Whose Meta-Narrative, Which Relativism?

(This Article was submitted to Academic Questions, a Journal of the National Association of Scholars)

Whose Meta-Narrative, Which Relativism?: Intellectual Jihad and the Un-masking of Liberalism

by CH Rob J King, Faculty, Grand Canyon University


The other day I posted a "blog" on a political adversary's blog-site. I posted the “blog” in response to a heated exchange on the new Wikia Campaigns e-mail list. Although he is an unknown outside the world of "techies," this list serve had been created by the ‘one and only’ Jim "Jimbo" Wales, inventor of Wiki-pedia, the free on-line encyclopedia. At the heart of the debate was what constitutes "free speech," what constitutes "spam" and what criteria would be utilized in making such decisions. This on-line interlocutor (a law student at Columbia University and undergrad alum of Duke ironically enough) essentially wanted to silence me in this forum due to my Pro-Life political commitments. My response to his “Nazi-spam request” was “Sir, If protecting the lives of babies is wasted time then I will pray for you.” Based upon this response, I received numerous follow-up e-mails and ended up being listed in his personal blog, with a surprising commentary by many of his own friends saying that he was trying to silence me because he simply disagreed with my political views.

Although the further details of this exchange are logged forever in the computer banks of Wikipedia, the conceptual argument (something missed by most respondents, including the Columbia law student!) was nevertheless completely overlooked. Mud-slinging abounded, but the heart of the conceptual discussion only three respondents seemed to even have a clue of what was being argued! In many ways, the exchange epitomized what Alasdair MacIntyre described in After Virtue, a type of confused moral discourse in which various moral and political terminology was being utilized, and much on-line ink was being spilled, but by and large the conversation partners were speaking past each other conceptually. The primary problem with the entire discussion was that it is was marked by an incommensurability of moral terminology and at times a creeping form of emotivism in which the truth or falsehood of any respective view was based solely on a cloaked meritocracy of on-line insider knowledge (i.e. the Wikipedia "good ole boys club"), rather than any type of serious engagement of the premises (stated and unstated) of a counter-posed argument. Well as a gate-crasher (the civilized Greek crashing the Gates of the Barbarians!), all I could do was put on my best Stanley Hauerwas epistemological gun-slinging tie and blue jeans and get to work deconstructing (provocatively if necessary) the incoherence and raw will-to-power of my interlocutor.

First I began with Michel Foucault, a darling of Liberalism (he was after all a practicing homosexual) who was used as a subversive attempt to pull intellectual insurrection among the Liberal camp by pointing to the supposed ‘objectivity’ of knowledge as often being a thinly clad will-to-power propped up by state-run institutions such as the modern prison system. Next, I threw at them Alasdair MacIntyre, the former Scottish Marxist turned Aristotelian, who was used to drop philosophical “smart bombs” on many remaining Liberal bunkers by conceptually asking the question of sociology of knowledge, even to the point of enquiring about the professional and academic qualifications that were supporting their blanket dismissal of highly nuanced philosophical arguments. Of course, any religious speech on my part was jettisoned by the on-line liberals as being "extremist.” To the Liberal camp, some of whom were even Christian Liberals, all that I was doing was a jihad intellectually. Their response to me, the supposed intellectual jihadist was, “ban all Pro-Life speech from Political Forums!” “Put on the spam filter!” “Move the discussion to a different web-blog!” Whereas one could advocate even starting a new Technological Party in Campaigns Wikia (a.k.a. “the Green Party with I-Pods!”), if one raises even an on-line eyebrow concerning the marginalizing of Pro-life politics (in short, the Republican Party's majority!) then suddenly I was viewed as Osama with a rosary!

Although I am, in fact, engaged in the culture wars (as an on-line professor and military chaplain), “intellectual jihad” is not the correct category for such cultural warfare. Rather than "destroying Liberals" (the jihadist approach), simply unmasking Liberal hypocrisy is the goal of this paper. Like Foucault, himself a Liberal post-modernist, astutely pointed out, Liberalism, on its own terms, usually degenerates into hypocrisy and at times raw police force. If one cannot silence the Pro-Life movement intellectually, then make it a crime to peacefully assemble in protest. If one cannot understand an on-line interlocutor's argument, then simply pull the "good ole boy" dirty hand of screaming for spam filters. In that setting, hypocrisy was successfully unmasked. Even the young Columbia law student’s friends “blogged” on about how he was trying to silence me—victory for classical thought.

Whose Meta-Narrative, Which Relativism?

