Thursday, December 16, 2010

Reflections of a Sojourner

These are my reflections as I complete my TDY at the Damascus Embassy.

Reflections of a Sojourner

With your glowing nighttime fountains
And awesome towering mountains
With your tiled courtyards and ancient houses
City walls and winding alleys

These are the memories of the sojourner

Damascus
Mother of cities

Damascus
Whose people find providence in all things

Where gifts are given liberally
And glasses constantly refilled
You promote the life of the spirit
You are a great city

You are the product of love

Sunday, November 7, 2010

الحصول على تأشيرات الدخول إلى الولايات المتحدة

في العديد من الطرق التي يمكن الحصول على تأشيرة الولايات المتحدة. الطرق الأكثر انتشاراً هي التأشيرة السياحية والتأشيرة الهجرة. في طرق أخرى أيضا ، مثلاً الحق اللجوء في الولايات المتحدة، الذي سنبحث أدناه.

1.     التأشيرات السياحية وتأشيرات الهجرة

معظم الناس الذين يذهبون للولايات المتحدة يذهبون بتأشيرة سياحية أو بتأشيرة هجرة. للذهاب بتأشيرة سياحية، يُجب أن يملأ الاستمارات المطلوبة من قبل السفارة الأميركية ببلد إقامته. ثم السفارة ستدعو طالب التأشيرة للمقابلة. في المقابلة ، إذا كان موظف القنصلية يعتقد أن طالب الفيزا سوف يذهب إلى الولايات المتحدة كسائح وثم سيرجع إلى بلده قبل انتهاء صلاحية التأشيرة الممنوحة له ، سوف يعطيه التأشيرة. لكن إذا الموظف يعتقد أن الطالب سيظل في الولايات المتحدة ولا يعود ، أو أنه سيستخدم التأشيرة السياحية ليهاجر إلى الولايات المتحدة، الموظف سيرفض الطلب.
للهجرة إلى الولايات المتحدة يوجد شروط أخرى. يَجب أن يكون الطالب عنده أحد من عائلته (عادة الزوج، الزوجة، الأب، الأم، الابن أو ابنة) الذي يعيش في الولايات المتحدة وسيتكفل له أن يجئ إلى الولايات المتحدة من أجل لمّ شمل العائلة أو سيكون مدعو من قبل شركة أمريكية من اجل أن يجئ إلى الولايات المتحدة للعمل. يجوز للطالب أن يطلب أيضا على برنامج حظ متنوع فيزا، الذي يختار عددا من الطلاب الذين سجلوا للقدوم إلى الولايات المتحدة. ولكن هذا البرنامج هُو تنافسي جداً: من بين 17 مليون طلب، يتم اختيار تقريباً 50000 فقط. وهذا البرنامج مفتوح فقط للحاصلين على الدبلوم المدرسة الثانوية أو سنتين من الخبرة في العمل.

2.     حق اللجوء ومداخل اخرى إلى الولايات المتحدة الأمريكية

الولايات المتحدة الأمريكية تهْتم حول الحرية السياسية والدينية. لهذا السبب ، كل سنة ، يسمح عدة آلاف من اللاجئِين وطالبي اللجوء يجيئون إلى الولايات المتحدة والبقاء هناك. اللجوء للشخص سابقاً في الولايات المتحدة أو دخول الولايات المتحدة ، وعنده مخاوف معقولة من الاضْطِهاد بسبب العرق أو الدين أو العضوية في فئة اجتماعية أو سياسية ، إذا رجع إلى بَلَدِهِ.
إذا كان الطالب خارج الولايات المتحدة ، يقدر أن يسعى إلى أن يكون لاجئا. الخطوة الأولى عموماً للإتصال مع المُفَوَضِيّة العُليا للاجئين في الأمم المتحدة ، التي تفعل التقييم الأول وإذا المُفَوَضِيّة تحدد الشخص كلاجئ، ستوجه الشخص إلى البرنامج المناسب لإعادة توطين اللاجئين.
كل عام الولايات المتحدة تحدد عدد اللاجئين اللذين تقْبَلُهم من كل المناطق بالعالم. وكل عام ، يتغيّر هذا العدد. للعام 2011 ، الولايات المتحدة سَتَقْبل حوالي 75000 لاجئ. حوالي نَصْفُهم سَيَكونون من الشرق الأوسط. وكثير من هذه المجموعة سيكونون لاجئين عراقيين الذين نَزَحوا بسبب النِزاع بالعراق. هؤلاء لاجئين سوف يعودون الى العراق عندما تستقر الأوضاع.

James McClellan’s Liberty, Order, and Justice: An Introduction to the Constitutional Principles of American Government

     James McClellan’s seminal book Liberty, Order, and Justice is as important to the history and roots of American constitutional government as Russell Kirk’s Roots of American Order is to American political history. No other book that I am aware of does as well a job in presenting an engaging history of the American constitutional order and of presenting a wealth of information on the constitutions of ancient Greece and Rome, the English natural law and natural rights traditions, and the formation of the American political conscience. The key documents that helped shape what would later become the American political spirit, including the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights, are discussed in prose so engaging that it makes it difficult for the reader to put the book down. This book is an excellent choice for anyone interested in American constitutional history.
     The following is a summary overview of McClellan’s treatise:

Introduction

     McClellan’s work deals with the principles and characteristics of the American political order by familiarizing readers with the basic principles of the Constitution. Resting on the assumption that “in order to achieve liberty, order, and justice, we must first establish limited constitutional government” (p. xx), the book examines the constitutional foundations of the nation by looking to the English origins of the American Constitution, the first Constitutions of the American States, and the principles that pervade the American Constitution, as well as the interpretation and process for the amendment of the Constitution. Throughout the book, McClellan pays special attention to the separation of powers and the limits placed on the federal government by the Constitution.

Part 1. The Constitution’s Deep Roots

     McClellan begins by setting down the four primary characteristics of a good constitution: (i) to “provide for stability and continuity in the governing of a country”; (ii) to “restrain government from assuming powers that rightfully belong to other political entities or to families or individuals”; (iii) to “establish a permanent arrangement that enables public officials and others with political authority to represent the people they govern”; and (iv) to “hold public officials directly accountable to the people” (p. 6-7). McClellan goes on to examine the constitutions of the Greek and Roman civilizations that the American Founders would have studied. Although the American Founders could trace the values of republicanism and political virtue that imbued their young republic, the principles of ancient Greece and Rome cannot fully explain the American experiment. The American Founders found many shortcomings in the ancient constitutions, which did not fully account for man’s nature. The Founders instead turned towards an English heritage to animate their political order.
     The American Constitution, which was evolutionary rather than revolutionary, drew many of its precepts from English traditions. America’s legal order was in many ways a continuation of England’s common law, which America modified according to its own circumstances. For example, although America inherited the English distinction between cases at common law and cases at equity, the Founders allowed for “the fusion of law and equity in the Supreme Court” (p. 38). In like manner, although America, assigned a role to a representative legislature modeled after the English Parliament in the enactment of laws, it rejected the English principle of legislative supremacy, and instead subjugated the American legislature’s laws to the scrutiny of an independent judicial power.
     The new American republic can thus be contrasted with the republic that arose in France after the French Revolution. Whereas the American founders “never thought of repudiating their American past, their British past, or their classical past” (p. 52), the French Revolution, in the eyes of Edmund Burke, “sought a radical break with the past and [attempted] to create a whole new society based on visionary theories of government” (p. 53). The framers of the American Constitution, in contrast, sought to ground their ideas in the political and moral heritage of Hebraic, classical, and British cultures” (p. 52). As for the lawfulness, character of the conduct, quality of the object, and compass of resistance of the American and French Revolutions, the German diplomat Friedrich Gentz observed that “’every parallel’ drawn between the French and American revolutions ‘will serve much more to display the contrast than the resemblance between them’” (p. 57).

