What is Post-Rock? Defining the Elusive Cult Genre

(By A. I. McIntire)
         
    In a world of fast-and-dirty pop songs that give up their secrets in the first ten seconds of play, fusion genres and new ideas are emerging in the back room studios of Europe and the US. Artists with long names, and longer song titles are finding an underground niche of expressiveness with audiophiles the world over. Many are unsigned, and some publish their music straight to YouTube as a free yet effective means of delivery and distribution. So what are these musicians up to in the back rooms and alley studios of Europe, the US, and around the globe? They’re forging a cult genre known as post-rock.

            Post-rock is what could be called a response, a backlash against oversimplified pop movements and clichés in traditional rock and alternative styles. It’s a deviation from modern music in many ways, not the least of which is the usual absence of vocals, the slower development times, the atmospheric and ambient qualities, and the highly intention composition of music motifs and riffs. The melody lines are highly lyrical--only without words mucking things up. This article is one definition of the genre and the bands...it's not the "right" definition or the "only" definition. There's many ways to categorize music depending on the listener. That said, for this writer, Post-Rock is a genre of largely instrumental music that takes traditional rock instrumentation, and fuses it with other musical ideas which results in an ambient, expression, subtle, understated yet powerful musicality. It's a broad definition, but we'll narrow it down a tad as we go. One way to do this is to talk about the band instruments themselves and how they usually work in post-rock.

           

            Post-rock bands are quite often built upon a 4 or 5-piece rock ensemble idea. Most often present are electric guitars and synthesizers, followed by bass, drums, and more rarely, vocals. Samples, sections of speech, and nature audio are also used by some groups.

Guitars are often warm, dirty and wet, that is with an overdriven or distorted sound into a tube amp, and a healthy amount of reverb and delay added. Volume swells, or use of an “e-Bow” a device that acts like an electronic violin bow are also common. Guitars are regularly layered, with two or three layers being common, but up to five or even seven layers have been used by bands like Mogwai. Slides, octave units, and synth units are also common. Guitars are used in post-rock to generate riffs, and long fill lines by means of triplets, 1/16 notes, or 1/32 notes. They also serve as the “lead vocal” of the song many times, “singing” passages with repeated motifs and planned deviations off of a riff idea. Rather than improvise lengthy passages played at high speeds, the guitars often play carefully composed melody lines and arpeggios that layer with the synths and other guitars.

 Synthesizers often conjure images of 80s metal bands, hairspray overdoses, and polyester poisoning. Audiophiles shudder at the thought of the quintessential nauseous sounds of a Casio keyboard retching out a “saw-synth” tone that is akin to fingernails on a chalkboard. Yet post-rock’s second most common ingredient is a synthesizer. The secret is in the synth itself. Often the synth is a true synthesizer, not a keyboard loaded with presets. The Nord synth is one common and well loved example because it generates ambient tones and pads that add spaciousness to the music. Often it is difficult for an unfamiliar listener to hear a synth in post-rock with any distinctiveness. Instead, a wash of ambient “air”, “cloud like” or “ocean-esque” tones are heard. This is probably one of the reasons post-rock is also sometimes referred to as ambient rock.

The bass is also a key and common instrument in post-rock. Occasionally an overdrive is added to the bass, but usually the bass is a warm, filling, rumbling instrument in post-rock, with full and quarter notes holding a steady rhythm together. The bass often meshes with the synth to create a smooth and well-rounded sound to the music.

Drums in post-rock are also a defining instrument. Some bands use them extensively; such as God is an Astronaut. Some bands hardly use them at all, like Hammock. Others are in the middle—Explosions in the Sky for example, or This Will Destroy You. Drums can vary widely in playing style and approach. Double kick drums and rapid playing can help create a “wall of sound”, though a subtle approach is used as much as an aggressive style. Out of all of the instruments in post-rock, drums are one of the most widely varied, showcasing a good deal of unique approaches and styles.

Vocals are highly uncommon in the post-rock world. In this writer’s opinion this is because post-rock is supposed to put sound to feelings, and allows a listener to create personal meaning behind each song. Vocals—lyrics, more specifically, tell the listener the meaning rather than let the listeners interpret and create meaning for themselves. This is possibly the appeal and driving force behind post-rock: the ability to create a journey, to evoke emotion, and images without using words. Modern music often focuses on fusing lyrics with music to create a message that generates emotion in the listener. Post-rock creates music that draws out emotion from the listener, and lets the listener’s mind go where it will. Simply put, post-rock is music to dream and feel by.

However, there are always exceptions, perhaps most notably Sigur Ros. The band creatively circumvents the “meaning” problem of lyrics by simply having vocals with lyrics. This Enya-like approach creates an incredible amount of emotion to their music, albeit with a far different tone and timbre compared to Enya. The wordless lyrics have a distinct sound, almost like a foreign language—small wonder given that Sigur Rós is composed of band members from Reykjavik, Iceland. Sigur Rós front man Jónsi Birgisson has a tenor voice that often strays into gentle falsettos, and conveys both gentle and intense emotions.

Ambient powerhouse Hammock recently released “Oblivion Hymns” which featured limited vocal work much to the shock of the listeners. As the album title might suggest, the band used boys’ choirs for some of the “hymnal” like interludes with great effectiveness. As a final stunner the last song on the album, Tres Domine featured lyrics sung in English with a strong hymn-like motif. Despite the deviation from the normal the album has proven to be well loved.

