Economists and Experts Agree

And for what it’s worth, so do I.

+ + + + + + +

Cross-Posted at Allan R. Bevere

As expected, Ben Stein’s new documentary has been given a chilly reception by most reviewers—by folks inclined to sympathize with the moral stylings of Joy Behar and reluctant to express opinions at odds with gray eminences at The New York Times.

Outside of “the usual suspects” (like Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center) few have been willing to put their heads on the cultural chopping block for the sake of open dialogue about a scientific hypothesis called “Intelligent Design.” Instead, as the movie itself asserts, most commentators are content to reiterate the boilerplate descriptions typically employed whenever this topic is broached.

A San Diego radio newscaster, for example, pigeonholed the production as a “movie about religion.” In fact, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed isn’t a movie about religion. It’s a documentary that shows how academics and other cultural elites are blocking honest discussion of a theory that undercuts purely materialistic explanations of the origin of life.

A common tactic for stifling this debate is to repeat the lie that “intelligent design” is simply a stalking horse for “creationism.” Though the movie doesn’t provide a detailed discussion of ID, it does present enough superbly qualified and articulate advocates of the theory to demonstrate that its proponents aren’t, as advertised, slack-jawed Neanderthals in lab smocks. 

The movie also highlights more aggressive tactics for enforcing Darwinist orthodoxy—denial of tenure, blackballing, the denial of grants, and refusing to publish the work of ID dissidents. Professor Guillermo Gonzalez, for example, an astronomer with a stellar publication record, was recently denied tenure at Iowa State University, apparently because of his association with ID theory. Similarly, at Baylor University, Engineering Professor Robert Marks II saw his school web site unplugged and grant money revoked when his work on information theory began interfacing productively with ID. These are only two of several examples presented in the film. Collectively, these cases expose a widespread effort to marginalize academics who raise questions about Darwinian theory and to ignore research that suggests what Sir Isaac Newton assumed—that an intelligent designer sustains the cosmos. 

The intolerance suggested by these methods is also exhibited in the interviews Stein conducts with members of the science establishment. Among the words that spring to mind when viewing these exchanges are “pompous, dismissive of criticism,” and “small-minded.” One petty tyrant (who looked every bit the part) was perfectly pleased with the speculative theory that life emerged “on the backs of crystals.” Another critic with a noxious demeanor dismissed ID as incredibly “boring.” A third enforcer of orthodoxy pronounced confidently, and erroneously, that ID proponents had published no peer-reviewed work.

Philosophically speaking, the easiest way to enforce neo-Darwinian orthodoxy is to equate science and inquiry within a materialistic paradigm. Given this definition, any theory that strays beyond materialistic parameters is automatically labeled pseudo-science. These ground rules mean that empirically derived evidence of intelligent causation, no matter how compelling, must be ignored. As Stein’s interview with Richard Dawkins illustrates, it’s OK to speculate (as the late DNA researcher Francis Crick did) that life arose on earth due to seeds planted by space aliens, but scientists aren’t allowed to assert that a cell’s complex information codes point, more simply and broadly, to an intelligent cause. In other words, for the Darwinist establishment, all intelligent causes must have prior unintelligent causes if an explanation is to be considered “science.” 

As a philosopher of science, Alfred North Whitehead, observed almost a century ago, this “fixed scientific cosmology” means that all ultimate explanations must be expressed in terms of “senseless, valueless, purposeless” material that is “spread throughout space in a flux of configurations.” Stein’s movie provides a perfect example of this nihilistic perspective in the person of Professor William Provine. Provine’s dogmatic on-screen pronouncements link his devotion to Darwinism to a deterministic creed that reduces moral propositions to meaningless chatter and human beings to insignificant chatterers.  Curiously, the Professor persists in exhibiting moral and aesthetic preferences in which he exhibits a degree of pride—as if he had the freedom to accept inferior alternatives.

The most controversial aspect of Stein’s documentary is the way it links Darwinism and The Third Reich. Beyond discussing how Mein Kampf’s terminology and thought structures are deeply indebted to Darwin, Stein also makes visits to Hadamar (where Nazis exterminated thousands of mental “defectives”) and to Dachau (where other sub-Aryans met the same fate at the hands of individuals who embraced the pre-Nazi science of eugenics). Though many viewers will find this focus on a Darwin-Hitler axis objectionable, the clear links that do exist raise a monumental question that’s been studiously ignored by intellectuals who view Darwin as a savior from religion. That question goes as follows: If atheistic, materialistic, Darwinistic explanations permeate society, aren’t actions like those at Hadamar and Dachau made more philosophically plausible? Indeed, aren’t such actions what one should expect in a world where “will to power” and the “struggle for existence” are seen as “real” scientific explanations and “intelligence” is dismissed as a quaint epiphenomenon?     

The primary image Stein employs to dramatize the expulsion of open inquiry from science is the Berlin Wall—a metaphor that combines authoritarianism, fear, dogmatism, and the suppression of human freedom. Expelled provides plenty of evidence to suggest that this image is more than a hyperbolic device to magnify a minor disciplinary quarrel. Indeed, the film offers sufficient reason to view The Wall as a grim historical preview of a world divested of moral import—a world where “intelligent” explanations are given no scientific credence. 

In 1925, Alfred North Whitehead said that the prevailing materialistic outlook in science was “entirely unsuited to the scientific situation at which we have now arrived.” Stein’s ID proponents would add to that assertion arguments taken from cell biology, astronomy, and information theory. More significantly, however, Stein’s film asserts (and Whitehead would probably agree) that scientific materialism is all too compatible with a vision of reality that embraces authoritarianism and eugenic extermination. The latter is clearly a compelling reason for tearing down the ugly wall that currently separates intelligence and science. 

 Richard Kirk is a freelance writer and a regular columnist for San Diego’s North County Times. His columns have been published in several Southern California newspapers. His book reviews and other articles have appeared in Touchstone, World Net Daily, and First Things. See his blog, Richard Kirk on Ethics: Musing With A Hammer.

Do you have to agree with a candidate on every point before you can vote for that person? I think most people will say no. The important question is, on what issues can we disagree amicably, and what issues are deal killers?

As believers, we want to let the Bible inform our vote, but there are issues the Bible doesn’t seem to directly address, and there are issues that the biblical position, if there really is one, isn’t especially clear. On those issues, I believe we can only use our best judgment after careful, prayerful consideration.

Even then, though, we’re going to disagree – with each other and with those running for office. That’s ok, but it doesn’t help us decide what to do. How should we approach choosing a candidate?

We can disagree about whether a policy is prudent. Was NAFTA a good idea? How about Social Security “privatization?” If you think a policy is a bad idea, and your candidate disagrees, you can overlook that. Of course, if the list of such issues is arm length, maybe you need a new guy, but the occasional policy difference is not a big deal.

We can disagree on whether a task is the government’s responsibility or prerogative. Some think certain issues are not the federal government’s jurisdiction – e.g., funding for the arts. Others think some problems are best handled at the local level – like education. Even if you disagree about constitutionality, that is differing on interpretation of the law, and you can get over that.

We can disagree on whether a policy is the best way to approach an issue. Everyone thinks we need to do something to address illegal immigration. If your candidate’s position is somewhat more liberal than yours (or vice versa), I think we can let that slide when there are more pressing issues. How should we handle tariffs, foreign aid, or health care reform? Reasonable people can differ on how to address these issues.

However, if we disagree on a moral issue on which you are convinced that I am indisputably wrong, you cannot vote for me. For believers, morality – i.e., God’s moral law – is immutable, and if a policy is sure to violate or encourage others to violate it, we can’t support that.

