November 2014

November 2014

Volume XXII, Issue II

The Fenwick Review

The Independent Journal of Opinion at the College of the Holy Cross http://college.holycross.edu/studentorgs/fenwickreview/index.html

@FenwickReview

Catholics Love Science Eric Kuhn ’16 Staff Writer

In selecting Neil deGrasse Tyson as its 2014 speaker, the Hanify Howland Committee made a bold and provocative choice. Dr. Tyson is one of the foremost authorities on astronomy and is currently the director of the Hayden Planetarium at the Rose Center for Earth and Space.

He is well known for lecturing on astronomy since the age of 15. In 2000 People designated Dr. Tyson “the sexiest astrophysicist alive.” He has an interesting story to tell and is an inspiration for anyone exploring the sciences. Our speaker is also well known, however, for his outspokenness on another subject: the place of people of faith in the scientific community as well as the place of faith in the public

square. Dr. Tyson has stated his position in popular essays, including “The Perimeter of Ignorance” and “Holy Wars.” In them he brashly states, “Let there be no doubt that as they are currently practiced, there is no common ground between science and religion.”

This statement should be especially concerning in a liberal arts college, in which the goal is to promote, as much as possible, the interrelation between religion and the hard sciences.

In interviews, Dr. Tyson has asserted that he is by no means a militant atheist but an “I don’t really care atheist.” This stance is actually rather refreshing when compared with overly polemical people like Richard Dawkins. To suppose that a scientist’s religious faith is detrimental to the pursuit of science, however, is questionable and shows an ignorance of

The Good, The Bad, And The Pragmatic ..........Page 6

history. It appears that he is painting with a wide brush when he derides religious people. Dr. Tyson characterizes faithful people and scientists as overly credulous and somewhat ridiculous. Some books such as The Physics of Immortality suggest that “the laws of physics might allow you and your soul to exist long after you are gone from this world.” I see this idea as pseudo-scientific pandering. It is true that some scientists do find it very lucrative lecturing to Evangelicals, but Dr. Tyson should not attack the least theologically-rich proponents of religion to make his point.

He not only criticizes Evangelicals but also extends his scrutiny to such a revered scientific figure as Sir Isaac Newton, who “penned more words about God and religion than about the laws of physics.” He

argues that Newton fails as a scientist by invoking God to explain complicated natural problems. While some would call this a sign of humility and a recognition of the limits of human knowledge, Dr. Tyson regards it as intellectual infantilism. Admittedly, Newton was wrong in trying to find the answers to natural phenomena in the Bible, and unfortunately people continue to do this in the present day.

The Catholic Church, however, from its earliest times has tried to avoid interpreting the Bible literally. St. Paul writes, “The letter kills but the spirit gives life.” Galileo chimed in aptly, “The Bible does not tell how the heavens go, but how to go to Heaven.”

Continued on page 8

A Hammer in a World With Few Nails ......Page 8

The Fenwick Review

2

Mission Statement As the College of the Holy Cross’s independent journal of opinion, The Fenwick Review strives to promote intellectual freedom and progress on campus. The staff of The Fenwick Review takes pride in defending traditional Catholic principles and conservative ideas, and does its best to articulate thoughtful alternatives to the dominant campus ethos. Our staff values Holy Cross very much, and desires to help make it the best it can be by strengthening and renewing the College’s Catholic identity, as well as working with the College to encourage constructive dialogue and an open forum to foster new ideas.

To The Benefactors In this issue, as in every issue, we must reserve space to offer a heartfelt thank you to our benefactors, without whom The Fenwick Review would not exist. We extend our profound gratitude to The Collegiate Network and the generous individual and alumni donors to The Fenwick Review, for their ongoing enthusiasm and support of our mission. You are always in our prayers, and with each issue we publish, our first goal is to justify the incredible faith you have shown in us.

Mr. Guy C. Bosetti Dr. and Mrs. Paul Braunstein Mr. and Mrs. Michael Dailey Mr. J. O’Neill Duffy Mr. and Mrs. Richard Fisher Mr. and Mrs. Daniel Gorman Mr. Robert W. Graham III Mr. and Mrs. Thomas W. Greene Mr. Paul M. Guyet Mr. Robert R. Henzler Mr. William Horan Mr. Joseph Kilmartin Mr. Robert J. Leary ‘49 Mr. Francis Marshall ‘48 Mr. J. O’Neill Duffy Mr Kevin O’Scannlain Fr Paul Scalia Dr Ronald Safko Mr. Sean F. Sullivan Jr.

November 2014

Contents November 2014

Volume XXII, Issue II

Catholics Love Science (1,8)

Eric Kuhn ’16

Letters to the Editor (4)

Joseph Vara ’15 Dan Gorman ’54

Marriage and the Church (5)

Colby Baker ’15

The Good, The Bad, And The Pragmatic

(6)

Joseph Murphy ’16

A Daly Dose of Feminism (6)

Nikolas Churik ’15

In Christendom’s Twilight (7)

Steven Merola ’16

A Hammer in a World With Few Nails

(8)

Austin Barselau ’18

(deGrasse) Tyson v. Holy Cross (9)

Chase Padusniak ’15

Contemporary Christian Martyrdom: ISIS and the Genocide in the Middle East (10)

Gimme Shelter (11)

Anthony John ’16 J. Alex Cicchitti ’15

The Fenwick Review

3

November 2014

The Fenwick Review 2014-2015 Staff

Letter from the editors Dear Readers,

Thank you for picking up the Fenwick Review.

In this issue, articles look at a range of topics: foreign, domestic, religious, and political. Several pieces on international issues in this publication appropriately coincide with Veterans Day, celebrated this month. We should remember the dictum from the final stanza of John McCrae’s “In Flanders Field” to “Take up our quarrel with the foe /… If ye break faith with us who die / We shall not sleep, though poppies grow / In Flanders fields.”

These words, recited every year, remind the listener of the continuing causes for which the dead fought. And, yet, so too, should we recall the haunting, final lines from Wilfred Owens’s “Dulce et decorum est”: “you would not tell with such high zest / To children ardent for some desperate glory, / The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est Pro patria mori.” A couple of articles in this issue explore the difficulties of patriotism and belligerence: how can one support a war? And why?

Two articles present opinions on the choice of

Neil deGrasse Tyson as this year’s Hanify-Howland lecturer. Although Dr. Tyson’s views on religion and religious people are at odds with those of the writers, he is still a major public intellectual whose views have been received widely. The remaining articles look at topics in culture and public discourse.