Other sounds are often used as well: Sigur Rós has incorporated nature sound effects as well as many other bands, Collapse Under the Empire used breaking glass sounds in one track, and Hammock has several tracks that feature speech, often in an obfuscated or highly effects laden manner. Many other bands have used strings, horns, piano, and so on to help create their signature sound.

Now that we have our band, the question arises, “yes, but what does it sound like?” This is a bit like trying to explain what a painting or a stunning photo looks like without actually looking at it. Nevertheless, we’ll give it a go.

The songs are often somewhat longer than pop songs, ranging from around three and a half minutes to upwards of seven minutes. In that time, the songs often evolve in a very composed manner. A good post-rock song is like a good wine. One sip will not give you all the flavors. Instead, flavor, character, and nature are revealed over time. If you listen to a pop song, you know the nature, character, and feel of the entire song usually by the end of the first chorus, 45 seconds in. In post-rock it will take longer for the song to develop. In short, post-rock is not for the impetuous or impatient listener.

Some songs are highly aggressive, with snappy drums, catchy riffs, and a louder feel. The latest God is an Astronaut album, Origins features a number of songs in this category, such as Spiral Code, The Last March (a personal favorite), and especially, Transmissions. Generally, God is an Astronaut (often abbreviated GIAA for obvious reasons) has a more aggressive, tight, loud, rock feel with a strong synth presence. If we say they are a post-rock band, they are on definitely the post-ROCK side of things. Likewise, some post-rock tracks dive into chaotic (yet composed and defined) dissonant explosions of sound, as GIAA and If These Trees Could Talk demonstrate.

Conversely Hammock is possibly on the opposite end of the spectrum. Long, slow intros with smooth swells, and a far “spacier” feel. If you were flying through a nebula, odds are you’d want to listen to Hammock. The synth-dominated sound is anything but aggressive, and has a very soft, subtle quality to it. Strings often accompany their pads and ambient swells, giving the music a dreamy, atmospheric quality. Dissonance is rarely something Hammock uses, instead relying on clearly defined notes at the right time, like water drops on a glassy smooth pool.

GIAA may make you want to drive somewhere in a fast car on a lovely highway, but Hammock makes you want to close your eyes and dream. And then there’s everything in the middle.

In the middle is Explosions in the Sky, a band that takes a “drier” approach to guitar work, with extensive finger picking, and slower tempos, and a notable general lack of synthesizers. 

This Will Destroy You relies on powerful lyrical-like melodies played on guitar, strong crescendos, and wall-of-sound climaxes that are incredibly emotional and effective. Listen to Quiet, A Three Legged Workhorse, and They Travel on Tracks of Never Ending Light for a sampling of This Will Destroy You. 

Collapse Under the Empire is also a strong synth band, but is more aggressive than Hammock. Their style is perhaps heard best in the layered slow building track The Reminder, and their track Shoulders features a great approach to the dark, swell-driven side of post-rock. 

If These Trees Could Talk showcases the idea of a minimalist lead guitar in the slow tempo piece Deus Ex Machina, but also delivers a great example of a more controlled chaos sound in the track, From Roots to Needles. 

I am the Architect demonstrates a more epic composition with guitars as integrated lead instruments double-picking the melody line in the track Walk in Regret.

Want more without having to dig and sort through songs? Perhaps the best way is to find one or two songs or artists that you like, and plug the song or the artist name into Pandora and let Pandora find similar music. This will help bring the post-rock genre into your earbuds continually without having to do another search at the end of every song.

Hopefully this has created an idea in your mind of what post-rock is, and where you might start listening. Need a list to get you started? You’re in luck!

Below is a list of artists and YouTube links to full albums to listen to online. Keep in mind that style will vary from album to album! Be sure to check out the video descriptions for links to each song within the video so you can skip around.

Artist                     Album

God Is An Astronaut – Origins

Mogwai – Les Revants

This Will Destroy You – This Will Destroy You

Explosions in the Sky – The Earth is not a Cold Dead Place 

Sigur Rós – Takk…

Hammock – Oblivion Hymns 

Collapse Under the Empire – Shoulders and Giants Playlist

Sleep Dealer – Imminence

If These Trees Could Talk – Above the Earth, Below the Sky

Sleepmakeswaves - …and so we destroyed everything

Long Distance Calling – Avoid The Light

Random Samplings (single tracks) from the Post-Rock Facebook group

…Of Sinking Ships – I set Sail on Winds of Renewal 

Litro – Nera 

La Mar – Anchors

Terronaut – Return to Reality

I am the Architect – Walk in Regret

What Saeed Adedini's case says about US Legitimacy

            One of the roles of the State Department is the protection of Americans living and traveling abroad. John Kerry, as Secretary of State is the head of this agency.

            Yet in September of 2012 the State Department failed to accomplish this protection as Ambassador Chris Stevens, and four other Americans were gunned down in Benghazi under the watch of then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Unfortunately again the Department and John Kerry are again failing to protect Americans abroad as the plight of Saeed Adedini, an imprisoned American in Iran, goes unheeded. As nuclear negotiations with Iran are set to move forward, Saeed has been left behind in a dangerous third world prison. Saeed's imprisonment and treatment (including torture) are violations of human rights--and he is not the only one in this situation as several other Americans are also imprisoned.

