What Is The Meaning of Life?

Why are we here? What is the point of our existence? Upon a quick perusal of the Wikipedia article for this topic, one is bombarded with many different views. These are incredibly varied, from "To realize one's potential and dreams" to "To achieve biological perfection". On the surface, these seem like good things. After all, if one is born with amazing natural talent, shouldn't they work extremely hard to develop it and showcase it? If I cognitively realize how terrible the world is now, shouldn't I work extremely hard to make sure the next generation is better than this one?

What is the solution that each of these ideas reaches after? I believe it is ultimately the fulfillment of each individual. At the end of the day, if I can say I moved towards my meaning of life, and provided further reason for my continued existence, then I can look past all the bad that I have done, pat myself on the back, and try to do the same thing tomorrow. The only thing this really accomplishes is to release endorphins and make me happy. If all I try to do is realize my potential and dreams, I am solely working for me, making sure my priorities are above everyone else's. If all I try to do is achieve biological perfection, and try to make the next generation better, I know that everyone after me has me to thank for their great lives.

We can easily see that all of this is, in the end, amazingly self-centered. Everything we do, we do to get ourselves something. The problem is that we are inherently finite beings. We cannot know everything, do everything, see everything, feel everything, touch everything, or even live long enough to give ourselves the chance to try. Following any of Wikipedia's answers leads to ultimate failure.

What is the Christian's answer? What is the meaning of our lives?

 I have seen the business that God has given to the children of man to be busy with. He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into man's heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end. I perceived that there is nothing better for them than to be joyful and to do good as long as they live; also that everyone should eat and drink and take pleasure in all his toil—this is God's gift to man. - Ecclesiastes 3:10-13

Our meaning in life, the point of our existence is to be joyful and do good. Doing these two things puts us in direct contrast with the world. Being joyful does nothing to make people cater to your needs. Doing good and serving oneself cannot both be done. If a Christian does not do these things, he puts his meaning of life in something else, something other than what he is called to.

Author Stephen Covey in his book 7 Habits of Highly Effective People writes that an effective person should begin with the end in mind. Basically, one should envision one's eulogy being read. What goes into it should determine what we do with our lives. If the Christian was to begin with the end in mind, he would center his life on being joyful and doing good. This is the only way to do what God has called us to do, and it also puts on a totally opposite path from the rest of the world.

Rick Santorum

The son of Italian immigrants, an in-your-face Catholic, and a staunch social conservative, Rick Santorum is certainly a unique candidate. While most of the field would rather not deal with social issues typically championed by the GOP, he embraces them and makes them the highlight of his campaign. Currently, he is battling with Romney for the lead in the primary race, while staving off renewed support for Gingrich. With that in mind, let's look at his stance on the issues.

#1: The Economy: He promises a lot. And it all makes good, old-fashioned business sense. He plans to cut the corporate tax rate in half to 17.5%. As I have asked of practically every other candidate, why? Where does the arbitrariness come from? Why not set it at 0%? The good thing about it is that he takes a cue from the best congressman in office, Paul Ryan, when he states that it will be a flat tax. No more loopholes for Big Business.

The best part of his plan is the budget cuts for the federal government:

I’ll propose spending cuts of $5 trillion over 5 years, including spending cuts for the remainder of fiscal year 2013. I will propose budgets that spend less money each year than the year before, and I’ll reduce the non-defense related federal workforce at least 10 percent, without replacing with contractors. 

That is change we can all believe in, eh? I mean, it matches Ron Paul, the extreme fiscal conservative as far as spending cuts go.

One part that should be troubling to anyone paying attention, though, is his idea of making Social Security and Medicare so that they are "fiscally sustainable." In a country where children are making up a smaller and smaller portion of the population, this is pretty much impossible. I'll be interested to see just how exactly this comes about.

#2: Immigration: Santorum takes a tough-on-immigration stance. He proposes securing the border first, asking questions later. While this is a wonderful plan as far as national security is concerned, it sort of puts a damper on our relations with Mexico, whose government we should be wholeheartedly supporting. In addition to extending the border fence, he wants to implement an E-verify system, so that companies can make sure that they are not hiring illegals, and the government will have an easier job enforcing the law. Anytime the government says it wants to increase identification measures in the interest of enforcing the laws, run. Run far, far away. At least the E-verify system has little support in Congress, so it isn't realistically going to come into being. Other than this, he pretty much states the party line on other facets of immigration.

#3: National Security: His views on national security are inextricably tied to American Exceptionalism. He takes a strong stance against the ideology of radical Islam, saying we should deal with it like we dealt with communism under Reagan, yet he acknowledges that it is perfectly acceptable to work with Muslim nations, as long as we point out their flaws.

He also takes a particularly strong position on Iran saying that if Israel doesn't remove their nuclear facilities, we'll do it ourselves. Obviously, the US hasn't been this belligerent toward a country since 2003, and this always means war. Whether or not we can launch a military strike against Iran without kicking off a  regional-, or maybe a global-war is for the experts to say, but everyone can agree it is risky at best.

There is nothing wrong with condemning war-mongering countries as long as we don't participate in it ourselves. If Iran continues on their collision course with world stability, those countries in a position to do something about it should. Until then, threats of military strikes should be left for pundits.

#4: The Constitution: While siding with the non-Paulites in the campaign by not making the Constitution an issue in his message, he has taken the wise road of encouraging a strong moral standard in culture. Too many times do politicians hem and haw over the question of morality, often taking a totally different ethical stance personally than they preach publicly (Enter Gingrich), Santorum is the exception to this rule. He bravely holds the social conservative line, defending traditional marriage and the dignity of all human life. When America's leaders are openly discussing these things, there is hope yet for the country. A belief system identical to the Founders' will mean a return to the pro-Constitution values that are desperately needed in this day and age.

In conclusion, Santorum is a candidate who easily wins the American heartland with his free-market economics and conservative ethics. The problem with this is that he can be a tad over-zealous when enforcing the law, which leads to the same thinking that lead to the Patriot Act and the NDAA. The trick for winning the nomination for him will be broadening his appeal by emphasizing his economic policy. All things considered, he probably makes the most ideal Republican candidate in the field.