Part 2. America’s First Constitutions and Declarations of Rights

     The American colonists adopted the English system of representative government, but introduced a residency requirement for elected representatives and did not have an aristocracy-based upper chamber. Furthermore, the American experiment included an element of local self-government that was stronger than that of Britain and continental Europe.
     In 1607, lured by tales of great wealth, English settlers founded Jamestown. In 1620, Pilgrims arrived to Plymouth, Massachusetts, seeking religious liberty, and later being followed by all dissenting Protestants. Agreeing to submit themselves to laws enacted by a self-governing body, the settlers formed the Mayflower Compact, which “marks the introduction into the American colonies of a compact theory of government which would later serve as the basis for both popularly based State constitutions and the United States Constitution” (p. 97).
     Because the colonies were viewed by Britain primarily as a commercial enterprise, Britain was not much concerned with political control or the administration of the colonies. The American colonies were thus largely left to self-government. Local government in the form of townships in New England and counties elsewhere played such a significant role in the development of the American political system that de Tocqueville cited them as “a major reason for the successes of the American democracy” (p. 108).
     Although the Americans were prosperous under British rule, England’s new tax impositions and restrictions on colonial commerce in 1763 marked an “important turning point in Anglo-American relations” (p. 111). The Americans questioned the constitutional basis of Parliament’s actions and, reflecting on the nature of free government, concluded that their only recourse was in secession (p. 112). In response to the Stamp Act of 1765, the colonies sent delegates to New York to draft a statement of colonial grievances, arguing that “Parliament had exceeded its authority in passing the Stamp Act because the colonies, not being represented in Parliament, could be taxed only by their own assemblies” (p. 113).
     A string of events following thereafter ultimately led to the drafting of the Declaration of Independence to justify the separation and enumerate the abuses of the King against the colonies. Prodded by Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, the Americans announced on July 4, 1776 their decision to separate and announced a series of natural rights (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) and constitutional, common law, and charter rights to which the American colonists were entitled. 
     Although Jefferson, the principle author of the Declaration, did not set out “to find out new principles, or new arguments never before thought of,” but rather, to summarize ideas that had at the time been recognized, McClellan argues that the Western natural law tradition beginning with Aristotle offers a very different conception from the contractual theory embodied by the Declaration. Whereas the former tradition suggests that man’s natural state is one of family and community, the latter tradition resonates a great deal with the Enlightenment thinkers, especially Locke, which suggests that man’s natural state is a state of nature where “all men lived not in family units or villages but … [r]oaming the plains and forests at will, each man … free to come and go as he pleased” (p. 128). In the state of nature of Locke and Hobbes, men came together to form civil society and government only to secure their natural rights. They were free to dissolve government when it failed to protect their natural rights. We can thus conclude that, although the founders believed they were invoking principles from a long-standing Western tradition, the thinkers that were being quoted stood in tension with this tradition. McClellan resolves this tension by arguing that the founders believed that they were invoking the long standing Western natural law tradition, but had confused this by implementing natural rights terminology.
     At about the same time as the Declaration Independence, the Articles of Confederation were written. The Articles, which served as a constitution for the united colonies, were agreed upon by Congress on November 15, 1777. Two days later, they were submitted to the State legislatures for ratification, and all of the states ratified them within by 1781. The Articles took effect on March 1, 1781, establishing the “United States of America” while preserving the “sovereignty, freedom and independence” of each of the individual States (Arts. I-II). The States joined together through the Articles in order to provide for “their common defence, the security of their Liberties, and their mutual and general welfare” (Art. III). The Convention would later give way to the Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 that gave birth to the United States Constitution.

Part 3. The Achievement of the Philadelphia Convention

     In the summer of 1787, fifty five delegates charged with the task of revising the Articles of Confederation and putting the government on a “sound financial footing” (p. 243) gathered together in Philadelphia’s Constitutional Convention. The delegates quickly discovered that in order to “form a more perfect union,” the Articles needed to be completely overhauled and replaced with a new Constitution.
     The first proposal for a new political system was the Virginia Plan, which received resistance from opponents of centralization and delegates from the smaller States. Alexander Hamilton in turn proposed a plan that would have given even more power to the central government in order to restrain “the amazing violence and turbulence of the democratic spirit” (p. 260), but his plan received even less support than the Virginia Plan. Many delegates, wishing to reserve most political power to the States, instead supported the New Jersey Plan, which sought to improve the Articles of Confederation rather than write a new constitution. Although the Virginia Plan ultimately won over the New Jersey Plan, the “victorious supporters of the Virginia Plan … saw that if they wished the delegations from all States to sign a new Constitution, they must make important concessions” (p. 263).
     The large and the small states ultimately came to an agreement known as the “Connecticut Compromise,” whereby all states would have the same number of representative in the Senate and the number of representatives in Congress would be based on each state’s size. The narrow victory that came out of the Connecticut Compromise is one that has “endured for two hundred years” (p. 264). The Constitution established a strong Chief Executive independent of the Legislature and a Judiciary independent of the Executive.
     Regarding slavery, the delegates forbade Congress from interfering with the importation of slaves until 1808, at which point Congress could prohibit the importation (see Art. I, § 9 of the Constitution). Under the “Three-Fifths Compromise,” the delegates also allowed the States to include three-fifths of their slave population in order to establish representation in the House of Representatives: “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons” (Const., Art I, § 2).

Part 4. Basic Constitutional Concepts: Federalism, Separation of Powers, and Rule of Law

a)      Federalism

     The American system of federalism divides political power between the federal government and the States. Article I of the Constitution enumerates the specific delegated and implied powers of Congress, both exclusive and concurrent, which include the power to collect taxes, to regulate interstate commerce, to establish bankruptcy and citizenship laws, to coin money and punish the counterfeiting thereof, to establish Post Offices, to declare war, to support armies and a Navy, to establish a federal seat for government, and to “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” these enumerated powers (Art. I, § 8). Congress was not, however, permitted to prohibit the importation of slaves prior to 1808, to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus, to impose bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, to tax the States’ exports, or to grant titles of nobility (Art. I, § 9). The States were prohibited from entering into treaties, alliances, or confederations, coining money, emitting bills of credit; passing bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, or laws impairing contracts, or granting titles of nobility (Art. I, § 10, cl. 1). Furthermore, the States, without the consent of Congress, were prohibited from laying imposts or duties on imports or exports (except as it may be necessary for the execution of inspection laws) as well as from keeping troops or warships in time of peace or from entering into any agreement or compact with another State, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded or in imminent Danger that does not allow for delay.
     The Constitution establishes the obligations that the States have to the federal government and to each other as well as the obligations that the federal government has to the States. Among the obligations of the federal government to the States, Article IV requires the federal government to “guarantee a republican form of government to every State, to protect the States against invasion, and, upon request, to protect them against domestic violence” (p. 308). Article IV further prohibits Congress from creating new States from preexisting States, from combinations of States, or from parts of States, unless the legislatures of the States concerned consent.
     Among obligations of the States to the federal government, the States must select presidential electors (Art. II, § 1) and “hold elections for Senators and Representatives, and to prescribe the time, places, and manner for such elections” (Art. I, § 4) (p. 309). The States are further obligated to deliver up fugitives charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crimes to the State from which he has fled. They are prohibited in certain circumstances from discriminating against out of State citizens under Article IV.

b)      The Separation of Powers

     The American system of separation of powers is not a pure separation of powers because the functions of each branch of government overlap. Each branch was permitted to touch upon some of the affairs of other branches. For example, “the President (executive branch) was given a part in the legislative process, through his power of veto and his power to make recommendations in ‘State of the Nation’ addresses to the Congress. On the other hand, the legislative branch, through the Senate, was given some power over the executive branch, in that treaties and presidential appointments to major administrative posts and to the judiciary must be confirmed by the Senate” (p. 331). This overlapping of functions formed a system of checks and balances within the American government.

c)      The Rule of Law

     The American constitutional system is based on rule of law, sometimes expressed as “a government of laws, not of men” (p. 347). This is a principle that was inherited from medieval England. As Henry de Bracton wrote in the thirteenth century, “The king himself ought not to be under man but under God, and under the Law, because the Law makes the king” (p. 348). Under this principle, no man, government, court, Legislature, or President is above the law.

