The Theological Implications of Water on Mars

It looks like there is running water on Mars.  Perhaps it only runs during the summer months but it runs at least sometimes.  This means that there is a chance life exists there today or that life used to exist there. 

I am a Seventh-day Adventist Christian (though no doubt some in the church probably wish I was not) and I have said for years that my church, along with the Christian church as a whole, needs to formulate a theological response should the day come when we do discover that life exists elsewhere in the universe.  I personally believe that day will come and we will discover that organic life is not a unique phenomenon on Earth.  The Christian church is ill prepared for such an eventuality just as it was ill prepared for Darwin’s theory of evolution by means of natural selection in the 19^th century.  It is worth reviewing the history of Darwin’s impact on the Christian church here because something similar will almost certainly happen if the big discovery of extra-terrestrial life is made.  In my view, it is a matter of when, not if.

We often think today that Darwin’s theory hit like a bombshell.  It was completely unexpected.  Not really.  At the start of the 19^th century, just about everyone in the west at least believed the earth was around 6,000 years old.  Those in India and Central America were a little ahead of us there.  Gradually, however, the age of the earth increased, first to around 10,000 years, and eventually to around 1 million years.  This came about because of innovations in geology which was then in its infancy.  On the biological front, as Europeans began “discovering” other parts of the world – which of course had been well and truly discovered by others beforehand – they noticed something interesting.  There were a lot of plants and animals.  In fact, there were so many plants and animals, they could not all have fit into Noah’s ark.  Some explanation was required and it was Darwin who provided it in 1859.  But before Darwin provided the explanation that changed the world, increasing numbers of educated people realized something was not right with the literal interpretation of Genesis.  Alfred Wallace, who was a contemporary of Darwin, contributed to the deepening concern over the validity of Genesis in terms of a literal historical authority and what became known as the Wallace Line posed a huge problem for Christian literalists.  Essentially, Wallace asked how all those animals migrated from Mount Ararat to various parts of the world which were isolated by large bodies of water.  The Wallace Line marked such a barrier.

When Charles Darwin provided the explanation, the Christian church was brought to its knees because it had not kept up with the science. Christian literalist spent the first half of the 19^th century condemning Wallace and others, claiming they were deceived by Satan.  Instead of questioning, they should simply have faith in the word of God.  Compounding the problem for Christians was the rise of the science of critical textual analysis.  This discipline, when directed toward the Bible, cast doubt as to whether Genesis was one harmonious source written by Moses and pretty much dictated by God.  That is, Christians believed Genesis was inspired by God as he communicated history to Moses.  The textual critics of the Bible acted as a wrecking ball to that belief. 

Thus the Christian church was attacked on three sides:  geology, biology, and textual biblical criticism.  It had no defence.  This spawned two opposite reactions within Christianity.  Theologians scrambled to embrace what science was showing and adapted their theology accordingly.  This is why today, many mainstream churches believe in evolution and a very old earth, while still believing in Jesus, the cross, and his resurrection.  Another reaction in Christianity was to become rabidly fundamentalist.  A series of “revivals” occurred which basically tried to get people back to good old biblical Christianity.  This stream of Christianity rejected scientific discovery and believed it was all Satanic deception.  My church went down this road and this led to many embarrassing statements.

For example, Ellen White, a prophet to Seventh-day Adventists was given an explanation from God regarding the cause of earthquakes.  That explanation is so ridiculously wrong that any honest reader of her writings can only cover their face in embarrassment.  A much more serious problem is the idea, again supposedly from God, that some races of “humans” were actually crossbreeds with animals.  My church may deny such statements were ever made – and it certainly does deny this - but such denials constitute a retreat into historical Fairyville.  In the real world, these statements were made, and my church needs to confront these and the issues which result from them.

Before Christian theologians adapted to Darwin’s theories – and mind you some adaptations were extremely unfortunate – they fought the “new science.”  A series of debates occurred and Christian theologians were consistently destroyed in debate after debate.  When people saw the ineptitude of supposedly educated Christian clergy, faith in the religion suffered severely.  This is why many of the revivals consisted of head-in-the-sand theology and eventually died out.  Well, the revivals themselves died out but denominations spawning from them, such as the Pentecostal denominations of today, remain and are still engaged in head-in-the-sand theology.