Unlike the post-modern era, the classical era in Western civilization (Fifth Century B.C. – Fifth Century A.D.) has been adopted (co-opted even!) by Jew, Christian and pagan alike. Why is this so? Why did early Christian theologians such as Augustine in the West and Gregory of Nyssa in the East, two thinkers trained in the philosophical paideia of the time, essentially fuse neo-Platonism and Biblical Christian belief? In the contemporary scene, why do Christian and Private Secular Educationists alike herald the value of a “Great Books” curriculum in which Plato, Aristotle, et al are studied? One answer is that the classical era, unlike modern relativism degenerating into post-modernism, provides for and in fact is built upon meta-narrative. For Plato to think that his thought was not universally applicable (i.e. a type of “meta-narrative”), but rather only “true for him” or “true for Athens” (i.e. relativism) would be completely alien to Plato. For example, In positing the “ideal Republic” or the “ideal of justice,” Plato sought after a universal standard, and a universal standard as set within an overarching universal cosmology and epistemology, in short, a coherent universally applicable meta-narrative. Granted the term “meta-narrative” itself implies a deviation from classical thought in that something “other-than-meta-narrative” can even be conceptualized, but having crossed the Rubicon of Post-Modernism, meta-narrative must now be the category de jeur that Christian, Jew and pagan alike must now seek to recapture.

Now that we are agreed that any attempted retrieval of classical thought, in order to be true to the texts themselves (texts qua texts, a methodology difficult for post-modern literary critics, for example Stanley Fish who views textual meaning as inextricably narrative community-dependent) must also, of course, be an exercise in meta-narrative. Normative reality is the conceptual framework (epistemological and cosmological) of Classical Thought, but the question would still remain, whose meta-narrative would one use? The Christian meta-narrative is the one and only true meta-narrative, and to think otherwise would be to go against the heart of Christian thought as Christian Belief is grounded in the Eternal and Incarnate LOGOS (John 1:1-18). All reality is breathed forth by the Spirit working in creation (Genesis 1), the ruach elohim, and as breathed forth by the Spirit the LOGOS is embedded in all of creation, if not in essence (the pantheist heresy), then in LOGIC. As Thomas Aquinas would later clarify, Divine Rationality is the source and mirror of all human rationality, and therefore the LOGOS is itself the LOGIC of all creation. Thus, to the Christian, meta-narrative should be an issue that has already been solved. The LOGOS is the meta-narrative, not just for Christians, but for the entire cosmos. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things came into being through Him, and without Him not one thing came into being.” (John 1:1-3) The Christian worldview is one which by its very own self-authenticating criterion of epistemological authority (i.e. the LOGOS as Divine Rationality) can never be a form of relativism or post-modernism to the extent that such canonical aspects of Christian belief would therefore be jettisoned. No, to be Christian is to not be a relativist, nor a post-modernist.

Having noted the epistemological superiority of the Christian worldview as the universal meta-narrative that not only transcends but is instantiated in world culture(s), given that Christianity still only represents 1/3 of the world population, the question of competing meta-narratives still presents itself. Whose meta-narrative should Higher Education (or Governmental structures) be based upon? Should simple majority rule determine whether or not institutions are rooted in the Christian meta-narrative? If majority rule is cited, would the “minority perspective” (e.g. Buddhism, Islam, Wicca, scientology, secular humanism) also be included in order to create a practical “hodge-podge of viewpoints?” If competing meta-narratives are “fused” (perhaps in Hegelian fashion!), would the end result still be anyone’s meta-narrative? Truly within Christianity, such a fusion of rival traditions of enquiry can result in a fruitful re-conceptualizing of Christian Belief, for example as Alasdair MacIntyre argues is the case for Augustinian Platonism and a rediscovered medieval Aristotelianism resulting in the thought of Thomas Aquinas. But is such a fusion of rival traditions even possible outside of the Christian Meta-Narrative? One could posit a LOGOS-based fusion of Christian Belief and other intellectual and/or religious traditions as somehow being grounded in creation—i.e. all grounded in the LOGOS as embedded in nature—but in so doing, the resulting meta-narrative would still be Christian.