Part 5. Defending the Constitution: The Struggle over Ratification and the Bill of Rights

     After the Constitution was drafted by the delegates of the Constitutional Convention, it became the object of a national heated debate of the States considering its ratification. The two factions that dominated the debate were the Federalists, who supported the Constitution, and the anti-federalists, who supported a federal form of government under the older Articles of Confederation. Led by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, the Federalists launched a campaign to sway popular opinion in favor of the new Constitution. They were ultimately successful when, on June 21, 1788, New Hampshire became the ninth ratifying State, thus establishing the Constitution as the supreme law of the land of the states so ratifying it (Const., Art. VII). Within the next two years, the remaining four states—Virginia, New York, North Carolina, and Rhode Island—ratified the Constitution as well. The Federalists emerged victoriously from the national debate on the Constitution, but they did not do so without important concessions to the Anti-Federalists.

a)      The Anti-Federalist Persuasion

     The Anti-Federalists opposed the Constitution on a number of grounds, but their chief objection was that it gave too much power to the Federal government. As one Anti-Federalist put it, “some of the powers of the Legislature are ambiguous, and others indefinite and dangerous” (p. 389). Another wrote that the new system was “a consolidation of all the States into one larger mass, however diverse the parts may be of which it is composed. The idea of an uncompounded republic … containing six million white inhabitants all reduced to the same standard of morals or habits, and of laws, is in itself an absurdity and contrary to the whole experience of mankind” (p. 386). The Anti-Federalists further argued that the Constitution established a small aristocracy that would bind the nation with their decisions made in “some distant, yet-to-be-built city far removed from the watchful eye of the people they represented” (p. 387). The system was “an invitation to despotism” (p. 387).

b)      The Federalist Response

     The Federalists, in response, argued that the federal government under the new Constitution was limited to a series of enumerated powers that provided the nation with only the “bare essentials of government” (p. 393). Even the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare” was not an “unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare,” but was rather a license to the federal government to tax and spend only “to carry out one of its enumerated powers” (p. 398).
     The Federalists contrasted the President under the new Constitution from the English monarch: “the President was elected by the people for four years, whereas the King is a perpetual hereditary prince; the President can be impeached and removed from office, whereas the person of the King is ‘sacred and inviolable’; the President has a qualified veto, whereas that of the King is absolute” (p. 400). As for the judiciary, Hamilton said that it was “beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power” (p. 401).
     The Federalists further argued that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary in a federal government of limited enumerated powers that in no way denied the rights or powers retained by the States or the people. In a democratic nation, Hamilton argued that a Bill of Rights had “no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people,” as in the case of America, because “in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain everything, they have no need of particular reservations” (p. 402).

c)      The Bill Of Rights

     The Anti-Federalists nonetheless remained fearful of an overpowering federal government, and insisted that civil liberties be guaranteed in the Constitution. A Bill of Rights enumerating basic freedoms of all American citizens was thus added to the Constitution in 1791. Yet as the Ninth Amendment attests, the freedoms protected from federal infringement are not limited to those enumerated in the Bill of Rights: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people” (Const., Ninth Amd.). Although many have argued that the Bill of Rights is superfluous, many others have felt that it served as an important guarantee against a powerful federal government that would inevitably transgress its limited enumerated powers.

Part 6. Interpreting and Preserving the Constitution

     At the American founding, because written constitutions were unprecedented, there was no body of legal literature on constitutional interpretation. Members of the American federal judiciary thus created their own rules of interpretation, based on principles used for the interpretation of statutes or treatises that were derived in ancient law, Roman law, and English law. McClellan writes that the basic task of the courts when interpreting laws, treatises, or constitutions is to determine the legislature intent. “[W]hen the words are dubious and the alternative means of construction have failed to uncover the intent of the lawmakers,” Blackstone wrote, judges must employ “reason and spirit of the law” to derive the underlying intent (p. 467). This role of the judiciary in interpreting the law, and not in making the law, was well articulated by Sir Francis Bacon, who warned the judges of England “to remember that their office is jus dicere, and not jus dare—to interpret law, and not to make law, or give law” (p. 475).
     The American Constitution departed from the English tradition of legislative supremacy whereby Parliament serves as the ultimate arbiter as to whether its acts are constitutional. The American Constitution, in contrast, through the Supremacy Clause, establishes a hierarchy of laws with the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, “followed by Federal laws and treaties, descending finally to State constitutions, State laws, and local ordinances” (p. 477).
     The Supreme Court established early on the principle of judicial review. In the controversial case Marbury v. Madison (1803) (Marshall, C.J.), John Marshall, while Secretary of State, failed to deliver to the plaintiff Marbury his commission to become a justice of the peace in D.C. At the time, Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789, which allowed parties to go to the Supreme Court to demand writs of mandamus that order a government official to fulfill his duty. Marbury went to the Supreme Court to demand the writ, and the Court was called upon to determine whether the Judiciary Act of 1789 was validly in keeping with the Constitution.
     Marbury begins his line of reasoning, stating that “The question, whether an act repugnant to the Constitution, can become the law of the land … is a question deeply interesting to the United States” (p. 481). He goes on to conclude that the Act impermissibly expanded the original jurisdiction of the Court, which was constitutionally limited to cases involving ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and States. Marshall therefore refused to grant the writ to Marbury and argued that the Supreme Court must go to the Constitution on its own when interpreting it, and not rely on interpretations of other branches of government.
     In our modern day, Marbury has come to be interpreted as stating that the Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on what the Constitution says. Yet nothing in Marbury suggests that the Judicial Branch can do any better a job than any of the other branches in interpreting the Constitution. Some have argued that each branch of government is obligated to read and abide by the Constitution. For example, if the President reads the Constitution and concludes that it means something different than what the Supreme Court says, he is obliged to follow his own thinking. The Supreme Court has disagreed, holding that the President and state courts and governors are obliged to follow the Court’s interpretations of the Constitution over their own. In Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee (1816), for example, the Virginia Supreme Court refused to comply with a U.S. Supreme Court order to enter a judgment pursuant to the federal Judiciary Act of 1789, which subjected state court decisions regarding the validity of federal laws to the judicial review of the United States Supreme Court. The Virginia Supreme Court, although it agreed that state judges were required under Article VI to obey the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States, it believed that state judges were not bound to obey the Supreme Court’s interpretations of them. The Virginia Supreme Court argued that such a requirement would infringe on state sovereignty. Justice Story, writing the majority opinion, sharply disagreed, writing that the Constitution is “crowded with provisions which restrain or annul the sovereignty of the States” and that “the doctrine of absolute State sovereignty insisted upon by the Virginia judges ran counter to the whole theory of Federal supremacy” (p. 483). He held that Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of constitutional questions under article III. With Marburgy and Hunter’s Lessee as its precedents, the Supreme Court may today strike down any federal, state, or local law that it finds to be unconstitutional.
     The States and the people do, however, retain some control over the interpretations of the Constitution laid out by the Supreme Court. They may enact amendments that curb what the Court may decide on certain matters or they may altogether remove the Court’s power to hear certain questions by curbing the Court’s jurisdiction.
      

Part 7. Changing the Constitution

     In Part 7, McClellan gives an overview of the process for amending the Constitution and of the American Bill of Rights, as well as explanations of the Amendments added since 1791, their history, and how they came into being. The Amendment process, notes McClellan, is the most formal of the various ways in which our “living” Constitution may be changed. But the Constitution may also be changed “as a result of custom, practice, and judicial decisions” (p. 551), but “[m]ost changes of this nature are supplementary rather than revisionary, and may be seen as additions to, or refinements of, a particular provision of the Constitution” (p. 552). For example, the advent of motion pictures, radio, and television, changed the scope of the First Amendment without changing the principle instituted therein.
     The framers understood that “A constitution cannot long endure if it may be amended too easily or too swiftly” (p. 560). The process of amending the Constitution therefore “prefers evolutionary to revolutionary change” (p. 561) by requiring extraordinary majorities. The framers also understood that in order to protect the sovereignty of the States, they should play a commanding role in the amendment process. Even if Congress chooses not to propose an amendment, the States may “initiate an amendment of their own by the convention method, ratify it on their own authority, and circumvent the Congress” (p. p. 562). Despite the efforts of the framers to protect States’ rights, they could not foresee the Supreme Court’s doctrine of “incorporation,” which would apply to the States the restrictions established in the Bill of Rights, which were originally intended to apply to the federal government (p. 573). This doctrine came through the Fourteenth Amendment, which established that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
     The various Amendments demonstrate the great extent to which the people, through their States, have been active in effecting change in the American Republic. Perhaps the most interesting story offered in the description of the Amendments is the explanation of the Twenty Second Amendment, which establishes that “No law varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.” McClellan writes that the amendment came to be passed “largely because of the diligence and perseverance of a young college student” (p. 592). Gregory D. Watson, an undergraduate economics major at the University of Texas at Austin, stumbled upon the Congressional Pay Amendment and decided to write a research paper on it where he argued that “a proposed amendment remains valid for ratification indefinitely, unless Congress has placed a time limit upon it” (p. 592). Although Watson’s college instructor was unpersuaded, Watson, after leaving the University, “waged a lonely ten-year battle to generate support for the Amendment. Truly a one-man lobbying firm, Watson encouraged State legislators throughout the Union to support the Amendment. One by one, first Maine in 1983, then Colorado in 1984, the States rallied to the cause.”  Ten years later, Watson triumphed when the Archivist of the United States certified in 1992 that the Pay Amendment “had been duly ratified by three-fourths of the States” (p. 592). This was the story of one individual’s “prophetic vision, indomitable spirit, and hard labor” (p. 592). It shows that America truly is a nation of the people; even one person, with no apparent political power or office, may make a difference.

