The West Wing, 5 Jan 05

Another brilliant and enthusiastically liberal episode of "The West Wing" last night. I wonder if they are planning on Santos (I can't recall the actors name right now) replacing Bartlett. It will be interesting what they do for the next couple of seasons, if they do anything. I appreciate how, like many liberals, the marginalize the "religious right" and treat the abhorrance of same-sex marriage as if it were alchemy. There are several ways to debate an issue. One way is to argue logically and address the issue head-on. This is the proper way. The easy way is to mock the other side of the issue. This is part of liberal dogma. What they believe is ultimate, absolute truth. Anyone who disagrees with them is insane. Liberals excel at framing the debate. They have been able to define any view that opposes same-sex marriage as homophobic and gay-bashing. No one can defend a discriminatory view. Thankfully, the belief in traditional marriage is not a discriminatory view. At least, it is no more discriminatory than the belief that 12 years old ought not be having sex. This is a moral issue. It is about what is right and wrong. It is not about freedom versus oppression. If an act is morally wrong and socially detrimental, then no one has the right to do it. That is one of the functions of law. As I have argued before, homosexuality is an evolutionary dead-end. It seems paradoxical to say that we are making progress when we accept same-sex marriage.

I thought that Santos' speech about hope at the end seems eerily reminescent of John Edwards' speech at the DNC--"Hope is the on the way." In the show, the speech pointed out that all we need is hope. Hope, today, is a rather impotent word. It has two different meanings. One is "that which a person wishes or longs for." An example would be that I hope the Blue Devils win the ACC this year, although I have no assurance that they will. Everyone has this type of hope. Everyone desires something more or different that what they have. But this wishing is meaningless. It is completely without substance. Hoping for something has no bearing on whether or not it will be fulfilled. Another definition of hope is "a definite assurance that some event will occur." St. Paul talks about the Christian's glorious hope. This is far more definitive than wistful thinking. As Christians, we know that Christ will one day return and take us home. This hope is present knowledge of a future event. Most every religion I can think of offers this type of hope, yet none of them are the same. Islam offers the hope that one day all the earth will give praise to Allah. Hinduism offers the hope that one day all will attain a higher plane of existence. To say that all we need is hope is meaningless, since no two people have the same hope. As Christians, we believe we have to only true hope. I suppose every religion believes that have the only true hope. We don't need hope. Hope in some nebulous event does nothing for us.