            If the current negotiations with Iran (headed by Mr. Kerry) cannot include the release of one or two American prisoners then one must wonder just how effect those negotiations are. John Kerry believes he can negotiate the cessation of Iran’s illicit nuclear activities. If he cannot, or will not advocate for the release of at least one American what makes the world believe he can negotiate a nuclear treaty? What is easier to accomplish: the negotiation of the release of a few Americans, or the negotiation of the cessation and dismantlement of an entire secretive and illegal nuclear program?

            Conversely, if Iran continues to refuse Saeed’s release and humane treatment then this suggests there is little reason to trust that they will do something that demands more effort--as in the wholesale disassembly of their uranium centrifuges. Again, what is easier to do? Release a few political dissidents, or shut down an entire uranium enrichment program?

            This suggests that neither John Kerry nor the Iranians have any legitimacy at the negotiating table. It is likely Kerry either  will not or cannot accomplish the release of Saeed. He is either powerless to do so, or willfully weak on the issue. There will likely be no consequences for Iran’s illegal detention and torture of Saeed, yet Kerry would have the world believe that he bears the power to coerce a jihadist and terrorist sponsoring state to bend its nuclear will to the international community. Yet all the while Kerry has been part of an administration that is rolling back sanctions on Iran in exchange for nothing at all. In light of this and recent events in Syria, the idea of enforceable consequences is somewhat laughable.

            Likewise, Iran itself is also lacking in legitimacy with its human rights failures, and willful violations of Saeed’s human rights. Iran’s suppression of its own people and press, anti-Semitic rhetoric, Holocaust denial, and carte blanche funding of terrorism in Syria and Lebanon utterly shred any semblance of a notion that the nation would comply to a nuclear standard. There have been increasingly few consequences for their other sins. In the face of a weak and compromising administration, what have they to fear for their current sins?

Iran’s leadership already believes it is more powerful than the United States leadership, and has said as much. Given the recent method of “red lines without consequences” as embraced by the US, their bravado is somewhat warranted. As Saeed is still imprisoned and the uranium centrifuges keep spinning, the United States is woefully (and perhaps willfully) powerless to stop either evil from continuing on its merry way.

Quick Hits on the Duck Dynasty Fiasco

Quick Hits

“A&E has free speech rights too, and they exercised those rights.”

Certainly. And they lost an enormous chunk of business. There’s no law against stupidity—mainly because it would be too hard to prosecute every politician in D.C.

Second thought: Was it really an exercise of free speech by A&E? Or was it caving to GLAAD’s demands for punishment?

Third thought: A&E is a business—a business that sacked its top tier moneymaker, and intentionally jeopardized it’s best show. Someone online asked: “does GLAAD pay A&E’s bills?” Probably not. It’s the people that watch A&E? …err…used to watch A&E.

Fourth thought: A&E’s business is to make money via network television. Delving into matters of belief and morality was obviously beyond the scope of their best interests. But they feared GLAAD more than their customers and now the rest is history. This is the same reason that singers and bands should stay out of politics. I don’t care what their politics are…I’m just here for the music. I’ve got an internet full of punditry if I need it.

“Was firing/suspending Phil Robertson wrong?”

Ethically: Probably borderline. There’s a good case for “the boss does what he wants” but also a good case for being fired for irrelevant off-the-clock opinions.

Morally: Dicey. An external group pressured Phil’s bosses to pull him. That’s like me talking your boss into firing you because I don’t agree with your belief. Sketchy.

Business: Yes. A&E just shot their cash cow on their little duck hunt. Dick Cheney now takes Second Place for the “Dumbest Thing Someone Shot While Duck Hunting” award. It was the wrong business decision. Pissing your customers off is always the wrong decision. (Hey at least Cracker Barrel got the memo).

“A&E just wanted to distance themselves and disassociate from Robertson’s remarks.”

That’s a weak argument for two reasons.

First, it requires the faith of a canonized saint to really believe that in 4 years of filming this family’s everyday lives that A&E did not ever find out the Robertson’s beliefs on homosexuality. This then reveals a viable theory: A&E knew their beliefs and ran the show anyway. In other words, Phil could believe it, but the moment he expressed that belief they caved to GLAAD and canned him. That would make the suspension about nothing other than speech.

Second, as the Twitterverse (@AceofSpadesHQ) pointed out, A&E is still running the Duck Dynasty Marathon and presumably reruns—all with Phil in them. They’re actively running new content from Phil. If they REALLY wanted true separation they’d stop running all Duck Dynasty content with Phil in it. Oh wait. They need the money.

“This whole thing is a ploy, a fabrication, a conspiracy.”

If so, by whom?

The Ducks? Canning themselves? Why? Just quit…they didn’t need a scandal for that.

GQ? Possibly, but only in the sense of “hey let’s get a Christian conservative traditionalist in for an interview and ask him about gays.” That’s journalism? That would make GQ the most predictably boring magazine in the world. Seriously…what did they THINK he was going to say?