Conclusion

     McClellan concludes the volume by highlighting the many advantages of the Constitution, including the power of a Federal Union held together by the Constitution, which has given rise to an internal American free-trade area that has “produced remarkable and enduring material prosperity” (p.594). However, he warns that political order and liberty in America may not endure if the moral order disintegrates or if political participation on the part of citizens ceases. Yet if enough Americans are willing to work hard at it, “there is good reason to expect that the American Republic will endure for many more centuries” (p. 600).

Saturday, October 23, 2010

سوريا

Please enable Arabic encoding if text does not display properly.

أقواس رومانية
سوريا هي بلد يعتبر مثالياً في طرق كثيرة. سوريا معروف بثقافتها وتاريخها ، فهي أمة الحضارة الأقدم في العالم. وبالتأكيد أن دمشق هي المدينة الأقدم في العالم. ويرجع تاريخها إلى آلاف السنين. وسوريا هي أيضاً نموذج للتعددية في الشرق الأوسط. بسوريا ، تتعدّد الديانات (خاصة المسلمين والمسيحيين ) يعيش معاً في سلام. حكم عائلة الأسد مُحترم خاصة من الأقليات الدينية ، بمن فيهم العلويين، المسيحيون ، والدروز، لأن عائلة الأسد تسمح لهم بحرية العبادة.

سوريا أيضا عندها لهجة العربية واحدة من الاجمل والأقرب إلى العربية الفصحى. ولهجة السورية من المُحْتمل ان تكون الأكثر المفهومة في المنطقة العربية، نظراً لنجاح المسلسلات التلفزيونية السورية في المنطقة العربية. حتى قررت وزارة الخارجية الامريكية تنقل مركزها تدريب اللغة العربية من تونس إلى سوريا، ونظراً لجمال والإمتياز للهجة السورية.

Syria: Among the World’s Oldest Civilizations

Azem Palace
Many historians maintain that Damascus is the world’s oldest continuously inhabited city. Indeed, not only Damascus, but the entire territory of modern-day Syria holds a history that dates back many thousands of years. Syria is thus a country that has been at the crossroads of countless civilizations, conquests, and cultures, and modern-day Syria reflects this homogeneity. It is a land where Muslims live together with Christians and other religious groups in a harmony that is in many ways a model for the Middle East.


1. Ancient History

It is often claimed that the first inhabitants of modern day Syria date as far back as 5000 B.C. Syria was occupied successively by Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews, Arameans, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Nabataeans, Byzantines, and partially by Crusaders before coming under the control of the Ottoman Turks. In 1800 B.C., the Assyrian King Shamshi-Adad I established today's north-east city of Tell Leilan as his capital; in 333 B.C., Syria became part of Alexander the Great's empire; it then changed hands in 64 B.C., as a province of the Roman Empire, and again in 300 A.D., as a Byzantine province.

Deir Mar Mousa.
A monastary carved into the mountains
that focuses on Christian-Muslim dialogue.
Syria came under the Muslim conquest in 636 and it became the capital of the Omayyad Empire, which from 661 to 750 extended from Spain to India. Damascus became a provincial capital of the Mameluke Empire in the 13th Century and was largely destroyed in 1400 by the Mongol conqueror Tamerlane. It was rebuilt and continued to serve as capital until 1517, when it fell under the conquest of the Ottomans, who ruled for the next 400 years.

2. Modern Era

In 1920, the Arab Kingdom of Syria was established under the Hashemite King Faisal (later King of Iraq). A few months thereafter, a clash between his Syrian Arab forces and French forces at the battle of Maysalun ended his rule over Syria. In 1922, the League of Nations declared a French mandate over Syria, and French troops occupied Syria.

At the fall of France in 1940, Syria came under the control of the Vichy Government until the British and Free French occupied the country in July 1941. Pressures exerted by Syrian nationalist groups forced the French to evacuate their troops and on April 17, 1946, Syria declared its independence and was left to rule itself under a republican government formed during the French mandate. The country became a charter member of the United Nations.

From its independence through to the modern era, Syria experienced a series of upheavals and military coups, which culminated on March 8, 1963, with the takeover by the the Arab Socialist Resurrection Party (Ba'ath Party), which installed leftist Syrian Army officers of the National Council of the Revolutionary Command (NCRC) over the nation’s executive and legislative powers. On November 13, 1970, Defense Minister Hafez al-Assad succeeded in a bloodless military coup in what was known as the Correction Movement and assumed the role of prime minister.

In March 1973, a new Syrian constitution went into effect followed by parliamentary elections for the People's Council.

The secular socialist regime was challenged in the late 1970s and early 1980s by the Muslim Brother and other fundamentalist Sunni groups, who object to secular rule and to the Alawi minority in power. 1982 marked an uprising by these groups in the city of Hama, between Homs and Aleppo. The regime responded aggressively, effectively breaking the insurrection with a bombardment of the city that killed thousands of civilians. Since then, public protests against the regime have been limited.

President Hafez al-Assad died on June 10, 2000, and his son Bashar al-Assad was immediately proclaimed successor.




Saturday, October 9, 2010

لا سلام بدون المسيح

بقلم الأستاذ الفاضل المحامي نبيل الظواهرة الصائغ

كلمة السلام تتردّد كهيراً على ألسنة الناس في تعاملاتهم اليومية: في البيت، في الطريق، في أماكن العمل، عبر الهاتف، أو الإنترنت، في الرسائل بين الأصدقاء ... و هذه الكلمة تكاد أن تكون قد فقدت معناها وأبعادها لشيوع استعمالها استعمالاً سطحياً بعيداً عن الإحساس الصادق، و عن المعنى الأصيل الذي تعنيه هذه الكلمة.

و في موعظته على الجبل، قال يسوع في التطويبات الخادة: "طوبى لصانعي السلام لأنهم أبناء الله يُدعون" (متى 7:5). كما جاء في إنجيل يوحنا عن لسان الرب يسوع: "قد كلّمتكم بهذا ليكون لكم فيّ سلام" (يوحنا 33:16).
وجاء في رسالة القديس بولس إلى أهل رومة: "لنا سلامٌ مع الله بربنا يسوع المسيح" (5:1).

من خلال هذا الاستعراض السريع لبعض ما جاء في الكتاب المقدس عن السلام، نستطيع حصر هذا الموضوع بالنقاط التالية:
1 – السلام مع الله.
2 – السلام الداخلي مع الذات.
3 – السلام تين الناس.
4 – السلام بين الدول والشعوب.
5 – سلام الكنيسة.

أولاً – السلام مع الله
بعد أن غضب الله على آدم نتيجة عصيانه وصيته، عاش آدم وحواء وذريتهما في حالة خوف وتوتر وقلق وتعب وشقاء وانعدام الأمان: "وقال الله للمرأة تكهيراً أكثّر أتعاب حبلك، بالوجع تلدين أو لاداً وإلى رجلك يكون اشتياقك و هو يسود عليكِ... وقال لآدم لأنك سمعت لقول امرأتك وأكلت من الشجرة التي أوصيتك قائلاً لا تأكل منها، ملعونة الأرض بسببك، بالتعب تأكل منها كل أيام جياتك ... بعرق جبينك تأكل خبزاً" (تكوين 3: 16-19).

