to try to restructure the UN using this model, most current member countries would vote against granting the US more power over them.  If we were to try to establish a replacement for the UN, we'd have to convince the rest of the world to join it and grant it authority - and, again, I think most of the world would object to what would be perceived as U.S. Hegemony.

Just a random thought at 6AM.  This isn't realistic, but I thought I'd throw it out there for discussion.

Note:  The point of this post is probably the second to last paragraph...if you don't like cars, skip to it.

I don't know how most of you feel about driving fast.  Personally, I like cars and I like driving fast way too much (so much so that I've paid a lot of traffic tickets in my time).

I've toned it down over the years.  When I was in college I had my drivers license yanked for a few months because of too many speeding violations within too short of a time.  And, driving at 75 in a 55 zone in some states is considered "reckless driving" instead of "speeding" - that means many more points against your driver's license.

I think that the fastest I've gone (legally) was in Germany on the Autobahn between Frankfurt and Vienna (yes, I know, Vienna is in Austria) in a rented car.  The limiter on the rental car kicked in at some point (I think it was around 140 mph - but am not sure since the speedo's there are marked in Kilometers per Hour, not Miles per Hour). 

You really have to pay attention to what you're doing on the Autobahn no matter how fast you're going...because there is always someone going faster and lots of people going slower.  There's nothing like having to nail the brakes to keep from rear-ending a VW moving at "only 80 mph" while recognizing that the Porsche behind you was going 150 before you got in her way.  Driving that fast in a safe manner requires a great deal of focus that most American's don't exhibit while behind the wheel.

I'm (arguably) more responsible now than I was when I was a college student.  Instead of a convertible sports car, my garage consists of a Volvo station wagon and a Chrysler minivan.  And, toddlers (not to mention antsy wives concerned about the safety of their toddlers) tend to tone down your driving habits. 

All of that said, I still want a convertible sports car.  It doesn't even need to have a big engine...a Miata or a Solstice would do.  Something to drop the top on and take for a spin on mountain roads where you can't go too fast because there are too many tight curves adjoining steep drop offs.  It'll probably be  a while before I re-aquire a convertible - two toddlers are expensive when you don't trust public schools to teach them well.

C'est la vie.

So, what's my point? 

American's don't pay much attention to their driving in the same way that they don't pay much attention to the world.  We "drive fast" on the world scene, but most of our citizens vary rarely think about the consequences of doing so.  It's OK to drive fast - as long as you're paying attention to what you're doing.  If you're not paying attention, it's very dangerous to drive fast...and, that, I think, is what America is increasingly doing on the world stage.  We're charging down certain paths (war, etc.) with abandon....but most of the country is focused on other things and isn't paying attention to the road before us.

Well, that was not a good segue from driving to world politics...but, this is a randomly thought out blog written at 7AM before I have to go to work to pay for my "not so fast" garage full of utility vehicles. 

I think it was Bill Buckley who said in a recent column that the US was standing by without exerting its power in the current conflict between Isreal and the terrorist accepting/supporting regimes(Lebanon, Syria, and Iran).

The US has the world's largest supply of usable nuclear weapons. They are based on land, at sea, and they can also be be delivered by air; they can reach anywhere in the world.

Bush has said that he supports Isreal's right to defend itself...coupled with expectation that Isreal shows discretion in its use of force so as not to destablize the government of Lebenon. Implicit in that statement is that with great power comes great responsibility. Don't sacrifice morals just to win....win honorably.

But sometimes the enemy doesn't understand a fair fight.

Isreal is trying to fight fairly by attacking only those things that are strategically significant while minimizing civilian losses. Their opponents are not playing by the same rules. Isreal can probably win the battle while fighting with one hand tied behind its back...but Isreal can't win the war by itself.

The "enemy" (Hezbollah, Syria, Iran, North Korea, etc.) insist upon throwing sand in our faces while we're playing nice. They unapologetically attack civilians with rockets and suicide bombers. They behead non-combatants on the Internet and television. To add insult to injury, they leave the bodies (with or without their heads) rotting by a road side.

Let's threaten to play by their rules instead of ours. That will mean threatening to kill "their" people as indiscriminately as they kill "our" people. I'm not advocating following through on the threat at this time (key words - "at this time"), but I am advocating making very public the knowledge that we can if we choose to...and that it would be better for all involved to sit down and discuss things in a calm, rational manner than to fight about it. The world should not let itself be provoked for too much longer before taking decisive action.

We could implement the threat in a very public fashion by "testing" one of the usable nuclear weapons mentioned above. We could do so in a manner which proves we can reach any portion of the world that we choose. (Perhaps, we could target an uninhabited area of the Indian Ocean, the Persian Gulf, or Antarctica.) Some fish might die...but, I think, that's a good trade off for saving a few human lives. Such a "test" would illustrate two points: (a) the world is getting tired of playing by the enemy's rules and (b) the US has the responsibility to use the resources at its disposal.

Such a statement would be the equivalent of a father slamming his hand down on the table between two fighting toddlers and saying "That's enough!!! I'm your father and I expect the best of you. I could spank you, but I won't. Go to your rooms for some time-out. Then, when you're done crying, come out and play nicely. There are enough toys to go around if you'll start sharing instead of fighting. And, if you aren't satisfied with the toys you have, here are some tools and some wood...you can make your own instead of fighting about the ones that are already here. Play nice, or go back into time out...but I will not tolerate continual fighting."

If America truly is the world's only "superpower" it's time we started acting like it. With great power comes great responsibility. Our Founding Fathers consciously put into place a system of government full of checks and balances to ensure we don't abuse the power we have.

Why is abortion such a large issue for the FEDERAL government?

Whether you are pro-life or not, should the Supreme Court be legislating our reproductive "rights"?  In my opinion, abortion legislation should be handled at the state or local level.  The Federal government has no Constitutional right to get involved.

Of course, if the Feds were to step out, this would mean that some states would outlaw abortion; others would put severe restrictions on abortion; and a few would probably endorse abortion as a method of birth control. 

Abortion is a complex topic....and it's oversimplifying to say that you're pro-life or pro-choice.  Anyone with a modicum of common sense understands that there are times when an abortion makes sense (to save the mother from death, for example)...and that there are times when it doesn't.  Abortion as birth control is wrong - if you're going to have sex for fun, then at least have the foresight to take precautions if you're not ready for the natural "byproduct" of having sex.  Once conceived, the "byproduct" is a human life.

By trying to legislate these very personal decisions (pro-life or pro-choice), we're legislating morality. And, you can't enforce morality - it's something that has to come from inside a person.  They have to believe that they're doing the right thing.  How many women who have abortions think they're doing the wrong thing - but have no other choice?  How many women who have abortions think that they're doing the right thing?  If the children of these women were not aborted but these mothers couldn't care for them, where would the children go?  Into the homes of gay couples who can't have kids of their own for obvious reasons? 

I'm asking questions.  For the record, my opinion is that abortion legislation should be at the state or local level...not the Federal level.  That assumes, of course, that legislation is required.  A solution better than legislation would be to improve the moral beliefs from which such decisions are made.  That's probably very unrealistic, but if the country can't find common moral ground, legislation won't solve the fundamental problem.