A&E? On the one hand, it makes sense. Get someone to bait Phil into something controversial, make a stink, get attention, and then watch the ratings soar. Not a bad plan…if not for the (now very real) backlash risk involved. Kind of a long shot for that to be true. It’s a multi-million dollar gamble on A&E’s part—with a lot to lose. 

“This is dumb…while everyone was griping about Phil, Congress passed XYZ.”

On the one hand, yes, people pay too much attention to entertainment figures instead of rotten politicians.

On the other hand, I’d argue that this incident generated steam because it was about freedom of expression, and it brought people into the fray who don’t even watch Duck Dynasty. In other words the issue was bigger than the entertainment factor. Being able to speak your mind without fear is a universally desired standard.

Also, Congress would have done business as usual, Phil or no. The Phil-Incident happening did not distract the people from D.C. long enough to sneak something through. Congress would ram anything through, whether anyone is watching or not. Proof? ObamaCare. It’s never enjoyed majority support, and probably never will. If the American people had voted on it, it would never have passed. Congress passed it anyway, in full view of the public.

Gay writers

A few homosexuals have actually sided with Robertson. Yes, you read that right. What’s interesting is that they see this as a freedom of expression issues first and foremost. Gay CNN Anchor Don Lemon said, “I always err on the side of free speech. Just because I’m offended — as I said, people can say whatever they want to say. I don’t think people should be fired. I think the marketplace should decide.”¹ In short, Don Lemon handled this way better than A&E did—and note his stance: it’s based on free speech.

Camille Paglia, a lesbian author, teacher, and social critic wasn’t so passive in her remarks. She called the action against Robertson, “punitive” and “Stalinist”. “People have the right to free thought and free speech. In a democratic country, people have the right to be homophobic as they have the right to support homosexuality -- as I 100% do. If people are basing their views against gays on the Bible, again they have a right to religious freedom,” she said on a radio interview.² Paglia seems to understand something about free speech: you can’t be choosy about what’s “ok” and what’s not. Perhaps it’s because she’s been on the “wrong” side of the line everyone is so fond of drawing.

Tammy Bruce is the former head of NOW, a feminist activist group, and a lesbian. She tweeted, “The gay civil rights effort was about making sure we weren't punished for being who we are. [It's] Time the left applies that same value to others.”⁴

But perhaps the most poignant quote comes from Brandon Abrosino, a gay writer at Time magazine’s online site. He wrote that, “I’m undecided on whether or not I think Phil actually is homophobic, although I certainly think his statement was offensive . . . But I also think that if I were to spend a day calling ducks with Phil, I’d probably end up liking him — even in spite of his position on gay men. It’s quite possible to throw one’s political support behind traditional, heterosexual marriage, and yet not be bigoted.”³ That’s profound. Brandon’s punch line, as a leftie is: “Why is our go-to political strategy for beating our opponents to silence them?” It’s a great question, and one that I don’t expect the political left to want to answer.

Sources

1 - http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/19/gay-cnn-anchor-defends-duck-dynasty-star-i-dont-think-he-should-be-fired/#ixzz2o2Klxw8r

2 - http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2013/12/19/Openly-Gay-Camille-Paglia-Anti-Duck-Dynasty-Crusade-Utterly-Fascist-and-Utterly-Stalinist-PC-Culture

3 - http://ideas.time.com/2013/12/19/the-duck-dynasty-fiasco-says-more-about-our-bigotry-than-phils/#ixzz2o2OK2T9z

4 - https://twitter.com/heytammybruce/status/413490573106892800

Why the Phil Robertson Incident is Important

Some thoughts on the Great Duck Hunt of 2013:

            First, I’d like to start off by saying that the remarks made by this man are disgusting, heinous, and intolerant. No mere apology will suffice as his statement reveals that he believes a large portion of this country to be evil, deficient, inferior, and it leaves little doubt that he wants to tolerate them, work with them, or ever validate their point of view. It shows his self-serving arrogance, and his prejudiced view of those who think and believe differently than he does. It is my firm belief that he should retire to private life where his beliefs cannot cause further damage. This man, John Podesta should step down, and leave his position of leadership. Podesta is an advisor for Mr. Obama, and thus can directly impact the country. That’s a much bigger story than Phil Robertson.

            Secondly, the United States government abandoned this citizen in his hour of need. All he was guilty of was expressing views that weren’t popular. In their efforts to negotiate a deal, and make peace the US left their own citizen in prison and never lifted a finger to help this peaceful man whose daily existence is one of fear, torture, and constant threat of death. It’s a shame John Kerry was too busy reveling in the moment of now-worthless negotiations to help an American Citizen who is the victim of multiple human rights violations. This imprisoned American citizen is Saeed Adedini, a victim of Iran’s human rights policy and American bureaucratic ineptitude. Saeed, along with Ambassador Stevens, and a good number of other dead, injured, and forgotten are the living (or dead) proof of an incompetent foreign policy strategy. He too is a much bigger story than Phil Robertson. But onward. You came here for ducks and I won’t disappoint you.

            What Phil expressed was his personal belief in a GQ interview and following this the GLAAD organization pressured the A&E channel to “do something” about Phil’s remarks. More or less, they wanted Robertson punished for his statement—they wanted him punished for speaking about his beliefs. Unfortunately, A&E did just that. What they had not anticipated was the criticism, backlash, and the probable loss of a lucrative show from their network. If you think Phil Robertson suffered something for his freedom of speech, you should calculate the financial impact A&E is suffering for their own freedom to fire him—it’s probably significant.