وبقي الإنسان في حال بؤسٍ وضياع شديد، وبعدٍ بعيد، عن الله، إلى أن جاء السيد المسيح بالجسد، افتدى البشر على خشبة الصليب، وردم جدار العداوة – التي هي الخطيءة – وصالحنا مع الله وأعطى الإنسان السلام. لذلك يقول الرسول بولس: "ولنا سلام مع الله بربنا يسوع المسيح" (رومية 5:1).

ثانياً – السلام الداخلي مع الذات
لكي يكون الإنسان في حالة سلام مع الله، ينبغي علنه أن يكون في حالة سلام مع ذاته. و هذا يتطلب منه أن يكون في حالة أمان و إنسجام مع نفسه، وأن يكون صحيحاً نفساً و جسداً، شاعراً بالاكتفاء المادي و المعنوي، راضياً بما هو عليه من ظروف وإمكانات، تعيداً عن الخوف والقاق والتشهيّ، واللهاث الدائم خاف المكاسب والمناصب وجمع الأموال بشتى الوسائل.

ثالثاً – السلام بين الناس
وكنتيجة للسلام مع الله وللسلام الداخلي مع الذات، وعندما يعيش المؤمن هذا السلام الدائم، فلابد أن يكون السالم بين الناس سلاماً حقيقياً سليماً لا غش فيه. و عندما يتحقق هذا السلام، يسود الأمان والوئام أفراد المجتمع، فيزول الحقد والخصام، ويتلاشى التوتر والانقسام. ولا يتأتى هذا السلام إلا إذا كان مصدره السيح والكنيسة التي هي جسده السرّي، ومانحة الروح القدس لمستحقّيه.

رابعاً – السلام بين الدول والشعوب
إن الدول التي تؤمن بالسلام الحقيقي، تقيم أطيب العلاقات مع الدول المجاورة، انطلاقاً من حق كل دولة وشعب بالعيش في سلام ضمن حدود آمنة، دون الإساءة إلى الدول والشعوب الأخرى، تعيداً عن كل طمع واستغلال واستئثار، وهي الأمور التي تسبب المنازعات التي تنشأ بين دولة وأخرى. فلكل دولة الحق في أن ترسم لنفسها نهج الحكم الذي يقرره شقبها، وأن تستغل ثرواتها الطبيعية استغلالا خيراً دون أن يناز عنا في ذلك أيّ منازء. وعندما تحدث الأطماع بين الدول والشعوب، تنشب الحروب والمعارك والمناوشات التي من شأنها أن تهزّ السلام وتزعزع الأمان والاستقرار.

خامساً – سلام الكنيسة
لما كانت الكنيسة هي المؤسسة الإلهية على الأرض، وهي – كما قلنا آنفاً – جسد المسيح السرّي، والمسيح هو رأس هذا الجسد، فهي مخولة إلهياً، أن تعطي السلام لأتباعها وللعالم، انطلاقاً من قول السيد اه المجد: "سلاماً أترك لكم، سلامي أعطيكم" (يوحنا 27:14). فقد منحت نعمة السلام من المسيح مباشرة عن طريق تلاميذ المسيح، والتالميذ نقلوا هذا السالم إلى من بعدهم.
وفي القداس الإلهي الكنسي، نرى تركيزاً واضحاً على ذكر السلام في جميع مراحل القداس. فكلما تؤجه الكاهن إلى الشعب يقول: (السلام لكم ... السلام لكم) ... وفي أواخر القداس يعول الكاهن للشعب الحاضر: (تبادلوا السلام، أو، ليعط كل واحد منا السلام قريبه).

Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Against Heresies II: The Gospel of Thomas

A. Overview
This is the second in a series of articles refuting the heresies that threaten orthodox Christianity. In this article, I review the Gospel of Thomas, the first of the Gnostic Gospels. The Gnostic Gospels are part of the Gnostic Texts, which also include the Nag Hammadi scrolls and other writings. The Gospel of Thomas is among the most prominent of the Gnostic Gospels, and is prototypical of the other heretical gospels, in that it portrays a picture of a Jesus who strays significantly from the way God had revealed Himself to the Jewish people historically.
According to the Jewish Scriptures, God intervened in the affairs of man throughout history. From his command to Adam not to eat of the forbidden tree, to the Ten Commandments given to Moses, to the prophecies given to Elijah, Isaiah, Joel, Jeremiah, to Ezekiel, God always speaks in clear, unambiguous terms. The mystical, abstruse words ascribed to Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas stray significantly from this tradition.

B. God’s Words in the Jewish Scriptures Compared with those of the Gospel of Thomas
Throughout the Jewish Scriptures, God speaks in clear terms about right and wrong, about justice and fairness, and about Israel’s sins and need for repentance.
“'Return to me,' declares the LORD Almighty, 'and I will return to you,' says the LORD Almighty. Do not be like your forefathers, to whom the earlier prophets proclaimed: This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'Turn from your evil ways and your evil practices.'” (Zec 1:3-6). His words are clear and sobering.
When God gives Moses the Ten Commandments, he does not give a list of mystical teachings, but hard and fast rules. “You shall have no other gods before me … You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below … You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God …” (Exo 20:3-7). He similarly instructs on the weightier matters of the law in the Book of Isaiah: “learn to do right! Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow” (Isa 1:17).
Similarly, when bringing Israel back into repentance, he is clear and direct: “’I have loved you,’ says the LORD. ‘But you ask, “How have you loved us?” ‘Was not Esau Jacob's brother?’ the LORD says. ‘Yet I have loved Jacob’” (Mal 1:2).

Contrast the nature and character of this God, who speaks clearly to Israel, with the character of Jesus painted in the Gospel of Thomas, reproduced fully below. In the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus gives no hard and fast commands on repentance, on the need to turn back to God, on holiness, on justice. He instead speaks in metaphors and with mystical expressions that elude common understanding.
Some of his sayings—e.g., “When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty” (v. 3)—sound more like excerpts from a self-help book written by Deepok Chopra than the words of love of a God who became man.
Among the sayings from which I, after much effort, am unable to derive any discernible meaning are the following:
- “The person old in days won't hesitate to ask a little child seven days old about the place of life, and that person will live” (v. 4);
- “Lucky is the lion that the human will eat, so that the lion becomes human. And foul is the human that the lion will eat, and the lion still will become human” (v. 7);
- “During the days when you ate what is dead, you made it come alive. When you are in the light, what will you do? On the day when you were one, you became two. But when you become two, what will you do?” (v. 11);
- “No matter where you are you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being” (v. 12);
- “If you fast, you will bring sin upon yourselves, and if you pray, you will be condemned, and if you give to charity, you will harm your spirits” (v. 14);
- “His disciples said, ‘When will you appear to us, and when will we see you?’ Jesus said, ‘When you strip without being ashamed, and you take your clothes and put them under your feet like little children and trample then, then [you] will see the son of the living one and you will not be afraid’” (v. 37).
Many other examples can be found below.

Compare these esoteric sayings with Jesus’ life-giving words in the canonical Gospels:
- “You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Mat 5:43-48);
- “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Mat 6:19-21).
- “For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted” (Luk 14:11);
- “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone” (Joh 8:7).
- “What shall it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?” (Mat 16:26).
- “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets” (Mat 7:12).

Christ’s words, as recorded in the canonical Gospels, cultivate virtue, love, and holiness. Christ’s words, as recorded in the Gospel of Thomas, cultivate confusion, doubt, and rebellion against God.