The “indisputably” is an important caveat. Can you accept that reasonable people can have different beliefs on this issue? Can you see how a case can be made in the opposite direction, even if you find it unconvincing? If so, then the other is not being recklessly immoral; a seriously considered, prayerfully formed position that is different than yours can be respected and even overlooked if necessary.

If you cannot fathom how another person can hold that position, though, voting for that candidate is voting for what you are convinced is an immoral policy, and I think that is a compromise believers cannot make.

I’m not saying that you have to get all judgmental or that you believe you are inarguably right on all moral matters. I’m saying if you cannot even imagine a plausible case for the other side, you’ve got to act as if I’m wrong.

Now the question begs to be asked: What are moral issues upon which I should hinge my vote? Over the coming weeks we’ll be looking at some issues that I believe are, and some that aren’t, deal killer issues.

(This article was cross-posted from Homeward Bound.)

I have been trying to keep my powder dry regarding the Rev. Wright controversy. The pundits on the “right” have been making the claim that Obama must have a major judgment problem; after all, he was a member of Rev. Wright’s congregation for some twenty years. He must have known what this pastor was about. He had to know in his heart of hears that this pastor was just a bit kooky.

The pundits in the mainstream media (most of them tilt to the “left’) love this story because it fills up time on 24 hour news channels on cable. They promote it at every turn: Is Obama’s pastor problem behind him? Is Hilary taking advantage of this weakness? What are the polls telling us about how the voters are processing this information?.

Some of the questions I have to ask myself as a pastor and as a former seminary student, who attended a liberal parish, while attending Fuller Theological Seminary, are the following:

1 As pastors in the United States of America are we not called to speak the truth to power even if this speech goes against popular notions of what is or is not patriotic?

2 How do we deal with our pastors when they say some things that sound nutty, kooky or worse, call the overall notion of what is true into question?

3 What is the proper role for a pastor to take when one of his or her congregants are pursuing elective office.

I think it is clear from our calling as pastor/teachers that we must proclaim the truth to power, even if it means that we take positions at odds with our nation, state or fellow citizens. If we can not speak the truth on issues vital to the gospel, we can and will be compromised. We have to obey God rather than the popular wisdom of current cultural trends regardless of the cost to our standing in the community.

The second question is much harder to tackle. How does on approach a pastor who is articulating a position that is kooky or nutty. For example: the charge that the US government developed the Aids virus in order to destroy members of the black community, to many on the “right” sounds kooky. These same people have little doubt that Planned Parenthood is involved in the destruction of the black community due to its abortion policy.

I have attended churches that proclaim a view of the second coming of our Lord that I find non-biblical, and, in some but not all cases, just a bit nutty (dispensationalist). Yet, at the same time the overall ministry from the pulpit and from the greater fellowship made up for any lack due to faulty theology brought about by having a “strange” eschatology. And, I am sure that many dispensationalists who attended my parish felt the same way.

Where do our pastor’s strange beliefs cross the line, and when do we take a stand when they assert some kooky political opinions? I am not sure I have a complete answer. But my starting point would be: does the “strange” belief overshadow the preaching of the gospel? Does this belief cloud the clear mandate regarding the congregation’s ministry and life?

Since I was not now, nor, have I ever been a member of Rev. Wright’s church, I can not answer this question for his congregants. But these are the sort of questions we should be asking of ourselves and our pastors.

I am more concerned about Rev. Wright’s response to the situation over the last few days. It looks to me like he is enjoying the spotlight at the expense of his friend and former congregant. It does not appear to me to be the loving response of someone who is called to be an example of Christ, who laid down his life for his sheep and calls us to follow his example.

Apparently, Markos Moulitsas, founder of the Daily Kos, and other left-wing bloggers are upset that the Democrats are now interviewing with reporters from FOX News. Several months ago, Markos, and other secular extremists, shut down a scheduled Democratic candidate debate on FOX that the network was hosting with the Congressional Black Caucus. They basically threatened the candidates in order to get them to boycott the network because of the concern that FOX News leans to the right in its reporting.

Let me offer a not-so-profound insight that should be obvious to all: Of course, FOX News leans to the right! But CNN and MSNBC lean to the left! Why should anyone be surprised by this? I don’t hear any members of the wacky-right calling for a boycott of the latter two networks. Senators Clinton and Obama understand the importance of being heard by as many people as possible; and whether Moulitsas likes it or not, FOX News is the most watched cable news network. In appearing on FOX, these two senators are simply employing smart politics. There are plenty of people in this country, who are considering voting for the Democratic nominee in November, and they do not embrace Moulitsas’ secular extremist views. They, of course, will be thrown into outer darkness when Moulitsas finally establishes his secular-leftist kingdom.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Supreme Court of the United States has handed down a 6-3 ruling upholding an Indiana law requiring individuals to show a photo ID in order to vote. Those challenging the law have argued that it is to burdensome on the poor, minorities, and the elderly, who are less likely to have driver’s licenses or other forms of picture identification.

I won’t go into the details of the Supreme Court decision. The New York Times summarizes the arguments on both sides very well. But, I indeed think that the Supreme Court got this one right for the following reasons:

First, throughout American political history, there have always been unscrupulous individuals on both sides of the political aisle, who without conscience, will defraud elections wherever possible, in order to maintain or to place their party in power. When one studies the history of fraud in elections, as I have, it is rather humorous to me when one party accuses the other of voter disenfranchisement, as if their side is innocent and pure. In attempting to ensure the one person one vote so necessary for free and fair elections, the courts and the legislatures are not disenfranchising individual voters in making and upholding such laws; they are in actuality making it more difficult for unprincipled political piranhas, who have no life outside of their partisan world, to make democracy less democratic by “stuffing the ballot box.” In response to the Supreme Court ruling, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), who opposes the photo ID requirement, said that in-person voter fraud has been proven time and time again to be a myth. The good senator needs to do his homework on that one. He also needs to remember that in the last two presidential elections, it has been his party that has leveled the charge of voter fraud in various states against the Republican party.

Read the rest of this entry »

In watching some of the material on Dr. Jeremiah Wright today, I’m reminded of the potential problem of tolerance–getting it above its proper rank as a value. I have been confronted numerous times in face to face discussions with the statement that I cannot be truly tolerant, because to be tolerant, I must tolerate intolerance.

But that is a sort of binary thinking that is, quite frankly, the basis for a great deal of stupidity. For me tolerance is not an absolute. Tolerance is something I value. I do not value it above all else. It is the sort of thing that when overvalued can become self-destructive. To illustrate from the physical world, I value my home. But when a hurricane is coming, I value my life and my family more highly than my home. So I evacuate when it’s appropriate. Some don’t, and end up dead or injured.

There are a number of comments by Rev. Wright that I am quite willing to defend. I’m even willing, as you will have noted, to defend a large part of his “God damn America” speech, while confessing that I would never have expressed it that way myself. I can get behind the rhetoric to a good point.

But in embracing Farrakhan, I believe Wright steps over that line to tolerating intolerance. Farrakhan has, in fact, done some good things in the African-American community. but he has more than balanced that with hateful speech and acts, and with his anti-Semitism. Barack Obama was correct to reject (and denounce!) his support. Rev. Wright does himself a disservice by embracing him.

To quote from MSNBC.com:

At the press club, he jokingly offered himself as Obama’s running mate and embraced Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan even though he said he doesn’t always agree with him. He criticized the U.S. government as imperialist and stood by his suggestion that the U.S. invented the HIV virus as a means of genocide against minorities. “Based on this Tuskegee experiment and based on what has happened to Africans in this country, I believe our government is capable of doing anything,” he said.