             There is one simple fact that illustrates this is more about freedom of speech and then it is about homosexuality. That fact is that no less then three different and gay authors and thinkers have sided with the idea of keeping Phil Robertson on the air, and supported his right to express himself without fear of repercussions. Camille Paglia a feminist lesbian author and critic, Don Lemon, a gay CNN anchor, and Brandon Ambrosino, a gay writer for Time magazine online have all voiced their opinions on the matter. While they don’t appreciate his remarks each of these three people understands something the rest of the frenzied world does not: Phil Robertson’s views are protected just as much as their own views are protected. Tammy Bruce, the former head of the feminist organization NOW, and self-described lesbian said, “The gay civil rights effort was about making sure we weren't punished for being who we are. Time the left applies that same value to others.” Our beliefs define who we are—should people be punished for that? Doesn’t this principle go both ways then? In other words isn’t being fired for being pro-gay the same thing as being fired for not being pro-gay?

            This is why the Phil Robertson issue really applies to everyone. Everyone enjoys freedom of expression; that they can say things, have unique thoughts and embrace beliefs without the fear of being oppressed or targeted.

“Well I don’t watch Duck Dynasty, I’m not gay, and I don’t care.” You should. You have beliefs and opinions: do you like the idea of being targeted for having them?

            This entire issue boils down to the idea of precedent. Phil Robertson’s private beliefs cost him one of his jobs. What A&E has done is set a precedent and that precedent is this: your irrelevant private beliefs can get you fired. Let’s personalize that idea. What if your boss looked at your Facebook “About” page and summarily fired you for your “Like” of some page? What if you were fired for liking the works of Karl Marx? Or Ayn Rand? What if your boss found out you voted Democrat, or registered Libertarian and fired you? What if your boss found out you were pro-Israel and fired you? What if your boss found out that you gave money to a certain organization, a certain political figure, or a certain charity, and fired you? Then what? Do you still have “freedom of expression”? When you have something to fear for your stance or beliefs are you really free? It certainly doesn’t sound like it. While there may not be the proverbial “duck-tape over the mouth” there certainly is the proverbial “gun to the head.”

This is what even these gay writers understand—especially Camille Paglia, because she’s been on the wrong side of “the line”. Setting this precedent means that in the right situation someone could be targeted, harassed, or pressured because of what they believe. It’s easy to draw a line, and declare that Phil Robertson was on the wrong side of it. But aren’t “line drawers” always on the safe side of the lines they draw? Drawing lines is all well and good, but those lines can be moved…and sooner or later you find yourself on the wrong side of a line. It’s easy to ignore injustice if you’re on the safe side of the line. But what if you are not? (Extra credit: read Martin Niemöller’s famous statement on the subject).

This is why I wouldn’t vote to outlaw homosexuality, socialism, etc, if given the choice—because it sets a precedent that allows us to outlaw beliefs. Outlawing beliefs sounds great if you are thinking about your political enemies, but it sounds awful when the law gets around to one’s own beliefs. That Duck Dynasty is probably over doesn’t bother me…I never watched it. What does bother me is that our culture is setting a new norm: being yourself can cost you something, stating your views, or even having certain views can make you a target for more than just disagreement. It can make you a target for negative action because you are “different”. Isn’t that what intolerance is anyways? And isn’t it ironic that GLAAD stands behind that norm?

The Relationship Between Secularism and Human Rights: Solid Lineage or Frayed Thread?

by Andrew M.

            From the beginning of human history, the rights of human beings have often lacked a voice. Early ideas, such as the Cyrus Cylinder, were concepts in their infancy and were thus limited in scope and development. It is in the last century that human rights have found a voice, acceptance, codification, and concern amongst the nations of the world (Donnelly 496).

            As human rights have become more broadly accepted they have also been more broadly discussed. One such discussion revolves around the relationship between secularism and human rights. Some argue the idea that human rights (and thus also the lack of human rights abuse) stem from creating secular governments, free from religious interference and ideologies (Centre for Secular Space). However, this viewpoint assumes that a government of a secular nature is friendlier to human rights, and more over that there is in fact a positive correlation between secularism and human rights. The question then arises if such assumptions hold up to the test of reality. Given a survey of countries, governments, and human rights offenders from recent history, it quickly becomes clear that such a link is, at best, difficult to establish.

            For the sake of clarity, it must be noted that “human rights” in this paper refers to rights defined and recognized in the International Bill of Human Rights. This list is not universal by any means, but in the interests of brevity and a definitive argument it is a reasonable starting point for a discussion on human rights.
            Likewise, the term “secularism” also demands definition. The Centre for Secular Space argues that secularism or more specifically “secular space” is defined as, “a separation between religion and the state” (Centre for Secular Space). Their argument revolves around the idea that the state must not be controlled by religious influences. While this can lead to further debate about the nature of influence and religion, for the purposes of this paper the definition of secularism is thus: a government, theory, or figure known to be free from religious influence, that is, an entity removed from the impacts of religion. Such a definition is somewhat of a broad brush to paint with, but further detail would demand exhaustive research and detailed reckoning with all aspects of what may be implied by the term, “secularist”.