Friday, August 6, 2010

Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil: A dark, abstruse, sometimes impenetrable, but always whining diatribe

Beyond Good and Evil

The following review is based on the Penguin Classics 2003 edition:

Nietzsche opens his work by criticizing philosophers for their dogmatism, which conceals a series of personal prejudices and beliefs that can only be uncovered by peeling away layers of social conditioning. Nietzsche contrasts the dogmatism of modern philosophy with "the free spirit" of a philosophical methodology that is not bound by inherited past truths, but rather, pushes the way forward by true philosophers that are not afraid of experimenting in unpioneered ground.
Nietzsche then devotes a chapter to religion, which he accuses of leading to the "sacrifice of all freedom, all pride, all self-confidence of the spirit, at the same time enslavement and self-mockery, self-mutilation" (p. 71). He examines the natural history of morals, stating that "Every morality is, as opposed to laisser aller, a piece of tyranny against `nature', likewise against `reason'" (p. 110). He bemoans both the "commanders" of society, who "pose as executors of more ancient or higher commands" as well as the "herd-man in Europe," who glorifies "public spirit, benevolence, consideration, industriousness, moderation, modesty, forbearance, pity" (p. 121). Against this backdrop, Nietzsche praises Napoleon: "the history of the effect of Napoleon is almost the history of the higher happiness this entire century has attained in its most valuable men and moments" (p. 121).
The societal critique does not spare the scholars from piercing criticism. Nietzsche criticizes the "self-glorification and presumption of the scholars" and the herd-morality that has infused modern scholarship (p. 129). Nietzsche's ideal philosopher, in contrast, is not trapped in a system of rigid "truth" that holds to absolute, unchanging values. This rejection of absolute values carries into the chapter on virtue: Nietzsche rejects those values that have been inherited by the past and he instead defines virtue according to people's inclinations: "if we are to have virtues we shall presumably have only such virtues as have learned to get along with our most secret and heartfelt inclinations" (p. 147).
Nietzsche concludes with a chapter entitled "What is Noble?," where he affirms that there will be a few noble men in the future who will invent their own system of morality and rise to a place far above the herd and its slave morality, but this will be a lonely, solitary place.
Nietzsche's work is a sharp attack on traditional morality, on religion, and in particular, on Christianity. Nietzsche complains whiningly of the inherited ideas of the past but he fails to provide answers to his complaints. He suggests that every man be freed from slave morality and define his own system of truth, but he fails to explain to what end such inventions would serve. The book reads like a long, angry tirade that is occasionally confused and almost always abstruse or impenetrable. One is left wondering where Nietzsche was going with some of his passages and whether some of them were intended to have no meaning at all, thus exemplifying Nietzsche's thesis that all is meaningless.
As the first page of the book explains, Nietzsche "became insane in 1889 and remained in a condition of mental and physical paralysis until his death in 1900." I wonder whether Nietzsche's final collapse was the inevitable result of his thinking, that is, whether rejecting Christ and His teaching inevitably leads to such a state of complete and utter isolation from both God and man. This dark, godless state is one into which I descended prior to my encounter with the living God in Jesus Christ, who renewed and set me free.

Alexis de Tocqueville’s Classic Text on American Democracy


1. Introduction
Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859) was a French aristocrat whose family lost its estate under the French Revolution. He came to America in 1831 after being commissioned by the French government to study the American prison system, but his study turned out to be a much more extensive study that examined the nature of the American people and democracy in America. His history and anthropology Democracy in America (De la démocratie en Amérique) came out in 1835 in the first volume and in 1840 in the second. This classic of history and political science analyzes a why republican representative democracy has succeeded in the United States while failing in other places. De Tocqueville seeks to apply the functional aspects of democracy in America to what he sees as the failings of democracy in France, to report on the tendencies of the hearts and souls of the American people, to understand what drives them, and to forecast warnings to the readers as to how this new experiment in government may head into troubled waters. De Tocqueville remains humble in his pretensions in the book, acknowledging that “Time has not yet shaped [the fledging United States] it into perfect form” (Part II, Fourth Book, Chapter 8, ¶ 1623) and thus some of his warnings and predictions may as of yet be premature.
It is perhaps ironic that it was a French aristocrat who wrote the definitive text on American democracy. De Tocqueville’s noble birth and aristocratic background offered him the leisure of carrying out such a massive study, as well as several others, including one on the colonization system of French Algeria.

2. De Tocqueville’s Conservative Liberalism
He does, however, view general progress in human history. However, he does not concede that this has necessarily led to an amelioration over the state of affairs of men. “No man, upon the earth, can as yet affirm absolutely and generally, that the new state of the world is better than its former one; but it is already easy to perceive that this state is different” (Part II, Fourth Books, ¶ 1621). This progress includes the annihilation of the feudal system and the vanquishing of king and has led to “the advantage of democracy” (Part I, Chapter 1, ¶ 9) and to the general “equality of conditions” of men who now stand equally in their political and economic opportunities (not in their economic condition) in life (Part I, Chapter 1, ¶ 10). “The gradual development of the equality of conditions is … a providential fact, and it possesses all the characteristics of a divine decree: it is universal, it is durable, it constantly eludes all human interference, and all events as well as all men contribute to its progress” (Part I, Chapter 1, ¶ 9). This is a general progress and evolution that history has never yet experienced; de Tocqueville finds “no parallel to what is occurring before my eyes: as the past has ceased to throw its light upon the future” (Part II, Fourth Book, Chapter 8, ¶ 1623).
The printing press, Protestantism, firearms, and a host of other factors have led to this leveling off and equality of conditions, all under the hand of Providence and divine decree. “To attempt to check democracy would be in that case to resist the will of God; and the nations would then be constrained to make the best of the social lot awarded to them by Providence” (Part I, Chapter 1, ¶ 11). “[W]e obstinately fix our eyes on the ruins which may still be described upon the shore we have left, whilst the current sweeps us along, and drives us backwards towards the gulf” ((Part I, Chapter 1, ¶ 12). Thus, for De Tocqueville, the coming of democracy is the inevitable pinnacle of a general progress within history at the hand of God. Yet as we will see, he is not a proponent of socialism or of the general redistribution of wealth among the populace.

3. Civil Society and Townships
Everywhere in America, de Tocqueville would find spontaneous local associations of citizens who would bind together to solve some problem that has cropped up, without even appealing to the authorities. Civil society was its own government. Yet when the authorities were appealed to, de Tocqueville found that it was local government in the townships that was most important. This emphasis on the political unit being closest to society would later take form in Abraham Kuyper’s teaching on sphere sovereignty and in the Catholic teaching of subsidiarity under Pope Leo XIII. It was a hallmark of liberty and independence in the American mind. In the laws of New England, “we find the germ and gradual development of that township independence which is the life and mainspring of American liberty at the present day” (Part I, Chapter 2, ¶ 77). However, in his analysis of townships as well as of other subjects, de Tocqueville appears to dismiss out of hand the south. This may be in part to support his thesis and praise of democracy, for the south lagged behind the north and continued to institute slavery during de Tocqueville’s visit. Yet it is more likely that he found the heart and essence of America to be found in New England’s culture and, particularly, its Puritan faith and culture, which he believed would ultimately set the tone for national culture and politics.
De Tocqueville analyzes political associations in Part II of his work as a force that strengthens civil society and protects young democracies from the forces of tyranny and despotism. He writes that an “association for political, commercial, or manufacturing purposes, or even for those of science and literature, is a powerful and enlightened member of the community, which cannot be disposed of at pleasure, or oppressed without remonstrance; and which, by defending its own rights against the encroachments of the government, saves the common liberties of the country” (Part II, Fourth Book, Chapter 7, ¶ 1613). In a democracy where no classes exist to protect each of their members from tyrannical acts, associations are formed to protect men otherwise set apart, isolated, and weakened. The press is essential within this framework, for through it, men are able to make their appeals to fellow men for assistance.

4. Political Associations
De Tocqueville also gives extensive treatment of political associations in the United States. In chapter 12, he describes those associations that Americans have established and “unsparingly applied to a multitude of different objects” (Part I, Chapter 12, ¶ 401). Political associations are formed for a multitude of purposes: “to promote public order, commerce, industry, morality, and religion” (¶ 403). Americans only make recourse to authority when doing so is unavoidable. Otherwise, they band together in voluntary associations to deal with public and private affairs.
While de Tocqueville’s general tone towards political associations in America is generally highly positive, he offers the reader a strong warning as well: “If, in a people which is imperfectly accustomed to the exercise of freedom, or which is exposed to violent political passions, a deliberating minority, which confines itself to the contemplation of future laws, be placed in juxtaposition to the legislative majority, I cannot but believe that public tranquillity incurs very great risks in that nation” (¶ 408). However, de Tocqueville concedes that “the unrestrained liberty of political association has not hitherto produced, in the United States, those fatal consequences which might perhaps be expected from it elsewhere” (¶ 415). Rather, the presence of these associations is highly beneficial, for they are needed to “prevent the despotism of faction or the arbitrary power of a prince” (¶ 416).