To tolerate Louis Farrakhan in this fashion is to tolerate intolerance, and this is a liberal danger. We wish to be so careful not to be intolerant. We want to be even handed, and love all the disadvantaged, underprivileged, and oppressed people. Those are good impulses. But we need to be careful to draw moral lines. We can desire justice for the Palestinians without justifying their killing of Israelis. We can recognize the economic hardships that contribute to terrorist recruiting without justifying the use made of it by terrorists. We can recognize the need for pride in the African-American community without also justifying a new form of hate and racism.

Besides embracing Farrakhan, who has stepped way over the line, he continues with the claim that HIV was produced by the U. S. government. Based on things done in years past, I would be prepared to hear it if evidence turned up that some secret agency had done this in some way. U. S. government agencies have done some quite evil things. But the key there is the need for evidence. Right now there is no such thing. One of the nastiest ways one can vilify one’s opponents is by suggesting that they have done the things that they are capable of. We are all capable of some form of evil, but we do not all do everything of which we are capable. Evidence should precede accusation; all else is a smear.

Rev. Wright should be aware of this, considering that around 10% of the American public believes that Barack Obama is a Muslim. The accusation has been made, and it doesn’t matter how much evidence there is that he is not, some of the slime will stick. A pastor, especially should be very careful with his words.

I am not going to get into the game of blaming associates of associates, i.e. that Barack Obama needs to distance himself further from his pastor so as to be distanced further from Farrakhan. I didn’t like the “associating with people who associated with communists” attitude during the cold war, and this one is certainly no better. But Rev. Wright is responsible for his own words, and along with quite a number of good challenging ones, he has spoken some that are dangerous, hateful, and irresponsible.

(Crossposted from Threads from Henry’s Web

Unfortunately, over the last several years, Christians have allowed ourselves to simply become another “voting block” within the Democratic or Republican parties. We have allowed partisan politics to divide the Church into Red (conservative Republican) Christians and Blue (progressive Democratic) Christians, with each condemning and mistrusting the other. Sadly, many Christians have allowed their political allegiance to take precedence over their allegiance to the transcendant Kingdom of God and the unity of the Body of Christ.

In many ways, the leaders of both political parties have comfortably, and often smugly, believed that they have had Christians in their political “back pockets,” appeasing them with token Christian-talk, special visits to the White House, and even hiring Christians to be their partisan political hacks. Even biblically powerful terms like compassion, justice, and peace have been co-opted and reengineered by the political parties, making them into mere slogans or catch phrases. I believe it is time for Christians to regain our freedom from both the Democratic and Republican party machines by declaring our independence from the “ownership” of either political party. How?

By launching the Christian Independent Party!

I know this sounds bold, and some will simply laugh when they read this. Others will accuse me of visionary dreaming. But why not? I don’t have all the answers, but if Christians do not reposition ourselves in the political public square, our voices will soon be lost into the partison fog of irrelevancy.

I am not calling for a naive disgruntled separatist movement, but one that proactively demonstrates our independence by engaging both political parties from a more nonpartisan position, and praying that the Kingdom of God come, and God’s will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.

What Would the Christian Independent Party Look Like?

Again, this is only somewhat of a prophetic call, but I would envision that the Christian Independent Party (CIP) would be an independent political advocacy network made-up of self-confessing Christians within the Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox historic traditions. Although independent, we would value diversity of opinion, and encourage members to vote for whatever political party candidates they chose. Our mission would be to constructively engage within both the Democratic and Republic parties, and not to become an alterative political party to the Democratic or Republican parties. The CIP would have no candidates, just independent biblical worldview activists.

Would You Join a Christian Independent Party?

I would like to hear your thoughts, and hear how we might go about launching a Christian Independent Party. Email me at AndrewJackson@SmartChristian.com.

For those who follow Star Trek, the words “Kobayashi Maru” have a special significance. For those that don’t know, this is the name of a ship in a Star Fleet Academy exercise. It is an exercise to determine how potential Star Fleet officers will respond to situations; in this case, a situation that is a “no-win” situation.

The Kobayashi Maru is a space freight trapped in the Neutral Zone between Federation space and Klingon space (at a time when the Federation and the Klingon Empire were not friendly) and sending out a distress call. Federation ships are forbidden from entering the Neutral Zone and thus the commander of the star ship in the simulation is faced with his or her first dilemma. Do they enter the Neutral Zone and rescue the freighter and its crew or obey the prohibition to not enter the Neutral Zone.

Should the decision be made to enter the Neutral Zone, the commander quickly finds out that it was a trap set by the Klingons. The Federation starship is out-numbered and out-gunned and is ultimately destroyed. No future starship commander had ever successfully passed this simulation test until James Kirk took it. It is said that it took him three times to pass the test and he only passed the test because he modified the program controlling the simulation so that a win was possible. In other words, he cheated.

The object of the simulation is to see how future and potential commanders face death and Kirk admitted that he did not like that option. I would agree; normal (and I stress normal) conflicts should never be a “no-win” situation. But conflicts are often never normal and while our thoughts and our feelings are directed maybe directed towards situations where there is a clear cut winner and a clear cut loser, we often are faced with “no-win” solutions.

A case in point has to be the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. Those who lived during that time frame of thirteen days in October can tell you of the urgency and crisis that enveloped not only this country but the entire world. Those who have watched Kevin Costner’s 2000 movie, “Thirteen Days”, can get some sense of that crisis. I believe that a better depiction of the crisis is given in the 1973 made-for-television movie, “The Missiles of October”, if for no other reason that it is a starker, black-and-white presentation.

It is clear from watching either movie that the outcome could have easily been nuclear war between the Soviet Union and the United States. One of the benefits of the collapse of the Soviet Union was an examination of papers and materials that tell their side of the story and the realization that we were closer to nuclear annihilation than we even thought back then.

It seemed to me from my reading of Robert Kennedy’s book (the basis for the two movies) and watching the movies that there were those on both sides who wanted war and there were those who wanted to avoid war. And it was also clear that one false step by anyone on either side would result in a war that no one wanted. Because what some might have thought might be a small tactical war would quickly expand in a global conflict with the exchange of nuclear weapons. And the result of that exchange would be a world where the living would envy the dead, a “no-win” solution.

It seems to me that we need to somehow include such visions of what the future might be in our current political process. We have the technology to make simulations that involve complex decision making; in fact, we make such simulations right now. But these simulations are treated as games to be played by children.

We need to expand such simulations and get those who desire to be our political leaders to actually show us what they would do when they are faced with potentially no-win situations. We need to see how they would react when one false step is taken or a word is misunderstood; we need someway to show politicians to the consequences of their words when they are forced to put their words into action. We need someway to see how those who seek to lead will respond when those who follow seek solutions that run counter to the desired outcome or whose solutions are for their own personal glory rather than the good of the people.

We love reality television shows; we love games. Here is a chance to put together the ultimate reality show. This will not replace elections; elections are the will of the people but the people need to be informed. We need to be informed as to what those who seek to lead will do when faced with problems where the only solution is a no-win one.

We have the capability to make it so (to borrow another Star Trek phrase); shouldn’t we find a way to turn words into actions so that we can make better decisions?

———————————

Cross-posted to Thoughts From The Heart On The Left

It has always annoyed me that we, as a country, do not know our neighbor’s languages. I am horrible with languages, yes even English. I was in Germany in 2003 and I was talking with some college students in Cologne. They are taught has children four or five different languages, German, English, Italian, and French were the primary ones. With this in my head, it was always a thorn in my side when Americans would complain about people not speaking English, when they demand that others know it everywhere they go in the world. Should we expect everyone living in this country to know English?