            First, it must be determined what a few of the key documents are in the earliest history of human rights, and if those documents are in fact secular documents. United for Human Rights (UHR) NGO, lists the Cyrus Cylinder, the Magna Carta, and the US Bill of Rights as foundational to modern human rights (“History…” 1). While this is not a complete and universal list, it does represent a significant portion of the foundations for modern human rights. This is notable because each of these sources is by no means purely secular. The Cyrus Cylinder originated from King Cyrus the Great in ancient Babylon. The Cylinder is a record of Cyrus’ decrees for religious and racial rights and equality, and thus one of the earliest records of codified human rights law (“History…” 1). Cyrus himself was known to be quite tolerant of other religions (“The Cyrus Cylinder”) and even encouraged the rebuilding of the Jewish temple and religious system (ibid). While it may be fruitless to argue which religion Cyrus practiced (Briant 94), it is well known that Babylon itself was highly religious society and cultural center. This makes the argument for Cyrus and his Cylinder as purely secular entities very difficult at best.

            The Magna Carta is another example of early rights documentation. King John enacted (albeit briefly) the document nearly 800 years ago, which established rights and limits between John and some of his subjects (Hirsch). In 2010 the UK Minister for State of Justice, Lord McNally referred to the Magna Carta as the “most influential secular document” in the world (Hirsch). But the language of the document itself, as well as those present at the signing creates doubt regarding the extent of its secularist nature. Those present included not only King John, but also a list of bishops, archbishops, and “reverend fathers” (“Treasures…"). At the very least, the company of the creators and signers was anything but purely secular. Furthermore the language includes phrases such as, “John, by the grace of God, King of England . . . know that before God . . . to the honour of God . . . the exaltation of the holy Church”, as well as additional language about the freedom of the church (“Treasures…”). Whether or not John was a highly religious man is somewhat irrelevant. What is relevant is that the religious authority of the day had influence in politics and the creation of the document, and the language of the Magna Carta reflects this. These origins strongly imply religious influence, and yet the document would go on to be highly regarded in the eyes of human rights history.

            Likewise, the Bill of Rights was not constructed in a purely secularist vacuum either. James Madison and George Mason authored the document, and while the details of their religious views may not be fully known, what is known leaves much to be desired for the secularist argument. Madison is thought to have believed in deism, and author James Brieg says that Madison, “defended belief in God as a moral necessity to man” (Brieg). George Mason, was also a religious man, who wrote that, “Duty which we owe to our divine and omnipotent Creator . . . And that it is the mutual Duty of all, to practice Christian forbearance, Love and Charity towards Each other” (Dreisbach). As it is, both men held their belief in God as a serious conviction. It is reasonable to assume that these beliefs were of some influence as they crafted the Bill of Rights (a codified law of human rights), and it would be very difficult to prove otherwise.

            The presence and likely influence of religious beliefs in the creation of each of these documents or belief systems is problematic to wholly disprove. Each of these influential sources shows evidence of religious influence and a lack of evidence for a secularist argument. They contain either religious language, or was written by such a person or in such a way that it is impossible to purge religious influence from them. Thus, from a beginning it is impossible to declare human rights as an entirely secularist entity. Modern human rights as seen by the United Nations and Declaration of Human Rights may be somewhat secularist in nature, but the origins of such concepts are far less one-sided.

            This is an important theme as the issue of human rights violations and abuses are also considered in light of secularism. One the one hand, religions have historically been notorious for their abuse of those who did not join their cause, and this is seen even in modern human rights history. The 2013 U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) report names the top 15 worst human rights offending countries—ten of which are governed by Islamic totalitarian regimes (Blankely). While the report does focus on religious freedom, it is important to note that the top 15 countries on the report are regarded as Tier 1 countries, that is that they routinely engage in acts that violate basic human rights such as “torture, prolonged detention without charges, [and] disappearances” to name a few (Liben 3). The report also suggests that an additional number of countries be added to the Tier 1 list, as “CPCs” or “countries of particular concern” (ibid). The majority of these countries are also Islamic totalitarian regimes. Issues such as women’s rights, and the rights of religious, ethnic, or sexual minorities are often endangered at best, and all-out persecuted at worst.  Additionally other historical events such as the Crusades have brought wholesale torture, threats, and death to the general populace in the name of religion. The history of religion reveals that some religious movements have thoroughly trampled on human rights.

            On the other hand, however, this is not a wholesale endorsement of the secularist viewpoint. The Centre for Secular Space argues that, “human rights cannot thrive in an atmosphere of religious intimidation” (“Frequently…), and argues also that the State should not have abusive power over religious institutions (ibid). Yet it is clear from a survey of history that human rights have been abused in a secularist vacuum—and perhaps worse than their religious counterparts. University of Hawaii Professor R.J. Rummel conducted research suggesting that Soviet Russia saw the death of 61 million people during its tenure as communist regime (Rummel). The official stance of the Soviet government was decidedly secularist: atheism was the only acceptable belief for citizens (Kowalewski). Many of those killed, tortured, or oppressed were so abused because of their own religious beliefs by a secularist authoritarian government. Likewise, many of the top countries of concern for human rights abuses are also secularist regimes: China, Burma, Laos, Cuba, North Korea, Belarus, Equatorial Guinea and so on (Liben 3,4). In these countries religion is not the aggressor—secularist regimes are. Some are merely oppressive, others are vehemently anti-religious in nature, such as North Korea which is arguably one of the most repressive regimes of the modern world. As the CSS argues, human rights cannot thrive under religious intimidation. But neither do they flourish de facto under secular rule, and the secularist leadership of Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot made this point with tens of millions of secular state murders (Rummel).