5. On Faith and Its Relation to Morality and Liberty
De Tocqueville ties freedom in America with the faith that imbues the American people. The link between faith and liberty is unbreakable: “Despotism may govern without faith, but liberty cannot” (Part I, Chapter 17, ¶ 745). A people can only be free civilly if it submits to and pledges allegiance to some other law, which governs the people and keeps order. De Tocqueville asks rhetorically: “How is it possible that society should escape destruction if the moral tie be not strengthened in proportion as the political tie is relaxed? and what can be done with a people which is its own master, if it be not submissive to the Divinity?” (Part I, Chapter 17, ¶ 745). A people without a strong central government will evolve into anarchy if morality is not there to check the consciences of the people. In the words of de Tocqueville, “Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith” (Introduction, ¶ 23). “Religion is no less the companion of liberty in all its battles and its triumphs; the cradle of its infancy, and the divine source of its claims. The safeguard of morality is religion, and morality is the best security of law and the surest pledge of freedom” (Part I, Chapter 2, ¶ 83).
The Americans “combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other” (Part I, Chapter 17, ¶ 742).
The strong role religion played in the United States was due to its separation from the government. According to the many members of the various denominations and the clergy that de Tocqueville interviewed, “the peaceful dominion of religion” was mainly attributed “to the separation of Church and State. I do not hesitate to affirm that during my stay in America I did not meet with a single individual, of the clergy or of the laity, who was not of the same opinion upon this point” (Part I, Chapter 17, ¶ 747). He contrasts this to France, where “the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom pursuing courses diametrically opposed to each other” (Part I, Chapter 17, ¶ 747). The connection between church and state in France led to an unhealthy antagonism between democrats and religion.
This separation of church and state in America has been made possible by the Gospel’s distinction of a heavenly kingdom that is distinct from the temporal world order. Christ does not consider his kingdom to be of this world. De Tocqueville contrasts this quality of Christianity with Islam, a religious system that also comprises a fully integrated worldview for law, society, and government: “Mahommed professed to derive from Heaven, and he has inserted in the Koran, not only a body of religious doctrines, but political maxims, civil and criminal laws, and theories of science. The gospel, on the contrary, only speaks of the general relations of men to God and to each other—beyond which it inculcates and imposes no point of faith” (Part II, First Book, Chapter 5, ¶ 1103). Based on this important distinction, he concludes that while the Christian faith is fully compatible with democracy, Islam cannot be. Islam “will never long predominate in a cultivated and democratic age, whilst [Christianity] is destined to retain its sway at these as at all other periods” (Part II, First Book, Chapter 5, ¶ 1103).

6. Equality
Throughout Democracy in America, de Tocqueville praises and endorses the equality that has developed in the natural course of events in American history. The equality he is treating is not, however, to be confused with oneness of economic conditions among the classes. Rather, it is an equality of conditions that allows all men to participate in their government and to engage in useful economic activities. This equality is manifested in a community where all of the members “take a part in the government, and that each of them has an equal right to take a part in it” (Part II, Second Book, Chapter 1, ¶ 1243). In such a state, “none is different from his fellows, none can exercise a tyrannical power: men will be perfectly free, because they will all be entirely equal; and they will all be perfectly equal, because they will be entirely free. To this ideal state democratic nations tend” (Part II, Second Book, Chapter 1, ¶ 1243).
Much of Democracy in America, and especially Part II, sets out to “point out the dangers to which the principle of equality exposes the independence of man” (Part II, Fourth Book, Chapter 8, ¶ 1622). De Tocqueville sets out the general dangers that attend to equality, including the possibility of despotism and the fear that some hold that equality inevitably leads to anarchy or to servitude. Refuting these claims, he takes a realistic view to the nature of equality in democratic nations, the dangers it can lead to, and the corrective measures that can be undertaken.
People in democratic nations, he says, love equality much more than liberty. The most perfect form of equality requires complete freedom. Yet imperfect equality can allow for great despotism. Equality is so deeply ingrained in laws, social conditions, mores, habits and opinions that destroying it would be extremely difficult. Political liberty, on the other hand, is easily lost. In addition, the dangers of liberty are immediate and easy to see, but the dangers of equality are subtle and visible only in the long run. Conversely, the benefits of liberty can only be seen over time and exercising liberty requires sacrifice, while the advantages of equality are felt immediately and easy to obtain. In most modern nations, equality preceded liberty, and it is a more deep-seated passion. As a result, democratic peoples want equality even if it means losing liberty.
However, de Tocqueville is not without his warnings. He writes that “the vices which despotism engenders are precisely those which equality fosters” (Part II, Second Book, Chapter 4, ¶ 1255) and that “it is easier to establish an absolute and despotic government amongst a people in which the conditions of society are equal, than amongst any other …. Despotism therefore appears to me peculiarly to be dreaded in democratic ages” (Part II, Fourth Book, Chapter 7, ¶ 1610). He contrasts aristocratic countries, which abound in wealthy and influential persons who cannot be easily or secretly oppressed, with democratic countries, which contain no such class of persons who “restrain a government within general habits of moderation and reserve” (Part II, Fourth Book, Chapter 7, ¶ 1611). However, private citizens in a democracy can combine together and constitute bodies of great wealth, influence, and strength, creating a class that by artificial means corresponds to the persons of an aristocracy, and in this way, guard the democracy from despotism or tyranny. These civil associations, combined with the power of the press and the general rights that all citizens equally enjoy under law give way to an active, provident, and powerful civil society unheard of in aristocratic nations.
This equality is not to be confused with socialism or equality of economic condition. De Tocqueville notes that Americans are a hardworking people that takes private property seriously: “I know of no country, indeed, where the love of money has taken stronger hold on the affections of men, and where the profounder contempt is expressed for the theory of the permanent equality of property” (Part I, Chapter 2, ¶ 96). The ideas of taxation and redistribution are foreign to the American mind. “In no country in the world is the love of property more active and more anxious than in the United States; nowhere does the majority display less inclination for those principles which threaten to alter, in whatever manner, the laws of property” (Part I, Chapter 21, ¶ 1518).

"Pure Poetry"

Search Amazon.com for the open door

This film is about a woman’s struggle to break free from the constraints and expectations of an oppressive society. After Laila is disillusioned with a romantic relationship marked by unfaithfulness and deceit, she swears never to fall in love again. Yet the idealistic hero Hussain, a fighter for the liberty of Egypt, relentlessly pursues her and urges her not to let a past relationship impede her from experiencing life to its fullest. With an unshakeable faith that he and Laila will one day be together, his constant love letters slowly prod open her calloused, wounded heart. Laila finally breaks off a wedding engagement arranged by her father and comes to accept the daring, bold, selfless Hussain, the man she always truly loved, while risking all of the comforts of her secure life to pursue him and to make his dreams of them together her own.

This is an outstanding film. Each line is written with deep insight into human nature, life, love, freedom, and happiness, and the words of Hussain are like pure poetry that pierce the heart and inspire the soul.

Sun Tzu's classic, "The Art of War": in some ways outdated, in others, prophetic


A. Overview
The ancient Chinese military general Sun Tzu lays out a blueprint for the effective waging of war. In his classic The Art of War, the successful war campaign largely revolves around two key elements: deception and surprise. Sun Tzu also describes the virtues that are required of effective military leaders, and, drawing from his many years of military experience, he gives wide ranging and insightful advice on knowing oneself, knowing one’s enemy, and how to keep the spirits of one’s soldiers fixed on victory. Throughout his treatise, his words are piercing, direct, at times witty, and often paradoxical. He writes, for example, “If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant” (I.22). “Simulated disorder postulates perfect discipline, simulated fear postulates courage; simulated weakness postulates strength” (V.17).

1. Virtues Necessary for a Successful War Campaign
The Commander is to be an exemplar of five virtues: wisdom, sincerity, benevolence, courage and strictness (I.9). Discipline among the Commanders and soldiers is the key to victory. One can even determine which side in a war will be victorious by asking “(1) Which of the two sovereigns is imbued with the Moral law? (2) Which of the two generals has most ability? (3) With whom lie the advantages derived from Heaven and Earth? (4) On which side is discipline most rigorously enforced? (5) Which army is stronger? (6) On which side are officers and men more highly trained? (7) In which army is there the greater constancy both in reward and punishment?” (I.13).