Today, the majority of Christians accept Darwin and a very old Earth and the church survives.  Those who do not accept Darwin are in the minority though this might be hard to believe in some parts of the United States in which a high number of people still believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

In 1988 I had the chance to speak to a Jesuit who was in his 70’s and working on his 6^th Ph.D.  I asked him about the theological implications should life be found elsewhere.  We spoke at length on this topic.  He told me the Vatican has a committee whose job it is to form a theological response should that day ever come.  He agreed that the theological implications could destroy the church and that the Vatican felt it necessary to prepare in advance.  Would that other churches, including mine, were as farseeing as the Vatican.

So let’s look at the implications of life elsewhere in the universe.  First, let us suppose we find microbial life elsewhere.  For example, let’s pretend we discover living and dead microbial life on Mars.  Or, it could be all dead.  What are the implications for the church?

In order to understand this one must understand the main implication of Darwin’s theory on the church.  For hundreds of years the church taught that mankind was created perfect and that Adam and Eve lived in paradise.  There was no sin there and no death.  But our parents blew it and we were cast out.  Death entered the world along with sin and we have been suffering ever since.  Man fell and therefore man needs a redeemer.  Enter Jesus Christ, our redeemer.  The first Adam blew it but the last Adam – Jesus, saves us. 

If you accept Evolution then we did not fall.  The only thing we might have fallen from is a tree.  We evolved in a world in which survival of the fittest was always there.  In theological terms, this means sin was always around – though whether our ape ancestors could be held accountable is a side issue.  Death has always been here.  Our animal nature is a result of evolution, not a fall from paradise.  Thus, we have not fallen from a perfect state.  We were always barbaric.  And if we have not fallen, why do we need a redeemer?

You see many Christians have this terrible understanding of redemption.  Once upon a time our first parents displeased God.  As a result, we were condemned to die.  We deserved to die.  But instead of killing us, God decided to kill his own Son instead.  His son was willing to die in our place.  So long as the blood price was paid, God was cool with it.  We deserve to die but Christ died in our stead.  Thanks to that, we have a chance at eternal life. 

With this Medieval understanding of things (this understanding actually did arise in the Middle Ages), we can see why Darwin was such a threat.  Why did God blame us for sinning when we evolved in a dog-eat-dog world in which survival depended on brutalizing others?  In this context, evolution strips away the need for a redeemer. 

I would say that other concepts of what a redeemer is are fully compatible with evolution but sadly, many Christians have not figured that out yet.  So for me, evolution is no big deal.  But for those with the standard substitution concept of a redeemer, the discovery of life elsewhere will most certainly deal a death blow to their faith.

If we discover microbial life elsewhere, it will mean that death exists elsewhere.  This will weaken the view of a deathless paradise.  Did the whole universe exist in a deathless state until someone on an obscure planet, in an ordinary galaxy ate from a tree they shouldn’t have?  So suddenly because Adam and Eve ate from a tree on Earth, in a galaxy far, far away, things started to die and micro organisms started to eat one another? 

Of course the logical implications from such a discovery are that there was no deathless paradise and that evolution rules the universe.  Death has always been around along with survival of the fittest.

Seventh-day Adventists believe there is extra-terrestrial life but that sin and death only exist here on Earth.  So for my church, a discovery of death elsewhere in the universe, even if it only involves micro organisms, should put a nail in that belief.  But at least my church has made some effort to look at the possibility of life elsewhere.

If we discover sentient life elsewhere and that life is not tainted by sin, then my church will be shown to have been right.  That life can set us straight.  But if we discover that life also has death, then we’re in trouble and so is Christianity.  Suppose we discover an advanced race out there that is completely peaceful and awesome.  Suppose they tell us that in their past, however, they killed one another and so on.  We then have to ask whether they also had a redeemer.  Did God send a Jesus Christ type entity to them and if so, then how is our Jesus the unique Son of God?  And if there was no Jesus entity or if different factions of this advanced race believe in a number of enlightened beings, just as we do on Earth, then this would have staggering implications for how we think of Jesus.

None of the questions I have posed here are without answers.  I think the Christian church can cope with such a discovery.  But it can only do so if it prepares in advance.  Otherwise, such a discovery will do to the church today what Darwin unintentionally did to the church in the 19^th century.  Only this time, the church might not recover.  It is time that my church, and other Christians extract their heads from the sand and look at the stars because that is where the next theological crisis will arise. 

What I Want from Star Wars

I love Star Wars.  It has long been my favourite movie series though the three prequels did leave much to be desired.  As we approach a new series of movies which continues the story after The Return of the Jedi it is natural for me to reflect on what I want from Star Wars.  The easiest way for me to begin this is to set forth what I don’t want.

