« April 2005 | Main | June 2005 »
May 31, 2005
Romney's Problem
Like Mark, I'm a bit skeptical that Romney will even make it out of the GOP primaries. I still think our best hope will be for George Allen to take the lead, and for Bill Frist to know when to step down and realize that he doesn't have the Presidential It. That said, I still think Romney's Mormonism can be a very real problem, particularly in the Bible Belt. Southern evangelicals in particular have been instilled with a distrust of the Mormon faith. I don't blame them for this at all, as Mormonism is a very complex and, at times, secretive, religion that presents itself to be as normal as the Baptist church down the street. Romney's real problem is seeking support from Christians whose churches have held cult awareness seminars that prominently feature Mormonism.
I'm willing to split some hairs on the matter, but I just don't think your average Bible belt voter is going to be so kind.
Posted by Matt at 02:02 PM | Comments (9) | TrackBack
Would Evangelicals Support Mitt Romney?
I’ve been impressed this year by Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and I’m pleased to see his name being mentioned as a potential presidential candidate. I posted on his judgment on the embryonic stem cell issue here, and on his call for the death penalty in Massachusetts if the standard of “no doubt” is met, here.
Hugh Hewitt points to a good column by Terry Eastland that weighs the merits of a Romney and finds it plausible.
My colleague Matt cites an optimistic NRO column, but he doesn’t believe Romney’s Mormonism will fly in the South or among evangelicals. Mark Daniels doesn’t think Romney’s faith will be a problem unless he pushes it too much.
It is untested ground because there hasn’t been a serious Mormon contender since Mitt’s father, George Romney, and his candidacy crashed for other reasons. My theory is that evangelical conservatives are less inclined to put their faith ahead of their politics in these matters than the secularists believe. That’s not necessary good news, and we’ve decried this tendency in this space.
If Romney’s policy credentials look solid to evangelicals, and it appears he could beat Hillary Clinton, I believe evangelicals will focus on his conservative values and not on his Mormonism.
One rationale I would use is the evangelicals’ embrace of Ronald Reagan, by no means an evangelical and not even a church-goer. He carried the banner for many issues of concern to evangelicals.
Mitt Romney could do the same. And if he can win in the northeast, it’s trouble for any Democrat.
Posted by Jim at 12:16 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
Charlotte Simmons
I realize I'm a bit behind the times, but I'm enjoying Tom Wolfe's I Am Charlotte Simmons. That said, Charlotte Simmons may very well be the most obnoxious protaganists I've come across.
I'll have to go back and do some reading, but I seem to recall most conservative critics painted Charlotte in something of a sympathetic light. Hogwash. She is a sheltered little twit.
Posted by Matt at 12:11 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
May 30, 2005
Nice Memorial Day Tribute
Here's a good Memorial Day piece. Click on "Neal Vickers Essay."
Posted by Matt at 02:46 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Memorial Day
I encourage you to meditate on the goodness of God despite the tragedy of war and intercede for the thousands of families grieving as most Americans play this holiday. If you have children, remember also to explain to them why they have an extra day off school. Pray with them for those who bear the scars of war and the families of those who have perished so that we can be free. If you are a veteran or currently serving, from my family to yours, thank you!
Posted by Rick at 01:11 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
The Mormon President
This could get interesting in another year or two.
I seem to remember the NRO crew discussing this a while back at the Corner. The general consensus seemed to be that Romney's Mormonism wouldn't be much of a problem for the grassroots, which is proof that some folks at National Review know very little about evangelicals and Mormons.
Posted by Matt at 12:39 AM | Comments (9) | TrackBack
May 29, 2005
Memorial Day Sunday
Charlie Hall provided worship this morning as he and his band are in town for Spirit West Coast this weekend. We were blessed this morning to have an Air Force Captain, Navy SEAL Chief, Navy Captain, and Marine Corps Master Seargent share with us from the word and offer a prayer for our church and nation. The sermon was, appropriately, Memorial Day focused.
In closing our pastor alerted our church to something disturbing. Our church has occupied an old middle school leased by the local public schoold district. The 20 year lease is about up and the district wants to use the property for a charter school. We built a state of the art gymnasium and upgraded the facilities extensively, so it's no wonder they want it back.