2. The Law of Deception
The Law of Deception is summarized by Sun Tzu with these words: “All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near” (I.18-19).
Sun Tzu goes to great lengths in justifying this assertion and in giving examples of how to deceive and to detect deception from the enemy. He writes, “Humble words and increased preparations are signs that the enemy is about to advance. Violent language and driving forward as if to the attack are signs that he will retreat” (IX.24), but “Peace proposals unaccompanied by a sworn covenant indicate a plot” (IX.26). “At first, then, exhibit the coyness of a maiden, until the enemy gives you an opening; afterwards emulate the rapidity of a running hare, and it will be too late for the enemy to oppose you” (XI.68).

3. Law of Surprise Attack
Surprise is also an important element in weakening the enemy. The military is to “[a]ppear at points which the enemy must hasten to defend; march swiftly to places where you are not expected” (VI.5), and, “[i]n raiding and plundering, be like fire, in immovability like a mountain” (VII.18). “Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt” (VII.19).

4. Effective Warfare
The rest of the treatise focuses on how to wage war in an effective manner. War is to be waged by first knowing oneself and knowing one’s enemy. Battle is never undertaken unless one is certain that he will win. Sun Tzu outlines the five principles of victory: “(1) He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight. (2) He will win who knows how to handle both superior and inferior forces. (3) He will win whose army is animated by the same spirit throughout all its ranks. (4) He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared. (5) He will win who has military capacity and is not interfered with by the sovereign” (III.17).
A successful war campaign is waged efficiently, with the Armed Forces knowing when and how to attack by expending as little effort as possible, for “supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting” (III.2). Few resources are to be expended in an effective war campaign: “The skillful soldier does not raise a second levy, neither are his supply-wagons loaded more than twice” (II.8).
Sun Tzu also seems to hint at a metaphysical plane in which warfare is fought. He writes, for example, that the effective Commander “wins his battles by making no mistakes. Making no mistakes is what establishes the certainty of victory, for it means conquering an enemy that is already defeated” (IV.13), as though war is first fought on some metaphysical plane before the victory and defeated is reflected in the visible, physical world.

B. Critique
Some of Sun Tzu’s counsel is outdated in the age of terrorism, military insurgencies, and digital and nuclear warfare. Some of Sun Tzu’s council revolves around the size and numbers of the enemy’s forces and one’s advantage relative to the enemy based on numbers. Similarly, much of his advice is based on obsolete forms of land warfare that are rarely fought in the modern day. He writes, for example, “Whoever is first in the field and awaits the coming of the enemy, will be fresh for the fight; whoever is second in the field and has to hasten to battle will arrive exhausted” (VI.1). This advice will rarely, if ever, be relevant in an age where most warfare is fought in the air or from long range missiles, with forces rarely clashing in land battles.
The advent of nuclear weapons also changes the entire equation of relative forces and makes the numbers of infantrymen almost irrelevant. Similarly, the introduction of insurgencies that blend into local populations have been able to render even large armies of well equipped soldiers ineffective and unsuccessful. Furthermore, the advent of digital and cyber-warfare makes the numbers of enlisted and commissioned soldiers largely irrelevant to foreign attacks.
Though the forms of warfare have changed over the ages, many of Sun Tzu’s principles continue to apply. Whether fighting a land battle or an air battle, the laws of deception and surprise attack are still relevant and highly effective. Furthermore, Sun Tzu outlines lessons that are important not only for the battlefield, but also for the general struggles of life. He writes, “You can be sure of succeeding in your attacks if you only attack places which are undefended. You can ensure the safety of your defense if you only hold positions that cannot be attacked” (VI.7). This is advice that should be heeded by businessmen, political leaders, and anyone else in a position that requires defending against an onslaught of attacks or competition.

Thursday, June 17, 2010

Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics: a milestone in the exploration of virtue, community, and the end of man

Overview
In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle develops a framework from which to explore morality, human happiness, and man’s purpose. Some have suggested that Aristotle’s framework for ethics was less rigid than that of his predecessor Plato, who took a deductive approach that began with the forms. Although Aristotle’s form begins with the particulars in a more inductive fashion, his Ethics demonstrates that he is as much as a absolutist as Plato was. He concludes that there are certain values, such as courage or generosity, that are absolutely good, though they may manifest themselves in each individual differently.

Book I. Happiness
The ultimate purpose behind each person’s existence is the attainment of happiness, which Aristotle defines as the contemplation of universal truth. Happiness is not for Aristotle a subjective feeling but rather an objective state that comes about when the soul engages in activity that accords with virtue.
In order to determine what this state of happiness looks like, Aristotle must define virtue. He first equates virtue with excellence in furthering man’s purpose. Just as sharpness is the quality that makes a knife excellent because it furthers the knife’s purpose, so too must we look to man’s purpose in order to determine the qualities that further it. Aristotle holds that man’s purpose is to lead a life of reason and deliberation. Happiness is thus equated with the rational activity of the soul that seeks to contemplate and understand reality. Virtue furthers this purpose and leads to a more complete life.

Books II, III, IV. Virtue of Character and the Preconditions of Virtue
What are the virtues that enabled man to fulfill his purpose? Aristotle defines moral virtue is a “mean” between the extremes of excess and deficiency. It is not an “average” between extremes, but rather, a central, balanced position. Moderation is the key to the virtues. For example, courage is a virtue that is the mean between cowardice and rashness: whereas the cowardly will not act at all, the rash will rush into imprudent and risky action. The courageous, in contrast, act at the right time and to the right extent in undertaking the right degree of risk. Similarly, pride is the mean between vanity and humility and gentleness is the mean between irascibility and spiritlessness.
In matters of wealth, the two extremes are prodigality, which leads to waste, and meanness or stinginess, which attaches too much importance on wealth. Generosity or liberality, in contrast, is the mean in matters pertaining to wealth. Wealth is therefore best used by the generous man, who spends for the sake of the noble and right; he will give the right amount to the right people at the right time.
Among the other virtues, Aristotle discusses magnanimity, temperance, truthfulness, justice, and wit. All of these virtues manifest themselves differently in each individual, but they always hold the characteristic of moderation between extremes. The more the individual acts out with knowledge and self-discipline in accordance with these virtues by making moral choices for the good, the more the individual will acquire virtue and true happiness.

Book VII. Incontinence
Aristotle distinguishes between three bad moral states—vice, incontinence, and brutishness—and their contrary states—virtue, continence, and superhuman virtue. He focuses his discussion on continence and incontinence. Whereas incontinence is weakness of will that impedes an individual from acting according to what he knows to be good, continence is the strength to do as he knows to be good and successfully resist the passions.
When one commits a vice, he acts immorally according to his choice. When he acts incontinently, however, he acts against what he knows to be the moral good, and thus acts against what his mind wills. Incontinent action is therefore not vice in the strict sense, and one may be consciously aware that he is committing an incontinent act while he is in the act of committing it.
The pleasures that may lead to incontinency revolve around three kinds of activities: (i) unnecessary pleasures, such as honor and wealth; (ii) things worthy of avoidance; and (iii) the necessary functions for life, such as food and sexual intercourse. An incontinent man is unable to abide by his resolutions to resist these desires.

Book VIII. Friendship and Community
Although a life of intellectual virtue is man’s highest state of happiness, it involves a level of isolation that is not completely possible for man. Because man is a social creature, a necessary part of his life involves community and friendship, the relationship where a man acts out for the good of another and tastes his joys and shares his sorrows as though they were his own. Yet while man engages in friendship and community, his decisions should be governed by the intellect in accordance with virtue. It is the purpose of politics and the city to enable the framework from which men can realize this vision and thus live the good life.

Book X. Pleasure
As for pleasure, Aristotle does not equate it with the hedonistic sense that it has come to acquire in our modern day. Rather, pleasure is for Aristotle the ultimate good that results from virtuous action. Because virtue is inextricably tied up to happiness, the virtuous man leads the most pleasant life. Although the end or purpose of virtue is not pleasure, the virtuous man, because he engages in virtue for its own sake, will experience pleasure as a natural consequence of his nature.