            Each of these factors reveals a few simple truths. First, secularism has no corner on the market of the creation of human rights. Arguably the involvement, and codification of human rights at the UN is somewhat secularist, but by no means is secularism the overwhelming force behind the initial concepts of human rights. Many of the concepts were espoused or theorized by religiously practicing peoples, and possibly with religious basis or intent. Separating the religion from these theoreticians is a challenge grossly lacking in hard evidence, and instead, evidence may actually suggest the opposite (Freeman 399).

            Secondly, while secularism has no monopoly on the origins of human rights, neither has religion a monopoly on the abuse of human rights. While radical Islam is the most current and oppressive religious factor regarding human rights there are other oppressive forces in the world. There are multiple countries guilty of egregious crimes against humanity not in the name of religious beliefs, but in the name of secular control. It could be argued that secularist religiophobia has proven every bit as deadly as religion itself.

            From this then there is an answer for the correlation between human rights and secularism: it is a theory stretched thin by the lattice of history. Human rights concepts and milestones such as the Cyrus Cylinder, Magna Carta, and Bill of Rights have been crafted in something less than a secularist vacuum. Yet human rights have been violated on the steps of cathedrals and in atheists’ gulags, showing that the case for pointing fingers at one side or the other is a difficult one to make at best. Religions and the non-religious have oppressed themselves and each other in every possible permutation throughout human history. In the secularist union of the United Nations human rights has found a stage by which to make a plea for reasonable treatment for people around the world. This setting modern era is fertile soil for the ideas of human rights to be promoted abroad. This is the best reasonable correlation; even so the secularism of the U.N. may not be the cause of such fertile soil, but merely a bystander in the right place at the right time.

Works Cited

Blankley, Bethany. "Report: Two-Thirds of 'Worst Violators of Religious Freedom' Are Muslim Countries." CPWorld. Christian Post, 07 May 2013. Web. 24 Nov. 2013. <http://www.christianpost.com/news/report-two-thirds-of-worst-violators-of-religious-freedom-are-muslim-countries-95381/>.

Briant, Pierre, and Peter Daniels. From Cyrus to Alexander: History of the Persian Empire. N.p.: Eisenbrauns, n.d. Google Books. Google. Web. 25 Nov. 2013. <http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lxQ9W6F1oSYC>.

Brieg, James. "History.org: The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation's Official History and Citizenship Website." Deism : The Colonial Williamsburg Official History & Citizenship Site. History.org / Colonial Williamsburg, Apr.-May 2009. Web. 25 Nov. 2013. <http://www.history.org/foundation/journal/spring09/deism.cfm>.

"The Cyrus Cylinder and Ancient Persia: A New Beginning." The Cyrus Cylinder and Ancient Persia: A New Beginning | Exhibitions | Freer and Sackler Galleries. Smithsonian Institution, 09 Mar. 2013. Web. 27 Nov. 2013. <http://www.asia.si.edu/exhibitions/current/cyrus-cylinder.asp>.

Donnelly, Jack. "Human Rights." The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations. By John Baylis, Steve Smith, and Patricia Owens. New York: Oxford UP, 2011. N. pag. Print.

Dreisbach, Daniel L. "GEORGE MASON: LIFE & TIMES ESSAYS." GEORGE MASON: LIFE & TIMES ESSAYS. GunstonHall.org, 1997. Web. 27 Nov. 2013. <http://www.gunstonhall.org/georgemason/essays/dreisbach_essay.html>.

Freeman, Michael. "Project MUSE - The Problem of Secularism in Human Rights Theory." Project MUSE - The Problem of Secularism in Human Rights Theory. Human Rights Watch, 2004. Web. 27 Nov. 2013. <http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/human_rights_quarterly/v026/26.2freeman.html>.

"Frequently Asked Questions." Centre for Secular Space. Centre for Secular Space, 2013. Web. 27 Nov. 2013. <http://www.centreforsecularspace.org/about-us/faqs/>.

Hirsch, Afua. "Magna Carta: Honouring the World's 'most Influential Secular Document'" The Guardian. The Guardian, 12 Nov. 2010. Web. 27 Nov. 2013. <http://www.theguardian.com/law/afua-hirsch-law-blog/2010/nov/12/magna-carta-800>.

"History of Natural Law & Basic Freedoms, Cyrus the Great: United for Human Rights." History of Natural Law & Basic Freedoms, Cyrus the Great: United for Human Rights. United for Human Rights, 2012. Web. 24 Nov. 2013. <http://www.humanrights.com/what-are-human-rights/brief-history/cyrus-cylinder.html>.

Kowalewski, David. "Protest for Religious Rights in the USSR: Characteristics and Consequences." JSTOR. N.p., Oct. 1980. Web. 26 Nov. 2013. <http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/128810?uid=3739552>.