As a final word, on Veterans Day this year, perhaps, we might consider words from the Pogues, “And the old men march slowly, all bent, stiff and sore / The forgotten heroes from a forgotten war / And the young people ask, ‘What are they marching for?’” As we view the actions and decisions made before our time, we might wonder for what reasons these choices were made and for what reasons this march continues.

As always, we hope you find what you read in The Fenwick Review enjoyable, interesting, or, at least, thought-provoking.

Roga magis,

Co-Editors-in-Chief Nikolas Churik ’15 Chase J. Padusniak ’15

Executive Layout Editor Claire Mahoney ’15

Staff Writers

Amber Alley ’16 Anthony John ’16 Austin Barselau ’16 Eric Kuhn ’16 J. Alex Cicchitti ’15 Joseph Murphy ’16 Marian Blawie ’16 Micala Smith ’16 Steven Merola ’16

Chase and Nik

Interested in Layout Development and Ditigal activation?

We have a position for you!

APPLY for the following LEADERSHIP positions:

- Assistant Layout Editor - Social Media Co-ordinator - Webmaster APPLY via email (resume and desired position) to Claire Mahoney at csmaho15@g.holycross.edu

Faculty Adviser Professor David Lewis Schaefer Political Science

Disclaimers This journal is published by students of the College of the Holy Cross and is produced two or three times per semester. The College of the Holy Cross is not responsible for its content.

Articles do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board.

Donation Policy The Fenwick Review is funded through a generous grant from the Collegiate Network as well as individual donations. The Fenwick Review is an organization incorporated under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. We welcome any donation you might be able to give to support our cause! To do so, please write a check to: The Fenwick Review and mail to: Chase Padusniak and Nikolas Churik P.O. Box 4A 1 College Street Worcester, MA 01610

Letter Policy We at The Fenwick Review encourage feedback.

All comments, criticisms, compliments, and opinions are welcome. As we are striving to promote intellectual freedom and progress here at Holy Cross, opposing viewpoints to anything we print are especially appreciated.

Finally, we reserve the rights to print and edit any letters for clarity and length that we receive.

The Fenwick Review

November 2014

4

Letters to the Editor

The Review’s recent criticism of the new Holy Cross marketing scheme has brought many issues to the forefront. First, what are the core values of the college? Is it primarily a Catholic institution, or is it rather a modernizing school whose values and credentials are subject to change?

Furthermore, if it is indeed a Catholic college, does the school have a moral obligation to retain its identity?

The answer is simple: yes to both. As was pointed out by the Fenwick Review in its first fall issue, not only does the new sunburst crest logo abandon most of the Catholic tradition and identity of the storied school, but it also pales in comparison to the marketing and advertising of other superb learning institutions such as Harvard, Fordham, and Dartmouth. This is, of course, excluding the already-infamous “ask more” slogan that has made a mockery of Holy Cross admissions.

By moving to rebrand the college in this manner, Holy Cross is selling herself short and letting down the

students that came to the hill join one of the most distinguished alumni communities in the nation. The administration’s response has been troubling to say the least.

After a town hall meeting last spring when the college pitched its new idea to the student body it received an overwhelmingly negative response. It was the talk of the student body. Come fall, the entire campus was flooded with banners of the new logo emblazoned with “ask more”.

It has become all too clear that the college is not only moving on with its new image, but that it also cares very little about what current students think of its identity. I, for one, hope that this criticism by students and campus papers such as The Crusader and Fenwick Review does not go unnoticed.

This will determine what our school becomes in ten years: a stronger, more successful Holy Cross or a disappointing shade of what it once was.

October 20, 2014 Dear Editors,

Thank you for the September issue of The Fenwick Review. Interesting articles and some critical issues discussed. Of course, the major issue the paper covered was the changing of the College’s logo and I have some thoughts about that. I can see dropping the image of a cross from the logo in order to broaden its appeal but, from a marketing point of view, I believe we’ve badly missed the mark. What is the word “Holy” doing for us? Doesn’t it imply a rather narrow, Christian aura, a place where academic freedom might be in jeopardy? No one wants to major in sanctity, right? And then there’s the “cross” word. It certainly doesn’t suggest a happy place and might even call up images of pain and heavy lifting.

I believe if you want to appeal to the open minded, modern young high school seniors and their wellJoseph Vara ’15 heeled parents, not just the cross but

the name of the college has to go. Consider “Harvardette” or “Princetonian” or even “Columbama”. Each has a ring to it that might move our little college that much closer to the secular institution that so many administrations have envied for so many years.

If needed, I would be happy to work with the board or the art department or whomever makes these kind of logo decisions. Certainly, they’ve made a good start but I “Ask More”.

Sincerely, Dan Gorman ’54

4th Annual HC Dance Marathon January 24-25, 2015

Anima Christi Soul of Christ, sanctify me.

Body of Christ, save me.

Blood of Christ, inebriate me.

Water from the side of Christ, wash me.

Passion of Christ, strengthen me.

O Good Jesus, hear me.

Within your wounds hide me.

Permit me not to be separated from you.

From the wicked foe, defend me.

At the hour of my death, call me and bid me come to you

That with your saints I may praise you For ever and ever. Amen.

-St. Ignatius of Loyola

- See more at: http://www.ignatianspirituality.com/ignatian-prayer/prayers-byst-ignatius-and-others/anima-christi/#sthash.BHptiIz8.dpuf

5

The Fenwick Review

November 2014

Marriage and the Church Colby Baker ’15 Staff Writer

A few articles have been published in The Crusader recently on the topic of the Catholic Church and marriage. I wish to respond to the sentiments, particularly those expressed

by James Gallagher in his article, “A Changing Perspective: Marriage and Catholicism,” published in the October 10, 2014 issue of The Crusader.

The author chose to address a topic, which requires a particular erudition to address faithfully and fairly. I wish to speak to a number of errors and to address this issue in the big picture.