Therefore, in conclusion, and in agreement with the radical orthodox camp (e.g. John Milbank of the University of Virginia; Stanley Hauerwas of Duke), there is no other option than the Christian meta-narrative. Truly, one can disagree with part or the whole of Christian belief (unbelief is always an option), but according to its own terms, Christian meta-narrative would have to be everyone’s meta-narrative. Within this meta-narrative of Christian Belief, surely practice plays a constituency-defining role (the point made by virtue ethicists such as MacIntyre, Hauerwas, et al). Also, within this Christian meta-narrative, other worldviews (philosophical and religious) can be incorporated. For example, Platonic thought was easily adopted by Christian theologians of the first seven centuries and Aristotelian categories similarly co-opted by Aquinas and the medieval scholasticism that ensued. Also, other religions can find expression (in part) in orthodox Christian belief and practice, without degenerating into syncretism (e.g. a proto-Trinitarian belief expressed by indigenous pre-Christian religion in the Philippines). Thus, both philosophy and world religion can be contained within the Christian meta-narrative, but only to the extent that such thought and practice is in conformity with the Divine LOGOS who is Jesus Christ, the Incarnate WORD. Therefore, although the Christian meta-narrative is indeed the only meta-narrative, the final question is which relativism would one be speaking of in such queries as I found in my on-line political battle on Wikia Campaigns? The ordinary, fallacious relativism, is of course ver boten. What is “true for a community” or “true for an individual” is either true or false universally. There is no middle ground. Having discarded the fallacious form of relativism (the kind of relativistic thinking that clouds the minds of much Western Higher Education), a “provisional relativism” is nonetheless both allowable and warranted. Here, the Orthodox theological sharp division between “apophatic theology” (knowledge that is a mystery) and “kataphatic theology” (knowledge that can be known, either revealed or through natural means) is a helpful addition to the current conversation concerning the present incoherence of the modern, and post-modern Western university system. Granted, this form of “provisional relativism” would still be under the Christian Meta-Narrative, but through emphasizing what would be considered a mystery (both theologically and of the cosmos), a certain type of “relativism” would be and in fact should be affirmed in that no single culture has a stranglehold on the “ONE TRUTH.” If only my on-line interlocutor could see either the need to affirm an overarching meta-narrative or the consequent need to affirm a type of apophatic Christian relativism that could encompass all of the world’s cultures within the Mystery of Salvation.

On Being a Pentecostal Political Voice

I am a Pentecostal. More accurately, I am a Spirit-Filled Christian in communion with the Vatican. Therefore, I would be classifed as a "Charismatic Catholic."

So, what difference does "Spirit-Filled" mean in being a Christian? In being a Political Voice?

To answer the first question, I can only answer by saying, it makes ALL of the difference whether or not one is Filled with the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Triune God, is none other than God Himself here on earth. The Paraclete of Whom the Gospel of John writes, "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you." (John 14:26)

Being "Filled with the Holy Spirit" does not mean that Spirit-Filled Christians are "better" than anyone else, or that they/we will not sin or "backslide" even, but that the very Presence of God Himself is living with us, both as individuals and as Christian communities.

Being "Filled with the Holy Spirit" also means that the TEACHING of Jesus is ever-present and that Spirit-Filled Christians are reminded of this teaching constantly. In fact, the Christian celebration of Pentecost (Acts 2) is nothing other than the Greek word for the Jewish festival called "Shavuot," the holiday that celebrates the Torah, the Teaching of Moses. Thus, just as Jesus Christ came as the fulfillment of the Torah, so also did the sending of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (Shavuot) also signify that the very Teaching of God Himself is now Present in God's own Presence through the Holy Spirit's reminder of such teaching. The Holy Spirit is God, and as such, Who is better than God Himself to teach and remind us of God's Teaching?

What about being a Political Voice?

Does my position as both a Spirit-Filled Christian and as a Catholic, somehow "nullify" the opportunity to be heard?

Well, in former times in the United States, well, yes, it would have. Religious prejudice, especially in the 1960's and 1970's had been rampant.

Now, however, many fellow Americans, both religious and secular, want to hear my perspective on different political issues. Senator Patrick Leahy recently sought me out at an Academic Conference due to my position as a specifically religious leader (Senator Leahy is a Roman Catholic). Similarly, my good friend Chad Lupkes, a prolific On-Line Political Commentator (editor of Wikia Campaigns) is an ultra-liberal, but as a seeker after TRUTH, Chad has often come to many of the very same political conclusions as I have. Ultra-conservative (me) and Ultra-liberal (Chad) agreeing on about 80% of political issues . . . how striking.

Therefore, theologically in that the Holy Spirit is God Himself, being Pentecostal is nothing other than allowing God, and not me in my human frailty, be the One in control. "God is my co-pilot" as the bumper sticker reads. But also politically, secularists are increasingly responsive to such a religious viewpoint. Whether it is an ultra-liberal like Chad or an On-line respondent to one of the various articles I have written, people are increasingly coming to respect such religious convictions.