We bought a property in a light industrial/business park area of the City. The zoning conditionally permits churches, so we applied for a conditional use permit. The City has granted a 5-year *UNRENEWABLE* conditional use permit. I'm sure there is more to it than that, but our pastor is gearing our church (the largest in San Diego) up for a fight with the City that has a record of decisions unfriendly to religion (Boy Scouts and Mt. Soledad Cross). With San Diego's massive fiscal problems, the last thing the City should be looking for is a prolonged legal fight. I'm certain that we will mount a massive challenge based on the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. All we want to do is worship free on land we purchased, free of government intrusion.
We're in prayer, but I have to tell you that the attitude among congregants seems to be - Bring It On!
Posted by Rick at 02:03 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 28, 2005
HolyCoast
Just found a great SoCal blog: HolyCoast.com
Posted by Rick at 08:26 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Our Advertisers
I'd like to use this space to draw attention to our advertisers. Lynne Gale of Art Interests Great and Small has been a faithful supporter of SCO since the beginning. Other advertisers come and go, but we always appreciate their support and hope that our readers visit their sites and check out their products.
If you notice, we have a new adverstisement slot on our left column. This slot is for package deals established by Henry Copeland of Blogads. SCO has been added to the Blogads "Evangelical Alliance" and is frequently included in proposals for other clients seeking to market their products to a particular niche. Thanks Henry for the support!
SCO doesn't get rich from blogads, but it does help us pay our debts. We still owe Ray a bit for the site design and we will pay him before any of us recoup our other start-up costs. If you are a regular SCO reader, please visit our advertisers' webpages and learn more about the services or products they offer.
From SCO to our advertisers, thank you!
Posted by Rick at 04:03 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Star Wars
I finally got around to seeing Episode III this week. It was entertaining, but I'm still unsettled on my overall opinion. George Lucas is a horrible storyteller. The dialogue was awful at times and the CGI effects were just too much. That said, the movie has a lot of positives - Ewan McGregor, the final battle scenes, wookies - that make it worth seeing. The biggest issue for me is still the gaping holes of logic as it concerns the Force. Lucas has invented a religion that he can't figure out, and we're all having to suffer along with him.
Posted by Matt at 11:48 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
MLBlogs.com
Major League Baseball has caught the blog fever. They have a site, MLBlogs.com, where fans can sign up and start a blog. Tommy Lasorda has a blog. So does Brooks Robinson. Interesting experiment.
Posted by Rick at 12:20 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 27, 2005
Friday Night Movies
Mark gives a thumbs up to Mulan II. I haven't seen it, so I'll take his word for it. Like Mark though, I watched a movie with my kids tonight: Miracle of the White Stallions starring Robert Taylor, Lilli Palmer, Curt Jurgens, Eddie Albert, James Franciscus. No clue what year its from, but it's old enough that I didn't recognize a single actor. It kept my attention for a couple hours. I wish I could say the same for the wife and kids...
Posted by Rick at 11:56 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Mulan II is Worth Watching
I just finished watching Mulan II with the kids while my wife got some needed R&R outside of the house. The movie has much of the "me over all" philosophy that infects so many Disney movies of recent vintage. However, on an overall basis, the movie is redeemed, indeed, more than redeemed, by one particular scene. (For those of you who have seen the movie, it's the scene over the gorge when they are hanging by the rope.) A better example of sacrificial love in a movie, cartoon or no, would be difficult to find. Mulan II is worth watching with your kids. Or, previewing for when you have kids.
Posted by Mark at 09:54 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Around the ‘sphere: Truth, Marriage, Religious Liberty, and Border Control
Total Truth: Daddypundit blogs for Nancy Pearcey’s Total Truth. This substantial work by my former Prison Fellowship colleague is getting a lot of blog play.
Adventures in Holy Matrimony: Julie Ann Fiedler, whose blog Fidler One the Roof I’ve been reading since my first week of blogging last October, has a new book coming out June 7 titled Adventures In Holy Matrimony. Julie says: “It's a memoir-type of book, about the many, large, bizarre challenges my husband and I faced in the early years of our marriage, and our story of how we came back from the brink of divorce. I wrote this thing because when my own marriage was troubled, I couldn't find any good relationship books that weren't "the white picket fence kind."