With regard to to to papal authority: no pope is able to change Church doctrine. The papacy preserves doctrine, not invent it. In an impromptu address in July 2005 to priests in Aosta, Italy, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI said the following, “The pope is not an oracle; he is infallible in very rare situations.” When a pope – or any bishop or priest for that matter – articulates Church teaching they are not speaking infallibly. They are simply doing what they were ordained to do. Infallibility refers to when a lawfully elected successor of St. Peter, intending to clarify and declare doctrine, speaks purposefully as the successor of St. Peter. Infallibility is attached to the office, not to the person. Church historian Fr. Klaus Schatz, S.J., lists only seven times in the history of the Catholic Church when popes have spoken ex cathedra, declaring infallibly certain doctrines to be held by all Christians. Others have argued that there have been only two clear instances of this: 1) Pope Pius IX in Ineffabilis Deus (1854) defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and 2) Pope Pius XII in Munificentissimus Deus (1950) defining the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Whatever the exact instances are, they are cases in which doctrines believed by Christians since the earliest days of the Church needed clarification. The respective popes, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, set out to clarify and define what it is Catholics were (and still are) bound to believe. Pope Francis has no authority whatsoever to change Church teaching with regard to divorced and ‘remarried’ Catholics receiving Communion. This inability to change doctrine is something he understands and has stated he has no intention of doing. This teaching comes from a more general and universal formula: Catholics living in a state of mortal sin cannot present themselves for Communion. Because adultery is a mortal sin, the teaching on the reception of Communion applies.

In the words of Christ: “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and the one who marries a woman divorced from her

husband commits adultery” (Luke 16: 18). This cannot and will not change.

Mr. Gallagher’s suggestion, that with the Second Vatican Council the Church “finally traversed the Middle Ages,” fails to understand history and theology. What happened to the Renaissance, the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation, the French Revolution, missionary activity (especially of the Jesuit variety) in Asia, Africa, and the New World, the founding of the United States, the Russian Revolution, two World Wars, the founding of numerous religious orders, and the lives of countless saints and martyrs – just to name a few? The Holy Spirit has always been guiding the Church, to which Jesus sent the “Advocate to be with you always” (John 14:16). To posit that there is a cold theological and spiritual stasis between the end of Middles Ages and 1962 is simply erroneous.

The Church has done a poor job at fighting the ‘progressive’ cultural changes in the West.

Using this as a context, the Third Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops has been convened to address the following topic, The Pastoral Challenges of the Family in the Context of Evangelization. The synod fathers hope to come to consensus on how to reach out to and care for divorced and ‘remarried’ Catholics individuals and to receive them back into Communion with the Church. It will not involve condoning or approving of their state of life. Among other things, it will involve the proper Catechesis and education of all Catholics on the indissolubility of marriage as a sacrament and its preeminence as a social institution. This will be followed by a call to reforming their lives.

The problem is not the Church’s teaching on this matter. The problem is a poorly catechized and poorly educated laity regarding the truths about marriage and family life. In Her charity, the Church recognizes the need to fix this problem so that we all can move forward socially with true progress towards a proper and Christ-centered understanding of marriage and family.

Christ says about marriage, “‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh.

What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder” (Mark 10: 7-9).

Interestingly, the support of the Church’s doctrine on the reception of Communion and the indissolubility of marriage comes from what many might consider unlikely place: Africa.

The Church, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa, understands and embraces the wisdom and splendor of the Church’s teachings on marriage, and it desires an uncompromising and unapologetic defense of Church teaching. A failure to do this universally would have disastrous consequences culturally in Africa, where the fragility of society is a constant and imminent concern. Additionally, the work of evangelization in Africa is a delicate endeavor. African bishops, like Archbishop Ignatius Kaigama of Jos, Nigeria, have been vocal during the synod.

He said recently about the West,

We get international organizations, countries, and groups which like to entice us to deviate from our cultural practices, traditions, and even our religious beliefs…We have been offered the wrong things, and we are expected to accept simply because they think we are poor…We may be poor materially but we are not poor in every sense. So we say no to what we think is wrong.

And time has gone when we would just follow without question. Now, we question.

The Church in Sub-Saharan (especially Central) Africa is very new and is in a place similar to that of the early Church in pagan Rome in the centuries immediately after Christ. Church leaders in Africa need the Holy See to be strong on these issues, otherwise the efforts of evangelization could be lost entirely. Islam, another powerful voice in parts of Africa, has a laudably definitive stance on the issue of marriage, of which the western Church might wish to take note. For our part here, we must – all of us – reflect on who and what we are: so many Westerners live ignorantly of how important these issues are to people in other parts of the world, while they are consistently mocked and degraded in the West. The African bishops have been explicitly clear. Africa neither wants nor needs cultural imperialism: contraception, abortion, lax sexual mores, military

arms, mass media et al.

Where the issue of divorce and ‘remarried’ Catholics in the West is concerned, many do not know how to begin the move towards a better way of living. Many priests are ill prepared to help them successfully. The goal of the synod is to begin to correct these problem. The solutions could be several. In some cases, it will involve calling upon these Catholics to end their current relationships and turning to living a single life, if their original marriages are unable to be annulled. In the meantime, all Catholics should open their minds and hearts to the witness of these faithful Catholics from the ostensible “Third Word.”

In a brave October 4th article in The Spectator, a British woman named Louise Mensch, living as a divorced and ‘remarried’ Catholic, speaks of her great reverence for Church doctrine and the need for the Church to proclaim it boldly. The article is profound and would bring great discomfort to those calling for “change.” She opens by saying that she is a divorced and ‘remarried’ Catholic and that she does not receive Holy Communion.

She goes on to say, “Allow a divorced and remarried person to receive Holy Communion, and you are saying one of two things: either that it is not adulterous to have sex outside the marital bond, or that one may harmlessly receive the Most Holy Eucharist while in an ongoing state of mortal sin — a sin one firmly intends to commit again as soon as convenient.”

This is an inspiring witness from, again, an unlikely place. Since the Second Vatican Council, the Church has done a poor job at fighting the ‘progressive’ cultural changes in the West. The Church was silent when she should have been vocal. For this, God will hold the Catholic faithful accountable. The time, though, has come for the Church to change course and face this “progress” head-on with true faith and true mercy. May Pope Francis courageously guide the barque towards port, despite the cultural storms that attack it. And may he advance the New Evangelization among Catholics who are most in need of help.

The Fenwick Review

November 2014

6

The Good, The Bad, And The Pragmatic Joseph Murphy ’16 Staff Writer

On October 7 former NBA basketball player Chris Herren gave a presentation to all attending Holy Cross students and Worcester residents. His struggle with drugs devastated his life. He lost a chance to be an NBA star, caused his wife and kids an incredible amount of pain, and almost lost his life to a heroin overdose. His story is tragic, and his ability to convey regret to an audience is powerful.

His message to students, however, is flawed.