Thank you for your time.

God bless,
Rob J. King

On Being Smarter Than Everyone Else . . .

I am the second smartest person living in the United States. This may sound cocky, but true humility is being honest in one's own capabilities. I scored about a 2300 on the GRE Practice Exam back in 1999 if anybody wants "statistical proof." (2400 is a perfect score).

Why am I the second smartest person living in the United States then you might ask?

Well, in addition to "secular" rationality (i.e. GRE scores, full academic scholarships to places like Davidson College, Duke University Divinity School, University of Notre Dame), I am also a product of a rigorous theological education. From Ancient Writers such as Gregory of Nyssa, Thomas Aquinas, et al to contemporary theologians such as Karl Barth, Stanely Hauerwas and Geoffrey Wainright (the smartest man in America, but he's British!), my mind has been indelibly shaped by the Divine LOGOS, that is the WORD of God Who Is Jesus Christ.

St. Thomas Aquinas, medieval Catholic systematic theologian, one time made the connection between Divine Rationality and human rationality stating that the latter is nothing other than an instantiation of the former. In lay men's terms, we are only smart to the extent that our minds are conformed to Jesus Christ, the Divine Rationality (i.e. the "LOGOS") which is stated in Philippians 2:5 that says, "Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus." To be truly rational is to have our minds as conformed to Jesus Christ as HIGHLY as possible, in humility, empowered and enlightened by the Holy Spirit, grounded in the Word of God, and in communion with the saints throughout history, both in heaven and on earth. This is why I am the second smartest person in the United States (my mentor, Geoffrey Wainwright, like I said, is the smartest, because his mind is more grounded in Scripture, and more in conversation with the entire communion of saints, living and dead).

Michel Foucault, one of the greatest secular minds of the 20th century, one time wrote that, "to comment is to admit by definition an excess of the signified over the signifier; a necessary, unformulated remainder of the thought of language has left in the shade--a remainder that is the very essence of that thought, driven outside its secret--but to comment also presupposes that this unspoken element slumbers within speech (French = parole), and that, by a superabundance proper to the signifier, one may, in questioning it, give voice to a content that was not explicitly signified. By opening up the possibility of commentary, this double plethora dooms us to an endless task that nothing can limit: there is always a certain amount of signified remaining that must be allowed to speak, while the signifier is always offered to us in an abundance that questions us, in spite of ourselves, as to what it 'means' (French = veut dire). Signifier and signified thus assume a substantial autonomy that accords the treasure of a virtual signification to each of them separately . . ." ( Michel Foucault, The Birth of the Clinic: An Archaeology of Medical Perception, translated from the French Naissance de la Clinique, 1963, p. xvi)

In many ways, Foucault's words ring as true today as they did back in 1963!

Foucault, a true social prophet, saw many of the horrific abuses that the modern Western democracies would increasingly perpetrate. Whether it is the coerced euthanasia of the Netherlands, U.S. detainment of foreign nationals even when acquitted (Military Commissions Act of 2006), anti-pro-life legislation that denies the right to free assembly of pro-life protesters or the practice of CIA internment of suspected terrorists outside any due process of law, truly, we are living in Orwellian times, and it was people like Foucault who could see it all coming to fruition.

To signify is to lead. To be signified is to be led.

Of course, one of the legionous tactics of the Western democratic police state is to always play the role of the signifier, by force if necessary. Pro-labor movements can be conveniently signified as "communists" (e.g. the anti-apartheid forces of 1980's South Africa). Intellectuals can be signified as hopelessly "out of touch" and living in "ivory towers" at best and even classified as "mentally ill" at worst. I know of one professor who one time classified both the world's foremost moral philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre and Pope John Paul II as both being "crazy," all because he was too stupid to rationally follow their arguments.

Yes, to signify is to control. To be signified is to be controlled.

Therefore, let us as Jews, Christians and good rational secular thinkers (like Foucault) produce a signifying that the world will never forget. Anti-apartheid forces succeeded in signifying the racist apartheid regime not as "capitalist," but rather as racist and thus evil. Pro-life forces are waging a war to signify abortionists as murderers, rather than being signified as "religious fanatics." Mother Teresa, the late Pro-Life Voice, called into question such signification by accepting any unwanted child. And now, from the military to our Federal Government, being intelligent is suddenly "in vogue." Rather than being "mentally ill" (Alasdair MacIntyre or the Pope!) or being "out of touch," suddenly America wants intelligent leaders.