What is Valid Religion?: Guess the Alliance Defense Fund should plug its nose and take up for the Wiccans in this bizarre Indiana court ruling, reported by Ed at In the Agora.
Border Control Strategy: Does someone have a cogent explanation of why we do not control our borders? Is the Hispanic voting bloc that strong? Are we sure Hispanics who have come to the U.S. legally don’t want us to guard the borders? LaShawn’s has been on this case for a while. She says, “There is no border control strategy.”
Posted by Jim at 07:59 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The Moderate Party in the U.S. Parliament
Doesn’t this banding of Democrats leaning right and Republicans leaning left have the feel of a third party? Perhaps the Moderate Party. The Band of 14 throwing its weight around, offering its strength to whichever party yields to its will, resembles the parliamentary system. Get Bill First a powdered wig and lets see where it goes.
Posted by Jim at 07:55 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Just thought you all should know...
...Rangers are in first place! It's shaping up to be a great summer and I hope it will be a very exciting fall.
Posted by Rick at 01:29 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
May 26, 2005
Al-Zarqawi Rumors
I’ve heard rumors for a while now that Al-Zarqawi was wounded during Operation Matador. Officials in the Iraqi government (as well as some American officials) now think there is some truth to rumors.
On a related note, Doug Payton of Considerettes caught an interesting point from Christopher Hitchens who comments on a recent New York Times article that can't figure out why the Iraqi "insurgency" keeps getting worse and worse. Yeah, I know Doug...Your post is a week old, but I'm a bit slow.
Posted by Rick at 10:39 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Runaway Justice: Making Cold Feet and Bad Judgment a Crime
If you’ve followed SCO you may recall that I am a resident of Gwinnett County, Georgia, home of the 2005 heroine (Ashley Smith of the courtroom murder drama) and the female villain (Jennifer Wilbanks, the runaway bride).
I also posted last week about my experience as jury foreman in a criminal trial here in Gwinnett.
I am disgusted that the district attorney forced and a grand jury bit on a two-count indictment yesterday against Wilbanks, with the potential for seven years in prison if convicted.
Oh to be on the jury for the Jennifer Wilbanks trial.
This is an absolute travesty of justice based on public anger at Wilbanks for wasting their time and costing the citizens of Gwinnett some money. This is nothing about the law. At the very worst this should be a civil case to try to recover some of the money spent looking for Wilbanks.
The only folks that would have a potential case against Wilbanks would be the police in New Mexico. She lied to them and caused them to take some action. But they were smart enough to recognize that this was not a criminal at work, but a messed up young woman who needed to go home and get help.
As her story to the Albuquerque police was about to unravel, Wilbanks called the police here in Gwinnett County and related her false story of abduction. But she—-and the fictional perpetrators—-were in New Mexico, not Georgia.
No Gwinnett police officer had to leave a Dunkin Donuts; no district attorney had to leave the golf course. At that point no public employee had to do anything but take a phone message.
And they’ve indicted this space cadet for a felony.
A lot of people are mad at Wilbanks for fooling them, and for costing Duluth, Georgia $40,000. But the call she made to police at the end of the saga didn’t cost anyone anything.
Leave her alone. Let her get help. This has become the case of runaway justice. What an embarassment.
UPDATE: It gets worse. I just read the article on this in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and was reminded that Wilbanks did not call the Duluth police. She called home (or her fiance's home) and while she was on the phone, the Duluth police chief rushed to the house and got on an extension. That's how he got the false report, with which he could do nothing! Sham indictment.
Posted by Jim at 08:00 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Capitalism at Work
I am a resident of the state of Georgia and my brother-in-law, a missionary in Russia, is engaged to marry a young woman from the republic of Georgia. So I was drawn to a post by Sean at The American Mind that points to a fascinating piece (titled Georgia is Larger Than Georgia) at Club for Growth. It charts the GNP of U.S. states compared to the nations of the world. (also noted by Karol at Alarming News).
The GNP of Georgia, the American state, is 21 times larger than Georgia, the country that was formerly part of the Soviet Union ($320B vs. $15B).