Firstly, I don’t want a super villain.  The Star Trek franchise was ruined by the seemingly endless need to have super villains in every movie.  There seems to always be some rogue Klingon or rogue Romulan out there bent on destroying whichever captain is commanding in the current movie.  Plus they killed off Data which is unforgiveable!!!  So in that sense, the recent sequence of movies has featured plot repetition in my opinion.  With regard to Star Wars, the Return of the Jedi ends with two super villains being vanquished: one by being tossed into some sort of shaft that leads to a reactor, though why that shaft is open and exposed and is conveniently located near the head honcho remains a mystery, while the other was converted back to the light.  I would hate to see our heroes endlessly chasing after one super villain after another.

I also do not want the storyline from Timothy Zahn’s trilogy covering this period.  I found the story disappointing.  What makes this sad is that the premise of Zahn’s story makes sense.  It makes sense that once the Emperor is gone, various war lords would take control.  In the Zahn trilogy, Grand Admiral Thron manages to gather the remnants of the shattered Empire fleet and assume control.  I was surprised there were any admirals left after Darth Vader went through them like Captain Kirk went through red clad security personnel on board the Enterprise.  It also makes sense that the Grand Admiral wants to avoid fragmentation with various war lords claiming scattered territories.  So far so good.  But the problem with the Zahn trilogy is with Thron himself.  Thron is not a greedy bastard who sees an opportunity to enrich himself.  His character genuinely believes in the usefulness of the Empire and he wants to bring it back.  How anyone could long for the good old days of being ruled by a Sith is difficult to fathom unless you are a greedy opportunistic bastard.  That a noble character like Thron would want such a thing stretches credulity far too far.   Zahn’s trilogy casts Grand Admiral Thron as the new super villain.  But without being able to use the Force, he’s just an annoying war lord without the character of your run-of-the-mill war lord.  Logically, Thron’s noble character would want to work with the New Republic, not against it.

So in the upcoming movies, while I can certainly understand the Dark Side causing trouble in some way, I don’t want to see some new Sith lord emerge from the shadows in all his dark glory.  I would expect the Dark Side to be severely weakened after the events of The Return of the Jedi.  Otherwise we have Palpatine all over again.  And speaking of Palpatine, can we please not find out he didn’t really die in Return of the Jedi?

Now that I have stated what I don’t want, I can get to what I do want.  In terms of the upcoming movies, I want a story that is halfway realistic.  I expect Luke to restore some sort of Jedi training academy just as he does in the books.  I also expect the Jedi to have a different attitude toward the Dark Side than the complete avoidance attitude taught by Yoda.  I expect to see a fragmented galaxy plagued by war lords and some sort of New Republic struggling to gain relevance but which is forced to make some political changes.  And I think it would be realistic to see strong anti-force sentiment throughout the galaxy.  After all, it was a Sith using The Force which plunged the galaxy into chaos in the first place.

But why speak of realism?  This is a fantasy after all.  That’s the thing about Science Fiction or Fantasy.  You accept a few unreal things but you expect realism for the rest.  For example, I can except an all-pervading Force with beings capable of using The Force the way the Jedi and Sith do.  We don’t see this in our reality but I’m willing to accept this.  Plus I have sometimes wished I could telekinetically hurl people against the wall and choke them during meetings I have been in for work so in that sense, Darth Vader is super cool.  I am also willing to accept Jedi blocking blaster fire even though this violates the laws of physics.  For  Jedi to block something coming at them at the speed of light, they would need infinite mass to move at the speed required.  And even if we say the Jedi block by anticipating where the bolt will be thanks to The Force, I can see blocking one bolt that way, but not rapid fire blaster attacks.  But for the sake of cinematic coolness, I’ll let that pass too.  But when it comes to letting things pass, you have to stop somewhere and that is pretty much where I stop.  After that, I want to see something that does not necessitate me suspending my disbelief to the point of no return.

In short, then, what I want from the upcoming movies is to see a realistic political backdrop, a struggling New Republic, a Struggling Jedi order amid anti-force sentiment, and everything else that makes Star Wars so freaking awesome.