Herren, speaking about the beginning of drug addiction, said that “none of you know day one. I’ve never heard of a drug addict say he started with crack and heroin.” He claimed that addiction starts with substances that seem harmless, like beer.

According to Herren, you are slipping down a dangerous path to painful addiction by playing beer pong with your friends on Saturday nights. If you happen to be one of those people who goes to parties and does not drink, Herren has words of wisdom for you as well: you fail your friends every time you let them have a drink. Herren has developed an extreme view towards drinking and perhaps that is inevitable considering his own terrible experience with drugs. However, I do not

think this advice is wise for effectively ending substance abuse. Being that guy at a party who tells everyone to stop drinking will inevitably be perceived as self-righteous. Very few, if any, people will listen.

Herren’s experience with drugs is not reflective of that of many college students who drink. Herren grew up in Fall River, a city in Massachusetts that struggles with heroin addiction.

According a CQ Press release from 2010, Fall River was ranked the 88th

as one of the leading risk factors for addiction, and environment was clearly an important factor in Herren’s decline into drugs. Most students at Holy Cross are not from Fall River and may have had the good fortune of coming from neighborhoods where addictive drugs are not a serious problem.

It is also necessary to take into consideration the level of exaggeration found in his presentation. Herren’s claim that beer is just the start of serious drug addiction could not be true; otherwise, we would be a very unproductive society. I think we all know plenty of people who drink and never decide to indulge in much more harmful substances like heroin. Drinking is something many people are completely capable of doing in moderation.

Of course, there is some merit to Herren’s point about the dangers of drinking. The National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence says 17.6 million people, or 1 in 12 adults, suffer from alcohol abuse or dependence. If your family has a history of alcoholism, you are also significantly more likely to have drug problems (Herren’s father currently suffers from drinking problems). With so many people’s lives harmed by alcohol consumption maybe it would be better most dangerous city in the coun- if everyone decided to stop drinking, try largely due to heroin problems. but that is not the reality. People like Scientists commonly cite environment to have a good time, and drinking

Being that guy at a party who tells everyone to stop drinking will inevitably be perceived as self-righteous.

is often a part of an enjoyable social experience. Just because one person is likely to become an alcoholic, does that mean that the other eleven should be forbidden from having a drink?

For better or worse, people do

The poet James Russell Lowell once said “The devil loves nothing better than the intolerance of reformers.” not often respond well to others telling them what they should or should not be doing. Herren encouraging students to prevent others from drinking may only cement heavy drinking habits.

The poet James Russell Lowell once said “The devil loves nothing better than the intolerance of reformers.” An individual must decide on his own if he wants to stop drinking, no one else can convince him of this. Moderation is the best approach to helping our friends. Obviously, we should always try to take care of our loved ones and teammates if they ever get into trouble, but the moral crusade Chris Herren hopes for is unrealistic. The College of the Holy Cross brought a well-spoken and passionate individual to campus, but I question if Herren’s message is particularly helpful to students.

A Daly Dose of Feminism Nikolas Churik ’15 Co-Editor-in-Cheif Metamorphoses XV. 170-171, it does not remain as it has been nor does it preserve the same form, but nevertheless it is the same.

In the past issues of The Crusader, there have been articles commenting on Emma Watson’s speech before the U.N. While these articles have been laudatory (and rightly so), it is, perhaps, worth considering Ms. Watson’s comments on “man-hating” from a slightly different perspective.

Emma Watson stated, “For the record, feminism by definition is: ‘The belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities. It is the theory of the political, economic and social equality of theexes.’ ” This definition encompasses a wide range of ideas, but it does, however, attempt to delimit the movement and its theories by asserting a single definition “for the record.” Ms. Watson tries to posit strictures on a movement that lacks an Académie française, so one wonders whence the definitioncomes.

Assumedly, it comes from some publication (perhaps the OED, considering Ms. Watson’s country of origin) that does not consider what the

idea means to those who practice it, but rather attempts to find a least common denominator of a definition that tries to be all things to all to people, yet, with nearly any widespread idea, the attempt to assert a meaning as the meaning runs the risk of de-contextualizing the idea from the very place it sprang and as a result renders the idea near meaningless. To be clear, the definition (of course this is true of any definition because this is what definitions do…by de-fin-ition.) creates the problem of deciding who is and is not, can and cannot be, part of the movement. A definition such as this seems to forget, and perhaps even to deny and to exclude, the past usage of the word.

Even if feminism is not man hating perhaps it can be. In November 2013, the Munk debate held in Toronto featured a panel of Camille Paglia, Caitlin Moran, Hanna Rosin, and Maureen Dowd. The question of the debate was whether or not men are obsolete. Maureen Dowd, the wonderfully acerbic New York Times op-ed writer, opined that men are ornamental, like ice cream. Ultimately the panel concluded that men are not obsolete, but are falling behind women. Even if neither of the panelists, Dowd and Rosin, on the pro side espoused

militant misandry, their more extreme opinions served illustrative and educative foils to the positions of Paglia and Moran. The tension of opposites

A definition such as this seems to forget, and perhaps even to deny and to exclude, the past usage of the word.

brought about an exchange that would not have occurred with more purely apologetic views.

Ms. Watson’s comments raise the more general question of how to contend with the more uncomfortable ncarnations in an idea’s past. There have been individuals, self-identified feminists, who have been active in the past, yet who would also have been considered “man-haters.” Mary Daly, the noted Boston College theologian, theorized about a utopian existence without men and offered poignant critiques of the historical inequalities

between men and women and their continuing problems in the modern world. One might further consider her writings on the problems of pornography and the objectification of the human person. One cannot easily dismiss Dr. Daly from the realm of feminism, for she was such a major contributor to feminist theological thought. The radical stances of these so-called “man-haters” offer critiques of other positions that a more moderate perspective would miss or otherwise avoid. While not all of these positions need to be accepted, their presentation adds important views to the debate.

None of this is, of course, meant to diminish what Ms. Watson had to say. Her statement, with varying degrees of success, offers an interesting attempt at criticism and presentation.

Ms. Watson’s comments concerning the societal expectations for men were well made, and doubtless her calls for equality are salient. It is possible for there to be competing ideas within a movement which do not negate anyone’s membership thereof. Perhaps, in the future, one might wonder what one should or should not do, rather than what one is or is not.