Thank you for your time.

God bless,
Rob J King

Homeless Shelters & High Rises . . .

The other day I spent $78 for a pair of quite ordinary blue jeans. I also gave $5 to a beggar in violation of the St. Petersburg, Florida law that would have sent the beggar to jail.

So, why did I spend 3X the cost on a pair of blue jeans that I could have bought at Old Navy just a couple of minutes away?

Also, why did I engage in this Martin Luther King, Jr. "civil disobedience?"

Well, the answer to the second question is simple. Jesus said in His Sermon on the Mount "Give to everyone who begs from you," and "if someone asks for your cloak, give him your coat as well." (The beggar asked for $2, so I gave him $5 instead).

The answer to the first question, however, is less direct.

Was I trying to "drive up the prices" of blue jeans by buying the $78 pair?

Was I inordinately arrogant and "can only buy the expensive jeans"?

Well, no.

The reason why I spent that extra money was as a sign of resistance against the economic powers that be. As an On-Line Professor, I have found out that the sooner I am able to complete my grading, the quicker "the Corporation" (Orwellian Big Brother!) is to find a way to "maximize their earnings" off of my blood and sweat (I have taught at "for-profit" on-line universities since 2005). The reason I say resistance is because through "propping up" a standard of living slightly higher than what I "really" need, I am assured that all of my good traits such as multi-tasking, bargain shopping, etc. are not directed to the diabolical ends of exploitative labor practices . . . In short, if workers "scrimp & save" and buy jeans for say only $10 at Wal-mart, the economic powers that be can and do take such Virtue and seek to pervert it. "Well, look, those low-income workers really don't need that much of a wage" the Corporate Fat Cats would say. And yes, they would be correct. $2 for socks. $10 for pants. $8 for a T-shirt and the list goes on.

So, although I am always looking for a "great deal" (e.g. the Dockers-style slacks with the Notre Dame logo that I bought at Bell's outlet store for only $10!), I am also careful to never "go too low" in my standard of living. So, while on vacation, I went ahead and bought the $78 pair of blue jeans. What this meant was that Bay Walk shopping center is able to continue paying their downtown St. Petersburg rent, two young athletic men are assured of a good job paying more than minimum wage and there in turn the standard of living is raised rather than lowered in the downtown St. Pete area. What can I say, I am a neo-conservative economically wanting people to work and to work for a livable wage and be able to contribute fully to the economy through their own consumer spending. But for the one man or woman or family who does fall through the crack, then yes, a helping hand is in order. To be a follower of Jesus, or simply to be a good neighbor would entail such "compassionate conservatism."

God Bless,
Rob J King

Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr. and the schizophrenic mind . . .

In Dr. King's life, the greatest source of frustration were neither the ultra-liberals, nor the ultra-conservatives, but rather the "mediocre moderates."

In the words of Dr. King, regarding the hypocrisy of the U.S. political scene, however, Dr. King described America as having a "schizophrenic personality," racist on the far right and hypocritical in its attitude towards the poor (a type of civil rights cut short by an assassin's crazed bullet).

To honor Dr. King, who combined the core religious values of the "far right" (i.e. Baptist Evangelical Church Theology) with the activism of the "far left" (i.e. sit-ins, bus boycotts, etc.), rather than being "schizophrenic," a better description for such a "Beautiful Mind" as Dr. King's is called genius. The following is a response from one such "Beautiful Mind," Activist from Seattle, Chad Lupkes who never accepts mediocrity, but embodies the "political schizophrenia" of Dr. King, in other words, a Far Left Radical political voice who ironically enough sees the good sense of promoting STRONG FAMILY VALUES POLITICS. Without further adieu, Chad Lupkes,

So was Dr. Martin Luther King an ultra-liberal or an ultra-conservative???

The question itself is nearly invalid. What would make MLK, Jr. one or the other? Was he a liberal because he preached against the Vietnam War and in support of Labor Unions? Was he a conservative because he believed in the spiritual values of the church? Was he a Democrat because he had to convince a Democratic Congress and LBJ to pass and sign the Civil Rights Act, even though it was known at the time that the Democratic Party would lose power in the South for a generation or more? Was he a Republican because the signer of the Emancipation Proclamation was a Republican?

Was Thomas Jefferson a Republican or a Democrat?