But what I really, really want has nothing to do with the movies.  What I really want is a re-write of all the movie based Star Wars novels into proper novels which are not hamstrung by the script.  I want to learn more about the Sith and more about the thoughts of the characters so we don’t see disconcerting plot leaps like Anakin’s sudden jump from “I’m not sure what I should do” to “yeah I’ll kill innocent Padawan children, no problem.”  I want to know why there are always only two Sith lords at a  time rather than just getting that bombshell from Yoda.  I want a real in depth story that doesn’t leave us with terrible script gaps such as Obiwan not knowing Luke had a sister in The Empire Strikes Back and being fully aware of this fact in Revenge of the Sith.  And speaking of revenge, why do the Sith hate the Jedi so much?  What did the Jedi ever do to them?  I’m sure it involved killing Sith, but when and why?  Despite the space opera nature of Star Wars it’s a great story and I want to see it told properly. And for these upcoming movies, I want to see the great story continue.

On Same Sex Marriage, Kim Davis, and Same Sex Adoption

Conservative Christians are rallying behind Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who refused to issue same sex marriage licenses because doing so goes against her religious convictions.  Her refusal to comply with the law forced a judge to find her in contempt of court after refusing to comply with a court order.  She was jailed and then released.  Conservative Christians in the USA feel their religious liberty is being attacked.  Perhaps it is in a way.  The problem here is a fundamental one.  What does a religious person do if the law of the land goes against their religious beliefs?  Conservative Christians should bear in mind that like them, Muslims believe God’s wishes supersede man’s wishes.  Kim Davis felt she must break the law because God comes first.  What happens of a Muslim feels the same way?

Well that happened many years ago.  Muhammad Ali, perhaps the greatest boxer of all time defied the law of the land because he opposed the Vietnam war.  Like Davis, Ali was jailed and served time for his disobedience.  When he emerged from prison, he was still a great boxer, but he was not the same boxer he had been.  Today, Muhammad Ali is nearly universally revered in the United States and for good reason.  While not a perfect man by any stretch of the imagination, he is a great man.  Not only did he become one of the greatest boxers ever, he did so at a time when black athletes had everything against them.  He won Olympic gold in 1968, and was refused service in a diner in his own country because of the color of his skin.  Yet despite his bitter disappointment, a disappointment which caused him to throw his gold medal away, he persevered.  He could certainly talk the talk, but he also walked the walk.

But when he went to jail for refusing to serve in the army, how did conservative Christians view Ali?  They ridiculed him.  They said he deserved his jail sentence.  They said he was un-American.  They said they had no time for black radicals and this Islam thing they were all on about was dangerous.  Coming off of calling Martin Luther King Jr. a Communist and a threat to the United States, they condemned Muhammad Ali and made light of his religious convictions.

But when Kim Davis, a Christian followed in Ali’s footsteps, all be it for a different reason, Kim Davis became a hero and a rallying point.  It is easy to condemn an adherent of the other religion, but when an adherent of your religion suffers the same punishment, that suddenly becomes wrong.

I say all this not to condemn Davis and those who support her.  I say this to give them something to think about.  Because they feel under attack, the issue of what to do when your religious beliefs conflict with the law of the land is not really as clear cut as you might think.  Muhammad Ali acted as a peace loving Muslim when he went to jail, much the same way Cat Stevens did, and has done ever since his conversion.  For others, however, religious conviction has been more radical.

John Brown was a Christian of deep convictions.  He was so convicted that slavery was evil, he turned to violence to free some slaves and killed some federal law enforcement agents as a result of his efforts.  He was captured, tried, convicted, and executed for treason.  John Brown was a radicalized Christian.  He also happened to be right on one level, and perhaps wrong on another level.  Today’s Christians, who forget or are ignorant of history, do not realize that radicalization can occur in their religion as well as for Islam. 

If the Supreme Court of the United States were infallible, then things would be much easier for everyone.  “The Court has spoken” would give us all direction.  But the Supreme Court is not infallible.  The Supreme Court gave us the Dred Scott decision, one of the most infamous legal decisions in history, and the most infamous legal decision in US history.  It took a Constitutional amendment and a civil war to undo that one.  Thanks Supreme Court.  Although Dred Scot – a ruling which enforced slavery – was morally reprehensible, it was legally correct in my opinion.  And I think this is where Americans need to start looking if they want to deal with the dilemma of faith based disobedience.

You see, same sex marriage has followed the course of slavery except that we have not had a civil war just yet.  Before the recent Supreme Court decision mandating same sex marriage across all 50 states, the issue was decided on a state by state basis.  Same sex marriage was legal in one state, and illegal in another.  Before the civil war, there were slave states and free states.  Slavery was decided on a state by state basis.  This proved an unsustainable compromise and it was this compromise that the Dred Scott decision upheld.