Liben, Paul. Annual Report of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. Rep. United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, Apr. 2013. Web. 23 Nov. 2013.

Rummel, R. J. "How Many Did Communist Regimes Murder?" Www.hawaii.edu. University of Hawaii, 1993. Web. 23 Nov. 2013. <http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM>.

"Treasures in Full: Magna Carta." Treasures in Full: Magna Carta. British Library, n.d. Web. 27 Nov. 2013. <http://www.bl.uk/treasures/magnacarta/translation/mc_trans.html>.

Reasoning

We told kids they came from animals

And then watched in shock

As the stronger slew the weak in bestial violence

We told a God of love, morals and reason

To get the hell out

And then we watched befuddled as hell took over

We raged against the sword

Because we would rather point the finger

Than look in the mirror at the evil

Holding the sword to our own throats

Write-in Throw Outs: A Conservative Christian Perspective of Third Party Votes

Often when I write, I write with a political perspective and I leave the spiritual out of it. There are a variety of reasons for this, but this is one time I’m making an exception to the rule.
    There are more than a few Christians making the argument for a third-party or write-in vote. Usually this is morally justified as being the best option and not voting for someone who they believe to be morally inferior—or by avoiding the “lesser of two evils” situation. While this sounds fine there’s a few truths that aren’t generally taken into account.
    First, we’re electing a president not a pastor as one minister put it. The leader we are electing is a secular, governmental, leader. For reasons not discussed here, God consistently differentiates between spiritual and governmental authority. (See also Uzziah).
    Additionally, Christians talk a lot about stewardship. The idea of stewardship is that one is responsible to God for the things one can control. The truth is that electing a write-in candidate or a third party candidate is not within the control of the believer. Nearly any traditional Christian would argue that Barack Obama has been a model of bad stewardship on nearly every front. The question is whether said Christians will exercise their own stewardship to oust a bad leader when God gives them the option. I argue they should.
    Given that Christians are typically more conservative, the argument is easily made that a third-party write in does not deny Barack Obama support—rather it denies him opposition. The conservative Christian vote was never for Obama, but it could be against him. Voting third party takes away that opposition, thus a conservative or libertarian write-in vote helps Barack Obama, the epitome of the very mindset conservatives and libertarians despise. Shouldn’t Christians instead oppose a leader with godless and bad stewardship habits when God gives them the legal authority to do so? Again, I argue they should.
    “Well I don’t like Mitt Romney, and I don’t like Barack either. I’m voting 3rd party to voice my discontent!” This is no doubt a tempting route for many. But the truth is that such a vote is, a) a complaint (see Phi 2:14), and b) a vote that doesn’t change anything. Christians are called to be salt and light, that is to stand against darkness and corruption. The corruption in the current administration is easily demonstrable—look no further than Libya, Solyndra, or another 50 companies that were invested in because they were pals to the president—not because they were an honest deal for American taxpayers. Again, the question is to stand against Obama's corruption or not.
    “I don’t like voting for the lesser of two evils!”
This fallacy is predicated on the assumption that the desired candidate (third party/write in) isn’t evil, when in fact, they are. Ron Paul is an evil man. So is Gary Johnson. So are Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. They’re all men. To be evil is their nature aside from grace. The truth is there is no perfect candidate and to get caught up in this trap is to deny that all men are evil. No matter who runs, the choice between two humans will always come down to the lesser of two evils.
    As far as the "cause" is concerned, the libertarian cause isn’t completely justifiable biblically, and neither is the GOP cause. Their particular blindness is to suggest that America can be restored to its early 1800s greatness. But this simply isn't possible. America is a different country demographically. American is also a different country governmentally. Ronald Reagan said that government never voluntarily reduces itself. It simply grows till, like a morbidly obese person, it collapses under its own weight and ceases to move. The simple ingredients for a 1776 America are long gone. The Americans of the past wanted to build their lives from the ground up. Today, they want their lives subsidized from the top down.
    The time has come to face the facts: we’re not going back. Simply put, we can’t go back. Mitt Romney isn’t ideal, and he’s not perfect. But he isn’t Barack Obama, and he is the only alternative at this point. Talk about Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, or whichever candidate all you wish but realize this: God has let only these two choices fall before us. The only question to answer is “will you stand against the corruption of Barack Obama?” If not, please don’t complain about the next four years.
    (Post-Note: The other issue with the grand “Restoration of America” is that it is ultimately is blind to the issue of Biblical prophecy. The words, “In the last days…” are rarely if ever followed by a description of humans getting more godly. The last days are not described as a time when people return to sanity and reason—rather it is a time when they depart from both. The grandiose “Restoration of America” from a libertarian standpoint is not generally preceded by the idea of revival. But unless hearts change the nation will not change. But the Bible is clear that the last days are filled with cold hearts. Cold hearts will not return to 1776, nor anytime near it. Only hearts aflame follow in the footsteps of Jonathan Edwards, Jefferson, Washington, Paine, and all the other great americans we admire. Those hearts are dying off. The good news is that they are being collected, and kept, for the Day when all things are set right. Thus we set no hope in Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, or Gary Johnson. We set hope in Christ alone, for that Day alone.)