The GNP of the United States is nearly double that of China, which has a population three times that of our country. But capitalism is surging in China. Check back in 10 years.
Posted by Jim at 07:39 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Theocracy is not Conservative
Liberals fear that religious conservatives are trying to impose a theocracy because they are wired to involve the government in all solutions. In this line of thinking, God needs government to accomplish His will and His way. To impose a theocracy (if that were really possible now) is quite un-conservative, though a tidy way to assure religious adherence.
Kent at Trolling in Shallow Water has a good discussion of the topic, and points us to a great column by Jonah Goldberg that includes this:
Contrary to all the bloviating jackassery about how conservatives are more dogmatic than liberals we hear these days, the simple fact is that conservatives don't have a settled dogma. How could they when each faction has a different partial philosophy of life? The beauty of the conservative movement [as Buckley noted] is that we all get along with each other pretty well. The chief reason for this is that we all understand and accept the permanence of contradiction and conflict in life. Christians and Jews understand it because that's how God set things up. Libertarians understand it because the market is, by definition, a mechanism for amicably reconciling competing preferences. Agnostic, rain-sodden British pessimists understand it because they've learned that's always the way to bet. Conservatism isn't inherently pessimistic, it is merely pessimistic about the possibility of changing the permanent things and downright melancholy about those who try.
Posted by Jim at 07:23 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 25, 2005
Christianity and Myth
In a reprinted Star Wars piece, Al Mohler quotes the great Carl F.H. Henry, who once said: "Judeo-Christian revelation has nothing in common with the category of myth."
Professors Tolkien and Lewis would likely take issue.
Posted by Matt at 12:04 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Quick Hits
The filibuter compromise was a very dumb, opportunistic move on the part of Senators McCain, Graham and Warner. I'll say more later, but I stridently disagree with my pro-compromise colleagues.
That said, as bad as the compromise is, it's no worse than American Idol, which may in fact be the worst show ever created.
Season finale of Lost tonight. Woohoo.
Posted by Matt at 11:39 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
May 24, 2005
The Filibuster Deal: Compromise Isn’t Always a Bad Word
I was late in coming to the position that the nuclear option should be used to coerce Democrats into playing fair on judicial nominees. My fear all along has been that the Republicans would regret the day that the power of the filibuster was weakened; on that day when they need it. This assumes that the Republicans will not always be the majority in the Senate, a bet I’d be willing to make. There is an arrogance that comes with victory, and with having the strong arm in the all three Houses—Senate, Representative, and White.
I came around during the Terri Schiavo case, when an unresponsive and irresponsible judiciary irked me.
So, my approval of The Deal may be suspect. Perhaps I am a Moderate. Oh, my. But on most issues I am probably a moderate only in comparison to a very hard right.
Although we'll hear a lot about how The Deal solves nothing and about how the weak-kneed Republican leadership failed, it appears that the potential downsides of the deal are much greater for the Democrats. Although the Republicans may have to fight the same battles again, it is more likely that the Democrats will have to go along with an up/down vote for candidates that they would have otherwise threatened to filibuster. They will look disingenuous if candidates they filibuster meet the Owen/Brown/Pryor standard.
I believe it was wise to compromise, that it is a good deal for the Republicans, and that there some progress on assuring fairness in the President’s appointment of his own judges. If we can continue on that track without messing with Senate rules, that is preferable.
Posted by Jim at 02:00 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
NRO Gets it Right
National Review Online has editorialized about why the deal on the filibuster is not a good deal. It's spot on.
In essence, the problem is that when, not if, but when, the deal goes bust, the wording of the deal will be worse for Republicans than it will be for Democrats, all of whom, including the seven in the deal, need merely say that they are "voting their conscience." Once the Democrat Seven "vote their consciences," then Republicans will have to decide whether (i) to take it and have another nomination filibustered or (ii) to change the rules to end the rule of the minority. The risk of number two is that it will take collective action, whereas the Democrats only need engage in 41 individual actions. Thus, the Republican caucus will have to take the formal step that breaks the deal. Republicans will, not may, but will, be labeled as the "dealbreakers," with all the negative publicity that such a move will engender. Given the guts that Republicans have shown thus far on the overall issue, is there any serious person who thinks that the Republicans would take option two and "break the deal." No. Instead, another nominee will be filibustered. Meanwhile, six to nine months will have passed . . . and nothing will have been accomplished, other than three judges getting confirmed.