The Fenwick Review

7

November 2014

In Christendom’s Twilight Steven Merola ’16 Staff Writer

At the day’s eerie in-between, when the light is fast fading into darkness, the whole world is infused with a strange glow. As the very last vestiges of daylight slip away, everything takes on a surreal visage. The darkness is vividly present; in fact, it is dominant.

Yet, in those last seconds of the twilight before evening comes, the fading light of day is splashed over all cre-

“Christendom” [is] a cultural attitude in which every life is valued because it is a part of the fullness of humanity, a humanity that is perfectly and unconfusedly united to God in the person of Jesus Christ.” ation, barely concealing the darkness within.

So too with our culture, for as the Christian ethos that informed it for centuries rapidly disappears, a vestige remains that masks its new, darker reality.

The incident that has prompted my reflections (aside from a twilight foray into my backyard) comes from none other than the Honorable Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Justice Ginsburg recently gave an interview to the fashion magazine Elle, wherein the topic of abortion arose. As the discussion focused on providing abortion access to poor women, the Supreme Court Justice remarked that “It makes no sense as a national policy to promote

birth only among poor people.” The Justice’s sentiment that we ought to decrease birth rates specifically among the poor is little more than an open endorsement of eugenics.

That Justice Ginsburg should have made such a comment does not surprise me. It is a sentiment she has expressed before, and even more explicitly, in a 2009 interview with The New York Times Magazine. What is more surprising is that she presents her sentiment in a guise of compassion.

Right before she made the remark above, Justice Ginsburg discussed how unfair it is that poor women who live in states with abortion restrictions are unable to travel to states with laxer laws. It seems, then, Justice Ginsburg believes that controlling birth rates among the poor is an act of compassion. Whether she thinks this is solely for the good of the nation or a benefit for the impoverished themselves, is unclear. Nonetheless, the Justice’s rhetoric is delivered in sympathetic tones; it dons the mask of selfless compassion.

Nor is this a novel sentiment in Western society. We can find similar attitudes among our ancestors in the classical world. Ancient religious cults held little regard for the multitudes of poor, sick, and suffering, and by and large the classical philosophies lacked any concern for “the least among us.”

The difference between us and them, however, is that the ancients had no need to disguise their neglect. They conceived of the universe as a great hierarchy, wherein everyone from the gods to the slaves had a specific purpose and fixed worth. This hierarchical order, moreover, would only be kept intact if everyone adhered to their specific roles in society. Thus, it was not only unthinkable to the classical world that a gladiator or slave should rise above his lowly station but also a threat to the very order of the universe.

We can imagine, then, what fusedly united to God in the person of sort of impact Christianity had on this Jesus Christ. Although the application of this principle was imperfect then as it is now, it nonetheless succeeded in deeply transforming the world as the ancients knew it, and it continues to influence our view of the world and of each other.

Yet, although Christ’s light brightly illumined the world for centuries, that sun is quickly setting into a frightening twilight, where its last beams are being used to conceal an already-manifest shadow. Thus, I see Justice Ginsburg’s remarks as indicative of the return of the ancient attitude, but with an important exception. While the classical conception of society was framed in terms of the immaterial (namely, humans’ positions beneath the gods), ours is built on the material. Look again at Justice world. The notion that the almighty Ginsburg’s comment: she says that God had existed as a Jewish peasant high birth rates among the poor are was not just theologically startling to nonsensical “as a national policy.” Her the ancient world, but socially subver- concern is not with a higher cosmic sive. As the theologian David Bentley order, but with a vague pragmatism.

Hart (to whom I owe the credit for Though she presents her ends in the the information presented in the pre- language of love and compassion, that ceding paragraph) says: “What they compassion is not ordered toward an saw [in Christianity], as they peered absolute end. down upon the Christian movement Whatever might constitute from the high, narrow summit of their society, was not the understandable ebullition of long-suppressed human longings but the very order of the cosmos collapsing at its base, drawing everything down into the general ruin and obscene squalor of a common humanity.”

Despite resistance and persecution, the unexpected Christian ethos won over the ancient world. And for a long time, this ethos of love and compassion informed Western culture, and we feel its draw (consciously or not) even to this day. This is what I mean by “Christendom” – a cultural attitude in which every life is valued because it is a part of the fullness of humanity, a humanity that is perfectly and uncongood “national policy,” if that policy is not rooted in an absolute principle, and moves toward no specific end, it will necessarily be defined by the caprice of the one making the policy.

It moves in the dark, though in twilight it is disguised by a fading light. And no matter how well-cast the sentiments, I shudder at the thought of living under the caprice of one who can justify eliminating an entire segment of society.

Though I have continuously (and perhaps tiresomely) made use of the image of the setting sun, there is a crucial flaw in this analogy. Although twilight comes whether we want it or not, the decline of Christendom is coming about by an act of the will.

Herein is our hope: Christ’s light is there to illumine the world, and we but need to turn toward it to see its truth, disorienting as it may be. We need not turn our backs to it and see only a shadow of ourselves.

And for a long time, this ethos of love and compassion informed Western culture, and we feel its draw (consciously or not) even to this day.

Though she presents her ends in the language of love and compassion, that compassion is not ordered toward an absolute end.

November 2014

The Fenwick Review

8

Catholics Love Science Continued from page 1

Instead of Evangelicals scanning Revelation looking for the end of the world, the Catholic Church has often pushed the boundaries of scientific knowledge. With names like Mendel, Pasteur, Fr. Lemaitre (originator of the Big Bang Theory), and more recently Guy Consolmagno, S.J., it is disingenuous to say that religious faith is an impediment to a scientific career.

Science keeps religion from falling into superstition and pseudoscience while religion can keep scientists from all-too-human hubris.

Brother Consolmagno is a Jesuit astronomer at the Vatican Observatory and has authored many books including The Heavens Proclaim. He has received the Carl Sagan Medal and has attended a Vatican conference concerning the implications of extraterrestrial life. Like Dr. Tyson, Brother

Consolmagno has spoken extensively on the relationship between the sciences and faith. In his worldview, he makes space for both and believes that they mutually enrich one another.

The Jesuit says, “The search for literalism, the search for absolute truth, isn’t what science is about and it’s not what religion is about.” Science keeps religion from falling into superstition and pseudoscience while religion can keep scientists from all-too-human hubris. For religious scientists faith is a motivating force. It asks them to push the bounds of their knowledge instead of giving up because they do not know. Science and the study of creation are ways of getting to know the creator in a very intimate way. My faith certainly nourishes my love of chemistry and inspires me to inquire deeper into its secrets. It is no fault of Dr. Tyson’s that he was more familiar with creationists and intelligent design proponents than with a religious system that has grown along with science for 2000 years. It is always easier to publicize the more facile interpretations than the more nuanced ones, and the less-sophisticated are often louder than others. However, it is myopic and ungrateful to discount the mutual contributions science and religion have made to each other.