I often thought the answer was no. We are a multiracial, national and cultural country, we should know more than just English. I didn’t mind pushing the English button on the ATM, the credit machines at the grocery store, or while calling a company on the telephone. I thought this was simply us transforming into a multilingual society. I thought that until a DJ on the radio said something that got me thinking.

Ace, from the Ace and TJ Show, stated that when we give the option of Spanish or English we are really holding non-English speaking people back from growing and assimilating into society. I thought this was pretty wise coming from a man whose career is based on telling boob jokes from 6 am – 10 am on syndicated radio. Is the Spanish option on the ATM and so forth, really holding non-English speaking people back from growing?

I can see his point. The best way to hold a group, a race, a nationality back is to make them comfortable where they are in life. If they are comfortable there is no desire or motivation to move up in the world. Why learn English when every where I go I can use the Spanish button to get by? Why would I learn a key skill that would get me a better job, life, and opportunities in this country when I don’t have to? If I moved to France could I survive without learning French? I’m not sure. My international adventures proved you can survive a vacation without knowing the language but to live day in and day out?

Are we doing a service or a disservice to the non-English speaking population? Is this a way to keep them from speaking English, thus keeping them poor and doing jobs we don’t want to do for pay we wouldn’t take? I cannot stop thinking about that when I press the English button when I’m checking out of the grocery store.

+++++++++
Cross Posted at Adventures In Revland

I cannot help but to wonder exactly what the real issue is behind the legal raid at the FLDS compound in west Texas that has led to the removal of over 400 children who will presumably be placed in foster care pending a thorough investigation of what was really happening inside this enclosed community of polygamous Fundamentalist Latter-Day Saints (FLDS). It should be noted here that these do not have official ties to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the LDS having stopped the practice of polygamy many moons ago.

To be sure, the law was granted an excuse to raid the compound by an anonymous, alleged 16-year-old girl who made a phone call and insisted that she had been forced to marry a 50-year-old man and bear his children. In our greater society, this is just plain wrong not only because of her age but because we just do not believe in “shotgun weddings” or arranged marriages. It is not our way because women are human beings, not possessions to be bartered or sold. Still, this alleged child-bride has yet to be identified, so we don’t really know who made the call or what actually took place. Given this seemingly insignificant detail, however, we must consider that any disgruntled person could have made that call for any number of reasons. Anonymity has its place but when one is accused of legal transgressions, one must surely have a right to face one’s accusers.

What did the law find upon its raid of the FLDS compound? Judging by the media reports they found a community that looks after itself, cares for one another, shares resources, and educates its happy, healthy children. The only real proof of abuse currently rests exclusively on an as yet unidentified caller. No doubt they will find, or have already found, child brides but what are we really seeing? It is a culture that seems foreign to us because it is different and chooses to segregate itself from American culture (however this may be defined), but there are inconsistencies which should be apparent if we would be willing to look a little more closely and determine whether or not these people are being treated fairly. As it is right now, more than 400 innocent children have been traumatized, but who will have done the real harm: the lifestyle from which the children have been forcibly removed, or American society at large that does not understand such a culture?

In this country the most vocal pro-abortion forces insist, and Arkansas’ own Senator Blanche Lincoln has supported such measures, that girls under the legal age of 18 have a “right” to an abortion if they so choose. Senator Lincoln recently supported a measure that would have allowed any legal-aged adult to transport a minor across state lines – without parental consent - for the purpose of obtaining an abortion, never seeming to consider that the legal adult could well have been the doomed child’s father working to cover up his indiscretion or molestation. In this context, then, if a minor child can make such a life-altering decision on her own and choose her own transport and not be required to notify her parents, why does this same law only recognize her as a “child” who cannot enter into legally binding contracts, including marriage, as she may freely choose?

There is another point to consider in a nation in which it is said that half of all marriages end in divorce. Presumably those who have endured these multiple divorces have remarried. Surely we all know some who have remarried three, four, five times and more only having been legally separated from the previous marriages but having been “sentenced” to alimony payments to the former wives. These men (predominately so) are still held legally responsible by law for the maintenance of these wives, so there is still a legal definition that maintains a tie between the two. In the eyes of the Church, generally speaking, one makes a commitment to God when “the two shall become one flesh” and remain married until death, inseparable by what “God has joined together”.

What have these FLDS done that is so wrong? Aside from ALLEGEDLY forcing – or allowing – minor children to wed, they at least seem to be a little more stable in their relationships than at least half of all married Americans now. The vast majority of these FLDS seem perfectly content with how they live, and there are no allegations I am aware of that they kidnap unwilling participants or brain wash anyone. That their children grow up within such a society in which these seemingly strange practices exist does not make for a need to disturb these communities unless, of course, it can be proved that any form of “slavery” (ie, unwilling participation) actually took place.

What FLDS, Scientology, the Masons, and the Amish and any other closed society or culture has done or does practice and has contributed to American society’s greater misunderstanding is to remain so closed that outsiders cannot get a peek inside to better understand the culture and practices which exist. In the case of those who practice polygamy, it is understandable that they separate themselves from society at large because they are involved in what is deemed to be an illegal practice in this country.

Aside from this, however, and especially in a country in which our “rights” have ultimately become the “gods” we worship, how can we penalize such practices that seem to do no real harm while seeming to celebrate multiple marriages and divorces, child custody battles in which the children are forced to participate and pick sides, and continuing battles over maintenance payments and generally bad blood? I will bet that there has been more harm done to children having been forced to endure bad marriages, selfish parents, and ugly divorce and custody battles than to children who share a home with common wives and one husband.

I do not necessarily condone polygamy. Indeed, the last thing I need in my life is another wife who is smarter than I but if I were financially able to support another wife and successfully divide my emotions and affections in such a way, what would be the real harm done if the home is relatively stable and everyone well cared for? For those Bible-believing Christians the answer might be simple, but even we Christians do not necessarily agree on every little thing so such a standard of measure would be unfair if unrealistic.

I am not sure what the answer is in such cases and I am left with little other recourse than to hope that professionals will be able to ascertain that the children are being cared for responsibly and that the wives are not enslaved in any manner against their own stated will. Will even a legal charge of polygamy against the adults make much difference? Not likely very simply because the faith of the FLDS will help them to endure. If the government of Texas and/or the United States deems subsequent marriages beyond the original to be null and void, it will not likely affect the previously existing household since the vows they took presumably transcend the authority of the government of man.

As a follow up to this post, you might check out "Clueless in America", Bob Herbert Op-Ed piece in the April 22, 2008 issue of The New York Times.

———————————————————————

If someone were to ask me what my favorite television shows were, I would have to list “The Rogues” and “Banacek”. But number one on this list is and will always be “M*A*S*H”.

From its debut as a movie, it was something that I somehow identified with, even to the point that my dorm room that year became known as “The Swamp” (but that was after someone flooded the laundry room and that’s an entirely different story).

Through the wonders of cable TV and re-runs, I have probably seen ever episode of the television series, from the pilot to the series ending show, at least four times. I can watch a particular episode for a few moments and generally remember what that episode central story or stories are. This does have its disadvantages however.

I do not know the names of each episode or when they were originally aired. And sometimes what I think was in one episode was actually in another. Such is the case with one thought in my mind. There is one episode in which either Father Mulcahy tells Hawkeye that it is one thing for doctors to lose their patients but when he loses one, he loses their soul or Sidney Freedman (the psychiatrist) says that he loses their mind. As one who works with both the mind and the soul, I can find much in either of those two comments.