Update: Put another way, here is what each side can say is what they have achieved tangibly based on the deal today, even if it goes bust:
Democrats: We have preserved the ability to filibuster judicial nominees for the price of caving on three judges. What did we head off? Republicans could have simply changed the rules and run the table on the judges, gettting most if not all of them approved.Republicans: We get three judges!!!!
Update II: Roll Call is reporting that the Congressional Black Caucaus is not happy with the deal and hopes that Senators ignore it. (Subscription required for full story. Thanks to my friend Brian for the news tip.)
Posted by Mark at 01:01 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The New York Times: Seeking Your Trust
The New York Times published an internal critique last week titled Preserving Our Readers’ Trust, conducted by a self-named Credibility Group headed by Allan Seigel.
Most of the report makes recommendations that will help the paper take advantage of new technologies and do better and more accurate reporting. So most of the report misses the mark, because it does not deal with the central issues that have caused the Times to violate the trust of its readers—an insular, elitist worldview and blatant bias.
But on the last page of the report, the study group hits on some of the real issues. (h/t: Terry Mattingly)
In a section titled Diversifying Our Vantage Point, the report reads:
Too often we label whole groups from a perspective that uncritically accepts a stereotype or unfairly marginalizes them. As one reporter put it, words like moderate or centrist "inevitably incorporate a judgment about which views are sensible and which are extreme." We often apply "religious fundamentalists," another loaded term, to political activists who would describe themselves as Christian conservatives.We particularly slip into these traps in feature stories when reporters and editors think they are merely presenting an interesting slice of life, with little awareness of the power of labels. We need to be more vigilant about the choice of language not only in the text but also in headlines, captions and display type.
Many staff members say that the paper covers breaking news well, but that it needs to take additional steps to cover the country in a fuller way. The national desk is already moving in this direction, but we encourage more reporting from the middle of the country, from exurbs and hinterland, and more coverage of social, demographic, cultural and lifestyle issues. We would also welcome even more enterprise reporting beyond New York, Washington and a handful of other major cities.
Nothing we recommend should be seen as endorsing a retreat from tough-minded reporting of abuses of power by public or private institutions. In part because the Times's editorial page is clearly liberal, the news pages do need to make more effort not to seem monolithic. Both inside and outside the paper, some people feel that we are missing stories because our staff lacks diversity in viewpoints, intellectual grounding and individual backgrounds. We should look for all manner of diversity. We should seek talented journalists who happen to have military experience, who know rural America first hand, who are at home in different faiths.
A candid analysis and recommendations that the Times would be wise to heed.
As Mattingly writes in his weekly column, the cover of the report should have had the famous New Yorker illustration, which demonstrates the self-focus of New Yorkers, but notably also fails to include even one church steeple.
As the Times’ study group has pointed out, the paper—and all of MSM—need to more aggressively seek out the steeples that not only dot the New York and the national landscape but animate the lives and dreams of all of America.
Posted by Jim at 08:44 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Brilliant Political Move
I heard the news hours ago, read a few posts, contemplated, went to Home Depot and got some sand paper, then read some more. My initial assessment: The Memorandum of Understanding is a brilliant political move for the Republican Party.
I submit my opinion to SCO readers as a principled supporter of the Constitutional Option. Politics is rarely the friend of principle and tonight’s compromise is no exception to this maxim. I must view the compromise through the lense of pragmatism and what I see looks good for my party.
We may never know whether Frist had the votes; in fact, I think this compromise suggests that no one truly knew how the votes would fall. If Frist called for the vote and the rule change failed, he would look terribly weak and the party would face bitter division. If the rule was changed, Reid and the Democrats would look like helpless whiners and be forced to engage in petty procedural tactics to stall and obstruct further.
With this deal the Republicans are forced to concede a principled position – that all nominees sent to the floor should receive an up or down vote – but this is not a position overwhelmingly supported by Republicans as suggested by internal Republican Party polling in late April.