A Hammer in a World With Few Nails Austin Barselau ’18 Staff Writer

Over the past few months, the terror group ,the Islamic State, also called ISIS and ISIL, has surged across the Iraq-Syria border to exploit tremendous faults in Iraq’s post-American order. Concurrently, the advance of the Islamic State, known for acts of barbarity that include the beheadings of journalists and aid workers, has quickened the drum beat for military intervention less than three fresh years after America’s withdrawal from a decade of conflict in Iraq.

As President Barack Obama mulls over the extent of American reengagement in the region, it’s worth noting that might does not necessarily make

The so-called notion of American exceptionalism, the unreconstructed belief in right.

the superiority of American military force, is

a dangerous banner to hang over our foreign policy. As Mr. Obama has noted,

“just because we have the best hammer does not mean that every problem is a nail.” Security will be found instead in the realm of a realistic grasp of circumstances and an exercise in restraint and circumspection to address multidimensional global conflicts.

Addressing the nation from the State Floor of the White House in

mid-September, Mr. Obama pledged to “degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL” through a coalition air campaign led by the U.S. This strategic vision, which was viewed by some in both parties as too cautious and limited, was met by further calls to send American military personnel back to Iraq to wipe out the Islamic State. Hawks, among them perennial offenders like Sen. John McCain (AZ), Sen. Lindsey Graham (SC), Sen. Ted Cruz (TX), and House Speaker John Boehner (OH), not to mention huge swaths of the media, were among the first to squawk for more American military intervention in the war-torn country. “I think it starts with an understanding that this is a direct threat to the United States of America, that it may be one of the biggest we have ever faced,” said Mr. McCain on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” sounding the alarm of an attack on the homeland. But what Mr. McCain and others of his ideological breed miss is that American military power, at the expense of enormous blood and treasure, can only provide limited, stopgap patches in a region churning with deeper undercurrents. While fear may be a great motivator, it also has the occasional effect of forcing impolitic and escalating commitments with little attention to costs or consequences.

The truth of the matter, the reality that so often flies past advocates of armed force is this: the Middle East,

past, present and future, continues to be a region saturated with religious animosity and political turmoil, which can be inflamed by the slightest of discontents. Saving grace does not come packaged in American missiles or troops. American calls for democracy in the Middle East will not resolve Islam’s continual squabbles, of which the Islamic State is a byproduct. Such conflicts sprout and wither locally.

Peace is a protracted process realized through organic self-determination, not nation-building from abroad. We need regional actors to establish a stable equilibrium autonomously without moral imperatives from the West.

The fatal conceit of the exceptionalist doctrine is that military force, expressly the American kind, can outright “win” conflicts. Appearing on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Mr. McCain used this argument to call for “a fundamental re-evaluation of what we’re doing” in the region, criticizing Mr. Obama’s handling of the Islamic State. He concluded that more force was needed because “[The Islamic State] is winning and we’re not.” But in reality, binary outcomes, where one side wins and the other loses, do not exist in any obvious way. No amount of “overwhelming” lethal force can hasten the peace process. The United States is not an omnipotent fulcrum that can remove conflict from every mountain pass, desert outpost, and

street corner. What we need most today is a reevaluation of our self-exaltation in order to face a multipolar world that does not need the United States to micromanage its every last problem.

That said, how might we face Islamic State? Tactical bombing runs against Islamic State might protect us for a day, but they will never constitute a holistic, strategic vision to excise Islamic radicalism. Despite bombing seven countries in six years, the United States has not wiped out a single Islamic terror group. In fact, we might have done more harm than good.

Polls consistently show that native populations have a less favorable opinion of American policy in the region than they did five years ago. This vicious cycle will persist until we have the moral courage to seek a practical foreign policy doctrine. I believe policymakers should cautiously discriminate wars of necessity from needless quagmires. The United States can be a humanitarian force, but this requires we surmount our entrenched fetish to arbitrarily heave our weight around the world. In a complicated world of many moving parts, affixing a clean solution to every regional conflict is not possible. American exceptionalism is not an exception to the rule. The world is more of a mixed bag than one in which a powerful hammer sees every problem as if it were a nail.

The Fenwick Review

9

November 2014

(deGrasse) Tyson v. Holy Cross Chase Padusniak ’15 Co-Editor-in-Chief

I’m excited to hear from Neil deGrasse Tyson, this year’s HannifyHowland speaker. Why? He’s a science-popularizer, whose presence affords an opportunity to discuss the differences between “science” and “scientism.” Dr. deGrasse Tyson exemplifies characteristics of both, which I believe will make for both an illuminating, yet unfortunately limited, speech.

Separating these two concepts from one another is harder than it seems.To begin, however, we can observe that science and scientism are both materialistic in nature. That is, both can only make claims about material phenomena: quarks, planets, multiverses, etc. As the beginning of almost any science textbook clarifies, science is only concerned with the

material world. When Prof. X engages in biochemical research, he does not explicitly say anything about spirits, gods, or anything else immaterial. In this sense, scientific work is self-limiting and wisely does not make claims beyond those limits; it participates in the whole of human knowledge without hegemonizing it.

Scientism is less gracious.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, “scientism” is “the view that the methodology used in the natural and physical sciences can be applied to other disciplines, such as philosophy and the social sciences.”

If you have ever heard someone claim that there is not enough scientific evidence to back belief in any sort of god, you’ve heard scientism. Considering the fact that nothing about the JudeoChristian God could possibly be subject to scientific research (as such work can only probe material phenomena),

anyone making such a claim would do well to understand better what believers believe and not what he thinks they do. Positivism, an epistemology very similar to, if not the same as, scientism, was debunked long ago.

By embodying both of these viewpoints, Dr. deGrasse Tyson may spread misinformation with his speech. People idolize such popular figures and sometimes parrot their beliefs without questioning them. On the one hand, I am excited to hear a great science-popularizer speak. The world needs people to make seemingly complicated concepts understandable.

On the other, reading some of what he has said has made me afraid: “When I look at the universe and all the ways the universe wants to kill us, I find it hard to reconcile that with statements of beneficence [from a god].”