I said earlier I believe Dred Scott was legally correct.  Here is why, It all came about because of the belief that “All men are created equal” and that since Scott, a black man, was a person, he was equal to any other person.  Slavery therefore constituted clear discrimination.  In addition, the Constitution refers to “we the people.”  How can one class of person have the blessings of the republic while another class of person does not?  This is a very logical argument.  But the Supreme Court ruled that when these documents were written, black people were not considered fully human.  They were considered partly animal.  And they were right.  Thomas Jefferson who wrote that “all men are created equal” did not think of the black man as a man.  He was a slave owner and happy to continue the practice.  To him, this applied only to white people.  Dred Scott argued he should be a citizen of the United States because he was born in the United States, and because he was a person.  The court said that it was universally understood by the founding fathers that black people were not people in the true sense of the word.  Indeed, for apportioning electoral college votes, black people were considered 3/5 human at the time.  The Supreme court came to an absolutely wrong conclusion morally, but a right conclusion legally.  This is why Abraham Lincoln had to push for the 14^th Amendment and fight a civil war in support of it.  (The 14^th Amendment was added in 1868, three years after Lincoln’s death). 

The issue of same sex marriage, is similar, but it lacks a Constitutional Amendment.  In the recent Supreme Court decision affirming same sex marriage across the country, the Court interpreted the Constitution.  It did not add to it.  Indeed, the Supreme Court does not have the power to add to the Constitution.  Only the people can do this.  So while the 14^th Amendment solves the issue of slavery legally, the Supreme Court decision is only a legal interpretation.  And of course, interpretations are open to debate.

In California, the people voted to amend the California Constitution to define marriage as an institution between one man and one woman.  This initiative was known as Proposition 8 and it was voted in by the people.  I voted in favor of Proposition 8 because I oppose same sex marriage, though not on religious grounds.  More on that later.  When Proposition 8 passed, the gay community and gay rights activists were outraged.  They filed a legal challenge to Proposition 8 and the California State Supreme Court agreed and threw Proposition 8 out.  This was a disturbing decision to me because in my view, the people have the right to define the Constitution.  That right was taken away from us.  As a side note, although I live in Australia, for voting purposes I am a California resident which is why I was allowed to vote.

The California Supreme Court said that Proposition 8 went against the spirit of both the state and federal constitution.  The problem with that decision is that neither constitution says anything about marriage.  It’s Dred Scott all over again but for another reason.  When the State Constitution was made, and the federal one for that matter, it was universally understood that marriage was between one man and one woman.  It is why the Supreme Court consistently upheld laws against polygamy. 

If you look at various polygamy court cases such as Reynolds V United States and Miles V United States, both of which involve Mormons, The Supreme Court had no problem with the anti polygamy laws.  In Miles V United States, the court ruled in favor of the polygamist but only because the law of Utah at that time said that a wife could not be forced to testify against her husband.  Since Miles’ second wife testified before it was shown that Miles had a first wife, the ruling against Miles was vacated.  The court ruled that congress would need to close this loophole, something congress did.  Today, spousal privilege still exists but exceptions would remove the difficulty prosecutors used to have in polygamy cases. 

My point is that marriage was universally considered to be between one man and one woman.  No one back then explored gay rights but more importantly, no one except Mormons questioned the right to polygamy.  Mormons believed that it was their religious duty commanded by God to engage in polygamy.  So just as it was universally understood that “all men” referred only to white people – a sad but true fact – so it was universally understood that marriage consisted of a union between one man and one woman, not one man and two women.  The various polygamy and bigamy laws enforced this notion.

Today in the United States, this is no longer the case.  Many people believe marriage is a relationship between one consenting adult with another consenting adult regardless of gender.  The reason I am disturbed by the Proposition 8 reversal is because a constitutional definition is exactly what the country needs and the California State Supreme Court denied the people their legal right to change the state constitution because such a change would violate the Federal Constitution even though said Federal Constitution says absolutely nothing about marriage.

But how far can the people go when it comes to changing the Constitution?  When should the Supreme Court over-rule a voted for Constitutional change?  Let us suppose, as a hypothetical, that people amend to change the Constitution to ban Islam.  I use this example because today, many would be in favor of it.  Such a law is clearly illegal because it violates the First Amendment.  So in order for a ban on Islam to become law, the people would need to amend the Constitution vacating the First Amendment or changing it to exclude Islam.  Would the Supreme Court have the right to overturn such a change?  Yes it would because this change clearly contradicts the existing Constitution.  There is no doubt such a change contradicts the Constitution.