The Democrats, on the other hand, spent the last few years and a tremendous amount of political capital branding fine conservative jurists Priscilla R. Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and William H. Pryor Jr. as right-wing extremists. Borrowing from the language of the deal, they are by the Democrats’ own definition, the most “extraordinary” of Bush’s nominees.
Two judges will be sacrificed, William G. Myers III of Idaho and Henry Saad of Michigan, but I’m not clear if they are subject to the “extraordinary circumstances” rule. It would seem that they are not, but the rule would be applied to future nominees.
But who are these judges?
I have to admit, I have no clue. I’m willing to bet that most Americans have no clue either. Thanks to the Democrats, many Americans know Priscilla R. Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and William H. Pryor Jr. The very nominees that the obstructionists have worked so hard to convince America were scum of the earth will now get a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.
The bar has been set and it has been set very high. Any future Bush nominee, whether Circuit or Supreme, will have to be clearly more “extreme” than Owen, Brown, and Pryor. Senator Mike DeWine sent a signal that I hope will be echoed by other Senate Republicans that abuse of the “extraordinary circumstances” rules will not be tolerated. The Dems won’t have several years to frame a future Bush nominee, say a nominee to the Supreme Court, in this light.
Josh Micah Marshal is asking the right question: “Can this agreement really withstand the appointment of another hard right nominee?” I think not, especially when it will be virtually impossible to be more “hard right” than the nominees the Democrats just allowed to go to the floor for a vote.
Unless there is a hidden agreement to vote no on Owen, Brown, or Pryor, I’m inclined to think that tonight’s Memorandum of Understanding is a brilliant political move for the Republican Party.
UPDATE: Welcome Michelle Malkin and Fraters Libertas readers! I'd like to note that Jim Jewell and Mark Daniels agree with my assessment, but Mark Sides and Matt Stokes dissent.
Be sure to read Mark's two posts on the subject here and here.
UPDATE II: Jim finds wisdom in compromise as does Professor Bainbridge. (HT: Dilley Blog)
Posted by Rick at 02:16 AM | Comments (11) | TrackBack
Status Quo Preserved
As you likely know by now, a group of Republicans and Democrats have made a deal to preserve the Senate filibuster on judicial nominations. As is to be expected,Confirm Them has a boatload of analysis. Sierra Faith is doing yeoman's work on rounding up the reaction from the right side of the blogosphere. The general response, with some exception, is very negative.
My analysis: A group of Republicans are very afraid that someday, perhaps, maybe, possibly, enough judges who didn't drink the kool-aid in law school on Roe v. Wade may actually throw the issue of abortion back to the political process where it belongs. That possibility, however slight, is much more terrifying to those Republicans than any other issue they can think of. They reacted accordingly.
Posted by Mark at 12:41 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Hope and its Daughters
Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver delivered a very fine keynote address at the Second Annual National Catholic Prayer Breakfast on May 20th in Washington, D.C. Chaput's comments cover the role of a Catholic in civil society. Although addressed to mostly Catholics, the remarks could have been directed to Christians in general. Here is a sample, but you should really read the whole address:
St Augustine, who had such a deep influence on the mind of our new Holy Father, once wrote that, "Hope has two beautiful daughters. Their names are anger and courage; anger at the way things are, and courage to see that they do not remain the way they are." Are we angry enough about what's wrong with the world -- the killing of millions of unborn children through abortion; the neglect of the poor and the elderly; the mistreatment of immigrants in our midst; the abuse of science in embryonic stem cell research? Do we really have the courage of our convictions to change those things?The opposite of hope is cynicism, and cynicism also has two daughters. Their names are indifference and cowardice. In renewing ourselves in our faith, what Catholics need to change most urgently is the habit and rhetoric of cowardice we find in our own personal lives, in our national political life, and sometimes even within the Church herself. [Hmm, this last part sounds vaguely familiar.]
Chaput's main point is that, as Christians, we have a duty to involve ourselves in the political process and that our participation should be informed by our Christian beliefs. Thus, we are Christians participating in the process, not conservatives, nor liberals, not Republicans, nor Democrats:
What we really believe, we conform our lives to. And if we don't conform our lives to what we claim to believe, then we're living a lie.