His compliments of Richard Dawkins are equally unnerving. There are, of

course, very intelligent and well-reasoned atheists, but Dr. Dawkins’s caricatures of believers are both unwelcome and misinformed. His activism does not fill “a really important role” as Dr. deGrasse Tyson has said.

Our speaker is no Richard Dawkins, and I’m very proud of that.

In fact, I’d go so far as to say I’m happy to hear from a figure as famous and learned as Dr. deGrasse Tyson.

But his fame and education do not make his religious views insightful for or at a religious institution. I can only hope that those in attendance at the talk will understand everything he says in a sympathetic, yet critical light. We cannot be blinded by his prestige and scientific prowess. He deserves our utmost respect and attention, but cannot and should not be treated as if his worldview is automatically good, right, or even well-informed.

Editors’ Picks: Past Most Notable Hanify-Howland Memorial Speakers

1998 Gertrude Himmelfarb

1981

1984 1990 Prof. Doris Kearns Goodwin Hon. R. Sargent Shriver Hon. Antonin Scalia

Professor Emerita of History, Former Aide to President Lyn- Founding Director, Peace Corps; Associate Justice, United States Former Ambassador to France The City University of New York don B. Johnson Supreme Court The Presidency: Imperial or Impotent 1984: George Orwell versus Holy Cross Reflections on the Constitution Two Cultures: A Nation Divided

2002 Hon. Clarence Thomas

Associate Justice, United States Supreme Court Judging and the Court

2013 Jon Huntsman

Former governor, Utah

November 2014

The Fenwick Review

10

Contemporary Christian Martyrdom: ISIS and the Genocide in the Middle East Anthony John ’16 Staff Writer

Faith, innocence, and piety: these qualities of martyrdom resonate with both Christians and non-Christians, but lack substance in terms of the socio-political orders that produced them. In a recent report of the worst 50 countries for Christian persecution, Syria alone was responsible for 1,213 killings last year. As you’re reading this, Christians from the community of Qaraqosh in Nineveh, Iraq’s largest Christian city, have been running for their lives since July, when their city was overrun by ISIS terrorists. The number of Christians that have fled is in the thousands and, according to Joseph Thomas, the archbishop of Iraq’s Chaldean Christian group, “the towns of Qaraqosh, Tal Kayf, Bartella, and Karamlesh have been emptied of their original population and are now under the control of the militants.”

Under such conditions, any outsider can imagine the disarray, gruesomeness, and horror among these Middle Eastern martyrs as they are separated from their families and watch as their children are beheaded. In spite of these atrocities, Middle Eastern Christians have remained devout in their faith, serving as contemporary images of the suffering Christ. They not only display a mystical relationship with Him but also reflect God’s will for humanity. As ISIS continues to wreak havoc among all religious minorities in the Middle East, Christians who have escaped and

are currently seeking shelter maintain a strong religious conviction that has demonstrated their ability to endure pain and await Christ’s glory.

In her recent Rehm Library lecture entitled “Hallowed Pain: Representing the Slave Blandina and Jesus’ Brother James as Martyrs,” Karen King, former Winn Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Harvard

Still there continues to be outright neglect and violence that is detrimental to the preservation of faith through the centuries.

Divinity School, reflected on the institutionalized violence and persecution of Christians that has existed since the Second Century A.D. King stated that during the years of martyrdom under Emperor Nero, “all the actors were Romans, thus making them a part of the Roman Empire…Romans inflicted this pain upon their neighbors in order to exert dominance.” The question of tolerance for Christians existed centu-

ries ago and continues to do so today.

Still there continues to be outright neglect and violence that is detrimental to the preservation of faith through the centuries.

In addition to her discussion on violence, King proposed three different social/theological orders that have affected the growth and development of the Christian faith: the Roman Empire, the Kingdom of God, and the Church as Family. The early Roman Empire was no safe haven for Christians. By instituting a law (c. 249-251 A.D.) requiring all citizens to sacrifice to the state gods, the Roman Emperor Decius, if anything, only made Christians avoid practicing their faith out in the open entirely. A few decades later, Christians would be publicly tortured and killed for their faith, continuing until the institution of Christianity as the official religion of the Empire under Constantine in 313 A.D. With respect to the Kingdom of God, all Christians are called to contribute to its growth by their faith and their works. The exclusion of non-Christians from eternal salvation is a lingering question in the modern world, but those who are of good will, as Christians believe, will obtain eternal happiness. Finally, the Church as Family reflects the Universal Church, which is every person who follows Christ and works toward peace. Hebrews 10:25 encourages all Christians that are in doubt about the future of humanity or are losing touch with their faith, to avoid “giving up

meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but [instead be] encouraging [to] one another.” God is teaching us that we need each other, just like a family, in order to pick ourselves up. Unfortunately, for ISIS, beheading seems to be a nice alternative to acceptance. Furthermore, Karen King’s insights into Christians’ testimony to the glory of the Lord amidst physical injustice revealed her most important point on the subject: pain produces truth.

The Crucifixion was the intrinsic historical consequence of both Christ’s message and lifestyle, and a similar fate is awaiting innocent Christians in the Middle East.

Theologically, the Cross is saving only in light of what God has accomplished in the Resurrection, but the Crucifixion should be envisioned as the ultimate expression of human rejection of salvation from God as offered in Jesus. ISIS represents the contemporary form of this sense of rejection. God, who according to Leviticus, ‘abominates human sacrifices’ (Lev. 18:21–30; 20:1–5), did not put Jesus on the Cross. Human beings did that, and ISIS does that today.

Although God is always omnipresent, divine power knows no use of force, not even against those who had crucified Christ. In spite of this disdain for the followers of Christ, the Kingdom will still come regardless of human misuse of power and human rejection of God’s love.

In conclusion, the mystical relationship with Christ represented

by Middle Eastern Christians testifies to an evil social conscience that neglects truth. Through the insight of Karen King, the ongoing persecutions, and the boundless faith, which holds them together, the horrors and tragedies experienced by these followers of Christ do indeed reflect a true genocide of unbearable proportions.

Iraq, in an area once home to some of the earliest civilisations, became a battleground for competing forces after the US-led ousting of President Saddam Hussein in 2003.