This cannot be said for same sex marriage.  Why?  Because the Constitution says nothing about marriage.  Since marriage was universally understood to refer to one man and one woman, no one worried about defining it.  This same lack of definition was why, prior to the 14^th Amendment, states were allowed to enslave black people.  Thus, an amendment to the Constitution to define marriage would not actually contradict anything currently existing in the Constitution.  Any contradiction would actually be a matter of interpretation.

If I say that denying gay people the right to marry denies them of their constitutional rights, someone is well within the bounds of good argument to ask what rights?  If I argue that such a denial disallows them from engaging in the “pursuit of happiness” which the Declaration of Independence maintains is a right of every human, a serial killer could argue that his pursuit of happiness is also denied because he is not allowed to murder people. 

Suppose I argue that I have the right to bear arms.  I am absolutely correct.  But I am legally blind.  Does that mean I have the right to bear arms?  Absolutely it does.  And this was upheld legally thanks to a Constitutional challenge mounted by a blind Californian some years ago.  The right to bear arms is a clear constitutional right granted to every American within her borders.  Courts have subsequently repeatedly upheld the right of blind people to own guns  In this case, the Constitution does say something about bearing arms.  I may not have the right to own my own Stinger Missile, though I’m sure this can be debated, but I do have the right to bear arms despite my blindness.

But as I said, the Constitution says nothing whatsoever about marriage and polygamy is still forbidden in the United States showing clearly that the law understands marriage to be between one man, and one woman.

So should Kim Davis have been jailed?  Absolutely.  She violated the law of the land which, in the absence of a clear and direct Constitutional mandate, the Supreme Court has the right to adjudicate.  But if conservative Christians wish to uphold their liberty, they must be given that right and the way to do this is by amending the US Constitution.  The people of California were denied this right and that was wrong.  I think the only way to resolve this issue once and for all is to ask the people how they want to define marriage.

Since marriage is no longer considered to be exclusively between one man and one woman, polygamy should be allowed legally in my opinion.  If we have two consenting women who agree to marry the same man, why shouldn’t they?  Polygamy laws make no sense if we are going to redefine marriage.  Polygamy laws would send women back to the Dark Ages for reasons which should be pretty obvious to everyone.  I would oppose polygamy.  But legally, polygamy laws are nonsensical now that gay marriage is allowed.  And the legal challenge is bound to arise if it hasn’t already.

For now, however, same sex marriage allowed across the nation is the law of the land and those who choose to disobey must be willing to suffer the consequences of their disobedience.  If Davis feels she is unable to carry out her duties as the clerk issuing marriage licenses, she should resign.  But I think the issue is far to divisive to allow an interpretation  of what the Constitution means to dictate such things, and especially not an interpretation of just nine people who did not come to a unanimous conclusion.  This sort of thing belongs to the people.  If we could come up with an amendment to abolish slavery, we can come up with one to say yea or nay regarding same sex marriage and we can also settle, once and for all, whether polygamy should be allowed.

There is a situation in Australia where I currently live that illustrates the consequences of same sex marriage.  In Victoria the government is about to mandate that same sex couples should be given equal consideration to heterosexual couples when it comes to adoption.  Faith based organizations which help find homes for children are challenging this legislation on the grounds that this would cause them to violate their beliefs in this matter.  Many faith based organizations would, if given the freedom, refuse to adopt children out to same sex couples on religious grounds.  So far, the Victorian government remains adamant that same sex couples must be given equal opportunity.

I personally do not oppose two consenting adults having a sexual relationship regardless of gender.  But I do have serious trepidation around whether children should be forced to have same sex parents.  This is all about the rights of the child.  Same sex couples maintain they can give their adopted children a loving environment and I believe they have every intention to do just that.  They may even succeed.  But do we have the right to say to a child “you don’t get to have a mother” or “you don’t get to have a father?”  I also believe, however, that given a choice between no parents, and gay parents, gay parents are the much more preferable option.

But if this legislation passes in Victoria, should faith based organizations be forced to obey the laws of the land?  I say no.  Why?  Faith based organizations volunteer their services.  They may receive government funding to help, but they undertake such service out of the goodness of their heart.  It’s a win-win situation for both government and children, not to mention adopted parents.  Victoria might suspend funding for noncompliance, but I do not believe they have the power to compel obedience because the service is voluntary.  What this will do is close down faith based agencies which engage in this service and make adoption for Victorian kids much more difficult than it already is, and it is already difficult enough.