When did Jesus himself use violence against his enemies? Did Gandhi believe that he was doing the correct thing from Hindi values, or Christian values? Or were all of these people, Dr. King, Thomas Jefferson or Gandhi, products of their time and peaceful warriors in pursuit of a particular goal? Dr. King wanted the black people in the United States to be treated equally with everyone else, and he had started to build a campaign in support of the poor and working class when he was killed. Jefferson wanted to secure the blessings of liberty for his generation and all generations to come. And Gandhi wanted the British Empire to leave India and let the people of that country find their own path. I also follow a social tradition. It's a tradition that Jefferson, Franklin, Roosevelt (both of them) and Kennedy expressed numerous times. And that tradition says the people are sovereign, and that the best way to free a people is to empower them to free themselves, and not lead them where they do not want to go. Chad

Pat Tillman, martyr of America

In a current on-line poll of 118,223 respondents, 80% believe that Pat Tillman was killed as a result of fratricide (i.e. friendly fire).

For those of you who may be unfamiliar with the story, Pat Tillman was an NFL football player, who decided bravely to serve his country. Pat Tillman set aside the easy life of Glory, Money and Fame to lead the New America. Valor over dollars. But, the "Old America," the America that would rather belittle a person than recognize a true hero, the "Old America" that would rather victimize a "General" in the civil realm, instead gunned down one of America's (the "New America" of heroism, self-sacrifice, etc.) best and brightest country men.

So, what is your opinion?

Did Pat Tillman really die as a hero OR was Pat Tillman an even greater hero who died defending the TRUE America, who died as a result of fratricide?

Please post your responses. I would love to know . . .

Blessings,
Rob J King

Blog to an Ultra-Liberal, but one with a good heart ...

Chad, my friend,

This correspondence is important, and I will now reprint it for the purpose of National Debate:

Chad,

I wanted to share a PUBLIC Military breach . . .

In 2004 I filled out one of those Republican Party surveys (I had donated $2000 in 2004 to an African American GOP candidate . . .), and I had told the Republican Party NOT to equip the Iraqi Army with the most expensive of weaponry, etc. because there might be "sleepers" who were actually Saddam loyalists, terrorists, etc.

Fortunately, we went this direction and held back on our best technology, etc., BUT the "sleeper" argument horrifically proved true as one of the worst attacks on our forces was the bomb that went off in our dining facility (smuggled in by one such "sleeper"). Horrifically, I know a Chaplain who was actually there and lived through it. In other words, be careful demonizing your fellow Americans while you are lax in National Security. Any coincidence that the VA Tech massacre was perpetrated by a North Korean foreign national??? Sleepers are right here my friend, and [what] we can do about it now is to Americanize them and have them get so addicted to American prosperity that they don't want to blow themselves up on our soil. Trust me on this one. The Republican Party did, and we are safer because of it.

This will be shared in my Presidential Exploratory Committee blog if you would like to follow up publicly.

Blessings in YHWH,
Rob J King

Presidential Exploratory Committee

Dear Friends,

I am a thirty five year old Father of two.

I am deathly scared about the situation of the world, both internationally, and domestically.

I am afraid of "radical Islam" continuing to send waves of hate towards America, and the rest of the world. I am afraid of N. Korea planting spies in our university system, our military even, and perhaps even our federal government.

I am afraid of a 50%+ divorce rate. I am afraid of children left to the family of no one but the state. I am afraid of abortion. I am afraid of killing the mentally ill, the elderly and the infirm, I am afraid that what happened in Nazi Germany (militarily, medically, governmentally) could, in fact, happen here in the United States.

In a recent personal conversation with Senator Patrick Leahy, the good senator reminded me of the horror of horrors that the War on Terror had produced, namely a leak in federal protection for those in custody whom we call terrorists and who may in fact be, but nevertheless are still entitled to due process under law, the truest of American traits.

Will you now join with me to help rebuild the Republic, "One Nation Under God, Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."?

Whether it was as an Offensive Center blocking for Davidson College record-setting quarterback Richard Howell (current strength & conditioning coach of the Indianapolis Colts) or serving on the Presidential Campaign of Mark Klein, M.D. or teaching scores of on-line students, I am committed to doing what it takes to lead America into a new, brighter, more life-affirming covenant between God and we the American people.

As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. shouted from the mountain, "We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied, as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We can never be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream." ("I Have a Dream" speech, M.L. King, Jr.)

As someone who has been a victim of police brutality, as someone who has seen a black Pentecostal brother show me the wounds of a police-inflicted stun gun, as someone who has been denied due process under law, I stand for Freedom and I stand for America.

Won't you now join me?

God bless,
Rob J King