As an educator, my profession is the development of the mind and finding ways to encourage the creativity of our children and young adults. As a lay speaker and lay minister, I have to focus on the souls of those with whom I converse or speak with and who read what I write on Sunday mornings.

The problem with both American education and the American church today is that we have either forgotten what it is that we are supposed to be doing or we have decided to change the definition of what we are supposed to do. It seems that the church and school today are driven not by the outcome that the church and school offers but rather by “the bottom line.”

For too many denominations today, it is not the number of souls that are saved (as if that was something that could be easily measured and verified here on earth) but how many warm bodies are in the pews each weekend.

It is one thing to measure the success of a church by the number of people who attend but is that the best measure? We quite willing use demographics to reach out to find people and plant churches where the people are or will be but we also quite willingly seem to use demographics to determine when to abandon a church. A church may be losing people but we need to know why and a simple demographic analysis may not tell you what you need to know. I sometimes think that we abandon churches in regions when the church can be a positive symbol of hope and where hope is most needed because of the change in population. Sometimes we cannot help it if a whole region is losing people (portions of the upper Midwest come to mind) but if it is a pocket within a region (say an inner city), then shouldn’t the church be staying and helping to bring life back?

I will address the issue of the bottom line as it applies to the church today later. For the moment, I want to look at the application of the bottom line as it applies to education.

It seems to me that we, as a society, have turned our educational process has something driven by the “bottom line”. No longer are we interested in what students will become; we are interested in how many students we graduate. (For an interesting take on this, see Tom Chapin – Not on the Test.)

Every child, no matter how old they might be, can always tell you what they want to be when they grow up. And as they grow up, their focus on that goal becomes clearer and more defined. As educators, parents, and interested parties be encouraging that process. It is important that students have a sense of what they will do in and with their lives. We should not be talking students out of a career choice because we do not feel that it is a good fit for them; rather we need to be providing opportunities for the student to make a decision about a career.

But if their decision on a career is made because they think that career will bring the riches, fame, or glory and they have no idea of what is involved in the process, then their path to that career will be strewn with potholes and many, many detours.

I have had students who have an expressed a desire to become pharmacists, not because it is a valuable part of society but rather because they were promised a job bringing $30,000 as a starting salary when they completed their undergraduate degree. I can understand why students would jump at this opportunity. But I also have to wonder what those same students will do when they find out how much science and math they must have in order to get that degree? And what will they do when they find out the salary for this job after five or ten years is still essentially $30,000?

Similarly, I have meet and taught students who wish to be doctors and nurses for a variety of reasons. But their background and preparation, especially in the areas of science and mathematics, often limits their advancement. I have seen students who have expressed a desire to become elementary teachers because they like working with children. Again, this is a good job choice and the reason for doing so is a valid one. But becoming an elementary school teacher is a very demanding task because you must be conversant in all of the academic subjects (science, mathematics, reading, social studies, English, etc.). Most elementary majors are well-versed in social studies, reading, and English but not so in science and mathematics. The lack of skills does not prevent one from becoming an elementary education major but it does not help in the preparation of the students for further studies.

But when these students run into problems during their academic career, what do they do? Do they seek help and determine if their career choices were correct? Some do but most argue that it was the teacher’s fault and they do what our society has taught them to do; they sue (See “Avogadro Goes To Court” for one example; see “Transformation Sunday” for my thoughts and their implications for the church).

The argument posted in that particular court case was the student was a consumer and thus should be able to decide the value of their education. This argument would work if the students understand what it is that education is supposed to do. Education is supposed to give you the skills so that you can make better decisions; it is not a consumer-oriented activity in which the student decides what it is that he or she will learn.

In the movie “A Man for All Seasons”, there is the following interchange between Thomas More and Richard Rich.

Sir Thomas More: Why not be a teacher? You’d be a fine teacher; perhaps a great one.

Richard Rich: If I was, who would know it?

Sir Thomas More: You; your pupils; your friends; God. Not a bad public, that.

The definition of a teacher should be in terms of what their students become and they will know it when the time comes.

But when are we going to realize this? Last week I posted “Where Have All the Flowers gone?” In this post I pointed out some of the more intellectually challenging aspects of television advertising. Now I find that there are at least two studies dealing with incompetence and the inability of people to determine their own incompetence (see Social scientists alert: Gather that data!).

For right now, I think that the bottom line, at least as it applies to education today, was first expressed by Robert Frenay in the book Pulse, page 440 (from the April Mini-AIR), “That we are smarter than algae is a given. Whether we are wiser remains an open question.”

At some point, our desire to “give the customer what they want” is going to conflict with “give the customer what they need”. Then what are we going to do?

——————————-

This is cross-posted to Thoughts From The Heart On The Left

If you are a regular reader of my blog, you know that I have a concern for education and the direction it is headed.

There is a thread or discussion going on the Chemistry Education Discussion List (or CHEM-ED list for short) about the nature of education today.  It started with some questions about when classes were being scheduled and such schedules are driven by the needs or desires of the students.

If you are interested in reading this discussion, go to http://mailer.uwf.edu/listserv/wa.exe?S1=chemed-l and put "When did this happen?" in the first box (marked "string").  You should get some 57 "hits" (including the new thread "Effective Teaching").

But, as many discussions or threads do, there has been a shift from the need to accommodate or meet the needs of students to the demands students place on the instructional process (often called the "student as the consumer" model).  There is a passing reference to this model in my post for Transfiguration Sunday ("Transformation Sunday"); to save you the trouble, read "Avogadro goes to court".

Now when I posted my note about the court case to the list, one respondent suggested that it was nothing more than an urban legend.  But, as I noted in response, a Google search for "students suing the instructor" produced 175,000 hits.  Some of these are legitimate cases but others point out the idea that many students come into class with the idea that they are consumers and they have a right to decide if what they receive is the what they wanted (i.e., student as a consumer).

I also discovered that this problem is not as new as some think but has been around for at least fifteen years.  See

1. "Student as Consumer": A Critical Narrative of the Commercialization of Teacher Education
2. ”Should We Buy the "Student-As-Consumer" Metaphor?”

Against this backdrop, I find a little bit of good news.  The George Lucas Educational Foundation has identified a number of educators, the "Daring Dozen", who are working to change the system.  It may not seem like twelve people (the number that the foundation has identified) may make a major change in the ways things work but Margaret Mead reminds us "…that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever does."  Or if you will, as Sonia Johnson (an American feminist who was excommunicated by the Mormon church for her activities), "We must remember that one determined person can make a significant difference, and that a small group of determined people can change the course of history."

It would seem to me that there is hope for our educational system and that we need to be taking note of these changes.

This will be cross-posted to Thoughts From The Heart On The Left.

I saw two stories on the same day that I can’t help but relate:

The first: “The U.S. Supreme Court this week hears arguments about whether the death penalty can be imposed for child rape…”

The second: “A 49-year-old man who spent nearly 23 years in prison for a rape he did not commit has been set free…”

If the latter doesn’t call for putting the brakes on the former, what would?

I don’t oppose capital punishment in principle. However, I’m growing more and more concerned about the way it is handled in the US.

HOW?
How is it possible, in this age, for people to go to jail or worse without DNA evidence being examined?

When DNA evidence can make the difference between life and death, how is it possible for people to carelessly run such tests – or even falsify results?

How can attorneys let an innocent man rot in prison because of “attorney-client privilege?”*

Our system has some real issues. The people of Christ should be on the forefront of demanding better.