And do we know how children cope with same sex parents?  Are there any psychological effects?  I don’t think we know yet.  I think it is too early to tell.  So far the evidence I have seen seems to indicate children do just fine with gay parents, but I am no expert and there is an insufficient amount of evidence.  Gay people should divorce at about the same rate heterosexual couples do.  Evidence actually suggests divorce rates are higher but again, it is probably too early to say for sure.  Who gets custody of the children or more accurately, who gets primary custody?  So far the law understands that some sort of primary custody is required, but what happens with same sex couples?  For heterosexual couples, primary custody almost always goes to the mother.  Fair or unfair, this is clearly what happens.  This also means the father is expected to pay child support.  How will all this work with same sex couples?  And then, of course, there is the adoption issue.  We dictate to a child that it cannot have a father or a mother.  Is this fair?

I personally think that if possible, a child should have a mommy and a daddy.  There are a lot of unanswered questions and children’s rights to consider. The people have the right to decide these issues and to take their time doing it.  What we have now is a bunch of legislation and dictates forced on people who may not want them.  What kind of a democracy is that?

The people of California – one of the most if not the most liberal state in the United States – voted against same sex marriage.  And we were told we had no right to do that.  Democracy died in California that day and it is dying all over America and here in Australia.  Since the constitutions of both countries say nothing about marriage, why should these sorts of questions be left up to the interpretation of a few. 

It probably stuns many to learn that in the 19^th century, we had to define what a person was.  Today it seems so obvious to everyone.  Back then, there was no knowledge of DNA, no understanding of genetics among the masses, and a lot of misguided beliefs based on an inadequate understanding of Darwin’s theories.  These culminated in the eugenics inspired mass murder of millions performed by the Nazis in Germany.  That only stopped in 1945.  What seems obvious to us today was not obvious to our ancestors.  And what was obvious to our ancestors, such as the definition of marriage, is no longer obvious to us.  If we have to define the terms we use then so be it.  If we could take the time to define what a person was (and Australia had the same issue though without actual slavery), we can surely take the time to define what marriage is.  This should be decided by the many.

Solution to the Syrian Refugee Crisis

There is only one solution to the current European refugee crisis, but it is not a solution anyone wants to adopt.  Before I express my thoughts I want to preference them with two points.  First, I believe the refugees trying to get into Europe at present are genuine refugees.  Second, the solution I will explore here is a high level solution.  There are many details which need to be fleshed out.

The solution is simple.  Someone needs to go into Syria and take over wiping out Islamic State in the process.  When they take over, they need to rule with an iron fist and get the country running in some semblance of order.  Perhaps Europe should unite and do this themselves.  Of course, this solution is unpopular with many.  It would mean Syria loses its independence.  It would mean Syrians don’t rule their own country for a while.  And of course, it might cause tension with neighboring countries.  But it is the only solution.

When the Japanese surrendered unconditionally to the United States, the USA moved in and ruled, occupying the country in the process.  The US kept Hirohito on the throne even though he was responsible for the war in the first place, or largely responsible anyway.  They did this to prevent any uprisings in the name of the Emperor.  Mistreating Hirohito would have been a mistake and the US did not make that mistake.

But the US was in control.  My mother, who was born in Tokyo in 1927 lived through the war and its aftermath.  The US told the Japanese what they could and could not do.  No martial arts.  Women get to vote.  No army to speak of, and so on.  I remember her telling me how she felt when she saw two US serviceman strolling casually through Tokyo.  Every ounce of her burned with despair and shame.  They were beaten and the US treated them like a beaten nation.  Well, almost.

The US helped rebuild Japan.  They had selfish motives, but the end result was a modern society with some western, and some Japanese values.  And a strange thing happened.  The people liked what they got.  Eventually, the US returned governance of Japan to the Japanese and the Japanese have been a strong ally ever since.  Japan has been a buffer against Communism, a real threat in the 50’s through 70’s, and the standard of living in Japan has consistently been high.  No terrorism and no civil war plagues the nation.  Aside from one really bizarre cult, Japan has experience peace and reasonable prosperity.

Compare this to how the US behaved in Iraq.  The US behaved in Iraq.  Instead of helping to rebuild Iraq, the companies supposedly there to do this engaged in blatant theft from the US purse and gave Iraq nothing in return.  Many people still have no running water and a decent infrastructure is a distant dream.  The US immediately propped up a government no one wanted and which was itself weak and corrupt.  Then the US left, leaving a power vacuum which ISIS was more than happy to exploit.  The government in charge there now is inept and incapable of doing much of anything.