Courtesy of BBC.com Courtesy of the National Review, October 2014

11

The Fenwick Review

November 2014

Gimme Shelter J. Alex Cicchitti ’15 Staff Writer

In the beginning of his administration, President Barack Obama promised to move “towards a world without nuclear weapons.” To achieve this safe new world, the President has proposed different arms control agreements in which, according to The Economist, the United States and Russia would both limit their current nuclear arsenals. On the other side of the globe, Vladimir Putin has reminded the world in the last few weeks that Russia is the second-most powerful nuclear state in the world and has increased his country’s nuclear arsenal, surpassing the number of active warheads deployed by the United States.

Putin’s speech makes thinly veiled threats about using Russia’s nuclear arsenal against the West. These are two different tones coming from two different worlds with two different objectives. Even without considering the developing missile and nuclear programs of rogue states like Iran and North Korea, the United States should not hope for a bellicose Russia and autocratic Putin to honor arms agreements. No, to answer the threat posed by nuclear and conventional missiles, the United States must rely on developing a ballistic missile defense system.

The benefits of an AntiBallistic Missile (ABM) system are quite plain. A successful and effective ABM system would provide a shield that could end the threat of an assault of nuclear missiles forever. “What if free people could live secure in the knowledge that their security did not rest upon the threat of instant U.S. retaliation to deter a Soviet attack, that we could intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our own soil or that of our allies?” asked Reagan in his 1983 “Star Wars” speech. A world in which missile attacks would be rendered obsolete is a dream that is within reach of becoming reality. President Obama should follow in the footsteps of President Bush, who withdrew the

United States from the ABM treaty in 2002, and continue developing the means to keep America and her allies safe from missile attack.

The arguments against building an ABM system mostly stem either from a desire to maintain the logic of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) or from the technological ineffectiveness of such a system. Reagan admitted that building any system that would defend the United States and its allies from nuclear weapons would be a “formidable, technical task.” Doubts still remain about the ability of ABM systems to intercept incoming missiles, but ABM proponents should be encouraged by the success of Israel’s Iron Dome anti-missile shield in its most recent conflict with Hamas.

According to some estimates, Israel intercepted over 90% of Hamas rockets aimed at population centers. The technology may not be completely ready to stop a full-out missile attack, but progress has certainly been made.

Perseverance and dedication to this project will result in a technologically capable ABM system that has the ability to protect the United States and its NATO allies.

In nuclear politics, the most stable nuclear scenario occurs when two opposing nuclear forces have the capability to respond even if the other force launches all of its missiles in an all- out assault. The ability to respond to an enemy nuclear attack is known as a second-strike capability. If both sides possess second-strike capabilities, they find themselves in a situation commonly referred to as MAD. If one side fires all of its nuclear warheads, it will almost certainly mean their own destruction, creating a disincentive and preventing either side from launching their warheads even in a crisis. This balance helped to keep the peace between the Soviet Union and the United States during the Cold War because both sides feared that an escalation of tensions would lead to their annihilation.

According to Ballistic Missile Defense critics, development of an ABM system would upset the balance

of MAD. By providing a shield to one side, an ABM system would allow the shielded side to gain a first-strike capability, meaning they could launch their missiles and prevent the other side from responding in kind. This creates an incentive for both sides to

“Isn’t it worth every investment necessary to free the world from the threat of nuclear war?

We know it is.” – Ronald Reagan, “Star Wars Speech,” March 23, 1983 launch sooner. Consider the following scenario between two nuclear powers of equal strength: · Side A has an ABM system. Side B does not. · If Side A launches its missiles first, Side B will not be able to respond with its own missiles. · If Side B launches its missiles first, it will, at least, have a small chance at blunting Side A’s counter-attack. · Side A knows that Side B has an increased incentive to launch first, thereby beginning a cycle in which Side A’s incentive to launch first also increases.

Both sides have a logical incentive to launch their nuclear arsenal first that increases as the crisis becomes more critical.

The logic of MAD shows us what a nuclear exchange would look like in theory, but in reality, the circumstances and consequences surrounding nuclear war will most likely look entirely different. The protection of MAD rests on two assumptions: that leaders behave rationally and that decision-makers possess the relevant and necessary information to take rational courses of action. While most, if not all, contemporary world leaders behave rationally, the fact remains that leaders of world powers in the past have willingly sacrificed the well-being of their own country and world stability in order to advance a radical ideology. The most obvious example that comes to mind is Adolf Hitler, a man that famously proclaimed that Germany “may be destroyed, but if we are, we shall drag a world with us – a world in flames.” People purely motivated by insane, uncompromising, and vicious ideology sometimes take control of governments, and global survival should not rest upon the mere

hope that someone like Hitler does not seize control of a nuclear-armed state. No one knows what destruction a nuclear-armed Hitler could have incurred in the 1940s.

Even if leaders intend to behave rationally, they still do not always possess the necessary facts to make informed decisions. Countless times the world has stepped to the brink of nuclear war despite the rational calculations of participants. As Robert McNamara said during the documentary, Fog of War, “Rationality will not save us.” McNamara emphasizes that during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Soviet Union and the United States came within inches of nuclear annihilation even though Kennedy, Khrushchev, and Castro all had their respective countries’ best interests in mind.

In another example, it took the wisdom of a single man to prevent the missiles from flying. In the early 1980s with tensions between the two Cold War adversaries rising, Soviet radar detected a single missile flying towards the USSR. Soviet policy at the time was to launch a counter-attack upon detection of incoming missiles, but the commander on duty at the time, Stanislav Petrov, refused to relay the information to the Soviet High Command. It turned out that the alert was a computer malfunction. If Petrov had notified his superiors that radar had detected incoming missiles, it’s very likely that the Soviet High Command would have given the order

As Robert McNamara said during the documentary, Fog of War, “Rationality will not save us.” to launch a massive counter-strike on the United States.

If participants in these crises had acted only slightly differently, the world may have faced nuclear annihilation, but now the world faces a grave threat from rogue states developing and using nuclear or conventional ballistic missiles. An unpredictable North Korea, an extremist Iran, and a re-assertive Russia all pose a threat to the United States and its NATO allies.

North Korea is currently developing the capability to strike across the Pacific, and Iran now has the capability to fire ballistic missiles into Eastern Europe and beyond. Russia maintains its Cold War arsenal while Vladimir Putin makes thinly veiled threats to use these weapons against the West.

The time to build an ABM system is now, because as Jay Nordlinger said, “a defense against nuclear weapons is not something you want to be too late in acquiring.”

November 2014

The Fenwick Review

12

In Gratitude to Our Sponsors and Partners Want to advertise in the Fenwick Review? email Chase Padusniak cjpadu15@g.holycross. edu