SOME CHANGES
I don’t want to call for abolishing the death penalty, but a freeze and some retrials, at least resentencing, are probably warranted. And there are a few common sense measures that are far overdue.

First, borrowing from the Bible, the death penalty shouldn’t be possible without the testimony of two or three eyewitnesses.

Second, it should not be possible without the state proving, via whatever empirical means are available (e.g., fingerprint, DNA), that the defendant was involved. None available? No death penalty.

Third, if they don’t already exist, harsh penalties should be set for tampering with or falsifying such evidence – treat it like negligent homicide or worse.

There are other issues that should be addressed also (e.g., with the public defender system, with the selection of district attorneys), but these don’t relate specifically to capital punishment cases.

HATE CAPITAL PUNISHMENT? HELP!
I know many people think the death penalty is wrong no matter what. We’ll have to agree to disagree. But if you think capital punishment is always wrong, you should help push for reforms that improve the odds that innocent people will never be put to death.

Pro-choice folks often say that pro-lifers should work to reduce the number of abortions. I agree. In the same way anti-death penalty people can get closer to their goals by working to improve the accuracy of capital punishment.

Whether you think capital punishment is acceptable, essential, or abhorrent, you can further the cause of justice by telling your legislators you want to see some simple reforms. (I know, I know, I said “simple,” not cheap.)

Christians are called to stand up for the poor, the weak, and the innocent. That includes standing for the unjustly accused.

HOW ABOUT YOU?
While I’m writing some letters, tell us what you will do, what else you think we can do, and if you can think of any other sensible reforms to the system to improve the odds that only the guilty are punished.

——
*OK, not really a death penalty case, but it really bugs me.

This article is also posted at Homeward Bound.

When I read about the abrupt raid on the the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints’ ranch compound in Angelo, Texas, the barbaric burning raid of the David Koresh Waco compound came immediately to my mind. The burning of women and children. Sounds strong I know, and I guess it is meant too.

Although I am against polygamy, this governmental raid smells of another tragic event full of unproved child abuse allegations, and inhumane treatment of women and children. Now, 416 children ranging in age from 6 months to 17 years have been ripped from their mother’s arms and crowed in cold isolation, with approximately 130 of these children be under 4 years old. Why? What is the government attempting to accomplish? The state wants to obtain these children is isolated custody, and likely move them to foster homes. Tragic!

San Agelo yells of another Waco, and our government must be called to act with compassion and wisdom, especially toward women and children. And, this event simply cries of neither.

SmartChristian.com

Before anyone votes for a presidential candidate in 2008 they must first read the book Where Does The Money Go? Your Guided Tour To The Federal Budget Crisis by Scott Bittle & Jean Johnson of the Public Agenda.

With all the tantalizing sound-bite spending and new program promises being thrown around like red meat to hungry lions by the present presidential candidates, it is crucial that all voters become informed voters concerning the real facts about the federal budget crisis, and how realistic and honest these dime-a-dozen promises really are.

Before I left for Turkey - I am writing this post from Ephesus - I began reading Where Does The Money Go? and I was so impressed with its concise explanation of the federal budget crisis that I decided to provide some of the FACTS in a question and answer format:

What do we mean by the words deficit and debt?

The deficit reveals whether the government has balanced the budget in any year. Our federal government is addicted to deficits. The federal government has spent more on programs and services than it has collected in taxes thirty-one out of the last thirty-five years. But, don’t be fooled by any news headlines boasting about balance the budget. Simply balancing the budget, although it helps not to add to the overall debt, will not solve the long-term financial problems of Social Security and Medicare.

The debt of the federal government reveals how much money the government has borrowed in total.

What are the federal government’s primary sources of revenue?

The federal government’s four primary sources of revenue are (1) Individual income taxes at 43.4% (2) Social insurance and retirement receipts at 34.8% (3) Corporation - big & small - income taxes at 14.7% (4) Excise - alcohol, tobacco, gas - taxes at 3.1% and (4) other at 4.1%. The federal government receives approximately $2.4 trillion each year in revenue. Since individual income taxes is the largest source of federal revenue, approximately 50%, it is important to know what “individuals” are really paying income taxes. Well, approximately 52 million Americans pay little or no income taxes at all because of their income level.

What does the federal government spends its money on?

The federal government spends its money in six primary areas (2006): (1) Non-Defense Discretionary at 31.9% (2) Security Security at 20.7% (3) Defense at 19.7% (4) Medicare at 12.4% (5) Medicaid at 6.8% (6) Interest on Debt at 8.5%. To clarify things even more, the federal government spends approximately 68% of its revenue on five things: Social Security, national defense, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on the money borrowed.

What percentage of federal spending goes to programs for the retirees/elderly?

It is estimated that about 46% of the domestic federal spending goes for programs for the elderly (Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid).

Are all federal government programs equal in nature?

No. Not all federal government programs are equal in nature, there is a big difference between discretionary and entitlement programs. Some are “discretionary,” meaning the government can give and take away (education, defense, veteran’s programs, space program etc.), and others are “entitlements,” meaning that government has no choice but to pay (for example, Social Security, Medicare, and also, in a sense, the interest on the national debt since it is off limits). Entitlements are on autopilot and Congress has no responsibility to review them as part of the budget process and make any spending decisions.

What is America’s present debt percentage to its Gross Domestic Product (GDP)?

America’s debt percentage to its GDP is approximately 65%. The present national debt is approximately $9 trillion, and the federal government adds to the debt each year as it continues to borrow more money each year. In 2006, the debt percentage to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was 37%, but when the government’s debt to the Social Security/Medicare funds are also included, then the debt percentage to the GDP is really about 65%. When the government borrows more and more money, it makes it harder for American citizens to borrow because it drives up interest rates. High interest rates jeopardize nearly every part of the economy. IMPORTANT FACT: The federal government has no strategic plan to lower the government’s debt. None! Have you heard any of the presidential candidates speaking about how to lower America’s debt?

Why is the federal government in debt to the Social Security trust fund?

Social Security is set up as a “pay-as-you-go” program. It is not a saving or investment program. Although we would expect the government to bank the extra money in a Social Security trust fund, it has actually been borrowing this money for its ongoing program operations. In fact, today, the Social Security trust fund is running a surplus, but only on paper. The government has borrowed from it, and has indebted itself to pay the money back in the back. The fact is, if the government had been putting Social Security and Medicare taxes in a secure trust fund (remember that lockbox) then there would be no problem meeting the costs of retiring Boomers. But again, that is not what they have done, they have spent it all. When the government will have to start paying for retired Boomers they will have to cut expenses, raise taxes, or borrow more money to do it. It is estimated that the government will begin to pay out more than it collects in Social Security taxes in the year 2017.

How much does the federal government owe to foreign nations, banks, and investors?

Approximately a quarter (25%) of America’s $9 trillion debt is held by foreign governments, banks, and investors. Including China and major Arab oil producing nations. No one really knows what would happen if suddenly these foreign debt holders wanted their money back right away. But if they considered markets like Europe more stable than the United States, then it is a real possibility, and America’s economy would be in a major crisis.

What is the biggest crisis scare for the federal government’s budget?

The biggest crisis scare for the federal budget is Medicare. Medicare, which has “multiple” parts, is the government’s health insurance program for the elderly (for those over sixty-five). And, the sobering fact is that the Medicare’s trust fund is being emptied even faster than Social Security. The very troubling reality of future Medicare costs is that it is essentially linked to America’s overall health care system. And, since the cost of health care is skyrocketing, there is no way to really estimate or plan for the cost of Medicare for retiring Boomers.