What the US needed to do was what they did in Japan.  They needed to rule with an iron fist.  They needed to say to Iraqis, you don’t run this place anymore until we say you do.  You will do things our way.  Companies who were contracted to rebuild infrastructure but did not should be removed and their executives jailed.  Dick Chaney tops the list in my opinion.  The guy should be put in jail and the key thrown away and throw in some hard labor on top of it all.

Had the US managed Iraq properly, the people could have had running water, schools, and a strong government – all be it an occupation government – which forced them to shove their tribal differences out the window.  If the US had forced the country to use its oil revenue to pay for the rebuild, so much the better.  Once finished – and I think it would have taken longer than it did in Japan – the US could then leave and people would not tolerate a government which did not continue giving people running water and schools.

Iraq was more complicated than Japan because of two factors:  oil and religious divides.  Neither one of these were factors in Japan back in 1945.  Oil money is hard to resist and given the US congress being in bed with every rich and powerful company out there, this would have made the United States Iraq campaign even more difficult.

But if the American people had witnessed the abject misery of the average rural Iraqi, as I have, they might have been more willing to resist oil money temptation and actually help the place.  In short, whether you believe the second Iraq war was justified or not, I think it is quite clear that the USA completely mismanaged the aftermath of the war.  And it doesn’t even take hindsight to figure that out.  Many of us were critical of US management at the time.

Now we have Iraq as a basket case and civil war in Syria with Islamic State causing mayhem in both countries.  And the problem with the refugees is there are too many of them.  Even if there aren’t too many of them, they will keep coming and if they are not too many today – a point which can be debated – they will be too many tomorrow.

If somebody overthrew the current Syrian government and ruled with an iron fist, the refugees could return and take part in the rebuilding of their country.  In other words, the Syrians would suffer short term pain and even humiliation as they lose their independence, but if managed properly, the end result would far outweigh any negatives. 

If a coalition of US, Russian and European forces swept in with overwhelming military might, and blasted all armed opposition off the face of the earth, and if somehow there could be carefully thought out guidelines for running the place after the military victory so that no one power gained an advantage over another, then Syria would have a chance, and perhaps Iraq would too.  This would also result in a fair oil price which is combined with stability of supply. 

I’m not saying the US was perfect in Japan, but it seems to me our leaders were a bit wiser in the 40’s than they are now.  Yes, they did give us the cold war.  But we didn’t blow each other into the stone age and after all is said and done, Mutually Assured Destruction worked, at least so far.  There were some losers.  Hungary comes to mind so their perspective may be entirely different from mine.  We can throw Poland and Latvia into the mix of those who got the short end of the stick.  But there will always be super powers and there will always be small nations caught in the game of thrones as it were.  The best we can hope for is a decent outcome for most people.  And that is exactly what we got with post war policy.

The problem with the poor is there will always be poor.  The problem with refugees is there will always be refugees.  Maybe the west is lucky because we don’t have to run from our countries.  We might tomorrow but not today at least.  At the end of the first World War, the allies managed Germany much as the US managed Iraq recently.  We set up a government in Germany which no one really wanted and which was too weak to do anything.  German suffered violent factionalism and hyper inflation.  Eventually, Hitler emerged and the world was plunged into a second world war.  After the end of World War II, the west helped to rebuild Germany so that at least the western half of the country had a decent place to live.  And that stopped the refugees.  The only refugees Europe experienced were those trying to escape the Eastern Block which was dominated by a Soviet Union not particularly interested in rebuilding the conquered lands.  They had to rebuild themselves.  The allies ruled West Germany until the Germans took it back and ran the place.

  Maybe we have done a few things right.  That, combined with luck means we have had a decent run overall. 

Germany rose up and started World War II because the winners of World War I ground them into the dirt too much.  The Syrians we are seeing now have been ground down as well.  People can only take so much.  If you want to stop them from entering Europe, give them a reason to return to their country and stay there.  Otherwise, the one-way traffic of humanity will overwhelm us all eventually.  History is replete with mass migrations and these have changed nations.  The Roman Empire collapsed largely because of refugees running away from the Huns.

My solution is drastic and does involve short term pain.  It also requires a level of ethics and morality we don’t see in our leaders today.  I don’t know whether it will work.  But I do know this.  It is the only solution that has a chance to solve the problem.