Is the Iraq war one of the primary reasons for the federal government’s budget crisis?

No. Although the cost of the Iraq war is significant and damaging, it is not one of the primary long-term problems in our federal budget crisis. The Iraq war cannot be single-handedly blamed for America’s economic problems. Ending the Iraq war is not a major solution for our economic crisis. For example, the Iraq war has cost approximately $400 billion over the last four years or so, but our debt has gone up $2.3 trillion over the same four years. So, even if the Iraq war was taken out of the present budget, it would not come close to dealing with the deficit or the long-term Social Security/Medicare costs of retiring Boomers.

Are the Bush tax cuts one of the primary reasons for the federal government’s budget crisis?

No. Ending the Bush tax cuts alone will not solve the primary problems of the U.S. economy. Most of the tax cuts are set to expire at the end of 2010, but the explosive costs of the retirement of Baby Boomers will never be addressed simply by ending the Bush tax cuts.

What will happen if the federal government does nothing to address the present budget crisis?

If the United States federal government does nothing concerning the federal budget crisis, around the year 2040 almost every tax dollar collected will be needed to pay for retirement and health care for the elderly, and the interest on the debt. There will be no money for anything else, except possibly a basic national defense.

Conclusion

The book Where Does The Money Go? presents some of the perspectives and solutions being presented by the Democratic and Republican parties. This eye-opening book is one every voter in this presidential election should read before they vote. Without sounding over dramatic, all I hear is promises of more spending while the ship is sinking. To put it another way, the real issues of the federal budget crisis is not being addressed by any of the presidential candidates. I truly hope this changes in the general election.

SmartChristian.com

Over the weekend there was a "Compassion Forum" held at Messiah College in Grantham, PA.  Both Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were there to address people of faith in Pennsylvania before the upcoming April 22 primary in that state.

The forum covered several topics including abortion.

Clinton was asked whether life begins at conception — which opponents of abortion contend is a reality that makes any termination of a pregnancy the ending of a life.

“I believe the potential for life begins at conception,” Clinton said. “For me, it is also not only about a potential life. It is about the other lives involved. … I have concluded, after great, you know, concern and searching my own mind and heart over many years, … that individuals must be entrusted to make this profound decision, because the alternative would be such an intrusion of government authority that it would be very difficult to sustain in our kind of open society.”

The New York senator added that abortion should remain legal, safe and rare.

The two candidates appeared separately at Messiah College near Harrisburg, Pa., and briefly met as Clinton left the stage and Obama took her place. The moment of pleasantries and handshakes belied days of angry accusations between the two over Obama’s comments about bitter voters in small towns.

Asked whether life begins at conception, Obama said he didn’t know the answer.

“This is something that I have not, I think, come to a firm resolution on. I think it’s very hard to know what that means, when life begins. Is it when a cell separates? Is it when the soul stirs? … What I know, as I’ve said before, is that there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life and that that has a moral weight to it that we take into consideration when we’re having these debates.”

Clinton is a Methodist. Obama is a member of the United Church of Christ.

Source: Fox News

Senator Clinton when come to her position on the issue of when life begins "after great, you know, concern and searching my own mind and heart over many years."  Senator Obama still hasn’t come to a resolution.

The problem with Senator Clinton position lies in where she is going, as a "person of faith", for answers to her questions.  You won’t find the answer in your own heart and mind. 

For both of the candidates the Bible is pretty clear regarding our personhood and provides a direct answer as to when life begins.  There shouldn’t be mass confusion over this for people who claim to follow Jesus Christ.  Life begins at conception, and our personhood is a reality before conception when one reads Psalm 139.

Plainly put, a position that holds that life does not begin at conception quite frankly is not scriptural and is an inconsistent view for a follower of Christ.

A question that I would have for Senator Obama, if he is unclear as to when life begins would he have a policy that is so anti-life when it comes to preborn children; even so far as voting against Illinois’ Born Alive Infant Protection Act that would protect children who survived an abortion?  That seems inconsistent with the answer he gives us during this forum.  His votes seem to say his mind is made up regarding this matter.

Another thing that Senator Clinton said that I feel needs to be addressed.

"For me, it is also not only about a potential life. It is about the other lives involved."

The compassion argument, after all this is the "Compassion Forum".  Often times those on the left when appealing to Christian voters will point out Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount.  For instance:

“Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy," (Matthew 5:7, ESV).

The noun, mercy, in the Greek is eleos, this word when used in the Bible always deals with what we see of pain, misery, and distress.  The results of sin.  It doesn’t mean turning a blind eye to sin, but does mean extending relief, healing and help to those broken by sin.  Why?  Because we are broken by sin, as the very first beatitude states, "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for they shall receive the Kingdom of God," (Matthew 5:4, ESV).  (To hear recent sermons I’ve preached on the Beatitudes you can go here for part one and here for part two).

Jesus showed great mercy and compassion for the woman caught in adultery, but even told her to "sin no more," (John 8:11).  When looked upon the crowds and had compassion on them because they were "harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd," (Matthew 9:36).

I guess the question to ask is are we really being compassionate to those who are facing an unexpected pregnancy by allowing abortion?  I don’t think so, mercy doesn’t mean allowance for sin and compassion shouldn’t create victims which abortion does.

If mercy is relieving pain, misery and distress how is it merciful to add to that pain, misery and distress?  Which is exactly what abortion does when you look at the potential complications and risks involved in an abortion, when you look at what it could possibly do to the mother’s chances to become pregnant again after having an abortion, and looking at the mental health of those who have abortions.

No it seems to be that if Senator Clinton is looking at the other lives involved she would advocate: less red tape involving adoption and federal aid to help those wanting to adopt, less money to abortion providers and more to crisis pregnancy centers and maternity homes, and abstinence-based sex education to help prevent unexpected pregnancies (which actually works unlike "comprehensive" sex education).

Also Senator Clinton uses the phrase tossed around during her husband’s administration that abortion should be safe, legal and rare.  I think a good case has been made that abortion is not safe for mothers (and definitely not safe for the pre-born children).  It is legal, but the the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion is bad constitutional law and should be overturned.  Regarding rare… 50 million since 1973 would hardly count as being rare.

I guess people of faith in Pennsylvania need to ask themselves if Clinton and Obama’s position on abortion matches up with their values.  I would say not.

(If you want to read more on a Biblical framework for the pro-life position, check out my Against Abortion series of posts.)

Cross-posted at Caffeinated Thoughts and From Their Own Mouths.

President Bush is envious of those fighting in the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. At least that is according to the quote by Reuters in the President’s videoconference to those serving in Afghanistan on March 13th. Our President’s said, “I must say, I’m a little envious. If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed. It must be exciting for you . . .in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger. You’re really making history, and thanks.”
Romantic…huh. Rev. Mike Macdonald of Mooresville, NC had some interesting thoughts; go here to see his entire commentary. I’ll tease you with his ending paragraph; “I must say we all have reason to be envious of the soldiers serving in Afghanistan and Iraq. War is so romantic – it is such a fantastic experience. I am sure that is why Jesus Christ – the President’s professed favorite philosopher – spoke so highly of it. I am glad we have such a Christian president.”

What part of loving our neighbors does war not understand?

HT: Jonathan
++++++++++++
Cross posted on Adventures in Revland

I like to think of myself as a patriot, but then there are times when I shy away from the term because of some things that are done in the name of patriotism. I served my country in uniform, even while disagreeing with many of the policies of my government. Despite any disagreements, I carried out those policies to the best of my capability.

I’m an opponent of the war in Iraq, but what would I do if I were still in the military? Would I be protesting? Would I be speaking publicly against the war? No. I would vote my conscience, I would speak privately to friends and relatives, but I would carry out my duties again to the best of my ability. Note that this would not include what I would view as illegal orders–torture, for example. But for the vast majority of those in the military those particular questions do not occur. In the military, I owed it to my country to carry out its policies to the best of my ability.

We live in a republic in which power resides ultimately with the people. I think the primary requirement for patriotism for those not in the military (or similarly sworn to carry out politically determined policies) under those circumstances is involvement. There are things one can do that are disloyal, such as desertion from the military, providing information to enemies, or actively working to destroy the country. But the primary responsibility of the citizen is to be heard.

Some seem to believe that patriotism involves supporting your country’s policies, once made, no matter what. There is a sort of reverence when they refer to the actions of the commander-in-chief. But even though I voted against the current resident of the White House, I participated in making him commander-in-chief, and I get to participate in choosing the next president and seeing him leave.

Would it be patriotism for me to support the current war just because my president got it started? I think it would, in fact, be precisely the opposite. The war is a bad move in what appears to be a bad ad hoc strategy, and it will result in no good for the country that I love. Given that I believe that, could I possibly be a patriot and a person of integrity if I didn’t say it? I would suggest the opposite, that I would be the worst sort of lying traitor in those circumstances.

That doesn’t mean that the honest supporter of the war is less of a patriot. In fact, such a person would be a lying traitor if he or she does not act in support of those positions. We each owe our country our best arguments and our vote.

Patriotism, in my view, is not the support of a set of policies, but rather that one gives one’s best in all areas, including one’s mind and judgment to one’s country and does so with integrity.

Crossposted from Threads from Henry’s Web.

I am traveling through Turkey for the next several months, and I have not had internet access for the last few weeks so I have not been able to post. As I travel and interact with the Turkish people, I am attempting to do a lot of listening about their lives, and especially about their present views concerning America, its foreign policy, and American Evangelicals. These are presently “one” in the Turkish media, and in the Turkish collective mind. Yes, a recent article in the Turkish press I read was titled, “Evangelical Bush.” I will write more about this later. But, let me just say that America needs so very badly a Christian Independent movement, we do not need Blue Christians who want to be Jeremiah Wright prophets to the Republican Party or Red Christians who want to be James Dobson prophets toward the Democratic Party. What is needed are RedBlue Christian prophetic voices that equally interact and speak to both political parties. Biblical Christians should not be in any political party’s back pocket. Back pockets are too narrow for the Kingdom of God.

I am reading the novel The White Castle by the Turkish writer Orhan Pamuk, the winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature in 2006. It is my view, that Americans must begin to read foreign writers. Why? Because Americans - especially Christians - need to understand how others see us and the world. Remember, America does not live on an secluded island, but in a vast world made up of people who have the same dreams and visions of freedom and peace.

I found the following statement by Pamuk quite powerful:

“Even whips could not make the slaves obey once they had been aroused by the passion for freedom.”

SmartChristian.com

Voters often feel that they have to choose between their economic interests and moral or social concerns. Some politicians assume that people will choose their economic interests unless they feel that cause is hopeless.

I don’t think that’s true. Moreover, I don’t think that would be appropriate.

Ask yourself which of these worlds you’d like to pass on to your children: The first is a world with great economic prosperity – every physical need and most wants are fulfilled. But in this world anything goes – crime is rampant, “sexual immorality” is considered an oxymoron, and ideas like honesty, faithfulness, and charity are considered old fashioned.

The second is a world where people work hard to make ends meet, put just enough food on the table, and have few if any luxuries. However in this world a child can walk down the street with no danger, marriage is strong, porn is unheard of, and people treat each other with love and respect whether they know each other or not.

Which world would you like to pass on to your kids? I think most people would choose the second. I know I would.

Beyond the legacy question, many hold the belief that it’s “better to be poor than a liar.” For Christians, if the choice must be made between prosperity and morality, the latter must be the choice.

Of course, I don’t think it’s necessarily an either/or situation. I think we can have economic prosperity and a solid, moral society. And so do many “bitter” voters.

————
This is also posted at Homeward Bound

As we slog our way through the final months of primary elections and prepare for the upcoming conventions and then endure the fall campaign and everything that it promises to be and not be, I wonder if we haven’t seen or are now seeing the end of our two major political parties.

To be honest, I don’t think that either major political party now accurately represents their historic constituents. The Democratic Party was once the party of labor while the Republican Party was the party of management and business. Democrats were often for change while Republicans stood for the status quo (that’s how I saw it). It always seemed that there were clear cut differences between the two parties.

But lately, with a view to history, I am having a hard time determining what Republicans and Democrats believe or stand for. The history of each party seems to be just that, a history, and not a guide for tomorrow.

Perhaps it is time to let these two parties die and for new political parties to develop. If I am not mistaken, the word “politics” is derived from the Greek for the people; perhaps I am wrong about that. But if that is the case, then maybe it is time that our politics to be the words and thoughts of the many and not the few.

The first reading for yesterday was from Acts and it described the beginnings of the new church. The people shared everything and everything was held in common. This is not a call for communism or even the development of communes. Rather this is a call for leaders and those who desire to be our leaders to seek what is good for all, not just a few. This is a call for a thought of what we as a people can do for the common good.

There will always be a discussion about how such a goal can be obtained; that’s what politics is all about. But the means that we have at our disposal are not necessarily working and I think it is time to seek of alternative ways.

Are our political parties more important or is the common good more important?

This has been cross-posted to Thoughts From The Heart On The Left

At the end of every fiscal quarter when the oil companies publish their profits, there is a firestorm of talking heads, politicians, and others who bemoan the greedy ways of corporate America as exemplified by the big oil companies. It is certainly simplistic to lay the rising cost of gasoline solely at the feet of BP, Exxon, etc. There are a variety of factors at work that have led to the rising cost of gasoline and petroleum products, and most of those factors we can do nothing about, despite what some politicians tell us.

Nevertheless, from a Christian perspective, it is certainly a fair question to raise how CEOs of such large corporations can take such incredible multi-million dollar salaries, when so many people are hurting. Why must an executive take a 100 million dollar salary; isn’t 3 million more than sufficient? In times such as these, can’t these businesses choose to lessen their take in order to bring the price of gas down at least a few pennies? We cannot forget, however, that big business does drive the world economy; and its collapse would be devastating to everyone. Yet, we also must never forget that the only sin the Bible condemns more than idolatry is greed. In fact, the Bible refers to greed as idolatry.

But there is another big business in the U.S.A., which is also making large profits, but few are reporting on it, and the media is certainly not bemoaning the greediness of it all. It is the business called “Planned Parenthood.” And on what industry is it making big bucks? Why of course, the industry of abortion.

The Planned Parenthood Federation of America has recently released its annual report for 2006-2007. From 2005 to 2006 the number of abortions performed by the profit-motivated corporation (oops! I mean, “family planning organization”), increased from 264,943 in 2005 to 289,650 in 2006. Planned Parenthood reported total revenue amounting to more than 1 billion dollars, with their excess of revenue over expenses from 2005 to 2006 jumping from 55.1 million to 112 million. Of the 1 billion in profit 336 million came from government grants and contracts (our tax dollars at work!).

So, if we believe that big oil is motivated primarily by greed, do we seriously think that the big-wigs at Planned Parenthood want to lessen the need for abortions from which so much of their profit is made? When they say that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare are we so gullible as to think they ar