Food for thought for all Christians, regadless of your particular political stripe.
Posted by Mark at 12:19 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
May 23, 2005
New Blog: Putting for Par
Dave Haveman has joined the blogging ranks with his new blog Putting for Par. Dave looks to be off to a good start. Give it a look.
Posted by Mark at 11:45 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Hot Rod
MLB.com has a nice article about my cousin.
Posted by Rick at 10:54 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Senate Sleepover
Bill Frist could invoke the Constitutional Option as early as tomorrow morning and cots for Senators are being set up in the Capitol for Republican senators who are planning a long night. Minority Leader Harry Reid and Democrat Ken “Up or Down…NOT!” Salazar are grim on the prospects of a last minute compromise.
Reid threatened to block the bipartisan asbestos bill making its way through the Senate. According to the MSNBC reporter:
The legislation, being championed by Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and the senior Democrat on the committee, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. is a priority for people with mesothelioma, a form of cancer caused by inhaling asbestos fibers, as well as for the insurance industry and corporations with big asbestos liabilities.This has to be great news for Republicans. There is a reason why Tom Daschle was sent packing. There’s a reason why Republican Senatorial candidates got more votes in November than Democratic Senatorial candidates and picked up four seats. Elections have consequences. If the Democratic response to the Constitutional Option is more obstruction, I say why wait until morning!
Posted by Rick at 06:17 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The Most Dangerous Entanglement of Church and State
The most dangerous entanglement of church and state in the current Administration was not the prayer at the Inauguration, or Christian evangelism at the Air Force Academy, or the lobbying by overtly Christian groups on the issue of filibuster.
It was the establishment of the Office of Faith-based Initiatives in 2001.
This was one of President Bush’s first official acts, and I believe it was prompted by his personal faith and his confidence in the non-profit, and specifically the faith-based, organizations.
The Office was tasked at its inception with leading a "determined attack on need" by strengthening and expanding the role of faith-based and community organizations in addressing the nation's social problems. The President envisions a faith-friendly public square where faith-based organizations can compete equally with other groups to provide government or privately-funded services.
Sounds warm and fuzzy, but we thought this was a bad idea from the start, and that it was short-sighted for Christian organizations and churches to applaud this well-intentioned, but flawed, initiative. It may be that the War on Terror derailed the Faith-based Initiative, because not much has become of the effort.
Writing at The Rooftop Blog, Debbie called for the elimination of the OFBI, because it is unfair to taxpayers, and because it is dangerous for Christian ministries. She wrote:
If the government gives contracts and funding to faith-based organizations, those organizations will of necessity turn into today’s YMCA. (Does anyone even remember that the “C” stands for Christian? I doubt The Village People did.) Faith-based organizations will not be able to witness to those they assist. They will not have the right to refuse to hire people who do no subscribe to the tenants of the stated faith of the organization or church. They will not be able to pray in Jesus’ name before they feed their hundreds of clients. And rightly so, because part of their money will have come from people who do not support those beliefs, and from people who are vehemently opposed to them.I have heard leaders of faith-based organizations say, “Yes, we’ll take the money provided there are no strings attached.” How arrogant. How selfish. They want the right to take the money from gays and Buddhists, then determine how the money is spent – ways that many gays or Buddhists would despise. They are thinking of only the recipient (themselves) and not the giver (the taxpayer).
Even if the rules for faith-based organizations would be flexible now due to an empathetic Administration, they are likely to change down the road, recognizing that the giver of the money has the right to determine the rules and how the money is spent. Rules that atheists and pro-choicers and Jews can live with. And those rules of necessity will say that an organization cannot preach Jesus Christ and Him crucified with money that came from the personal pocket of the local Rabbi. And when you are dependent on money that becomes 30% or 60% of your budget, will you be able refuse further issuance of that money, and look in the face of the one you are serving and say, “I can’t serve you today?” Will you have the courage to pay the piper, cut that money you are now dependent on out of the budget--thereby cutting your services--and start a new fund-raising program to replace that government money and rebuild your organization?
Faith-based organizations would do well to take the high road. If money is offered from the government, refuse it and instead rely on the One you say is sufficient to meet your needs, and Who will do so for the purpose of making your ministry prosper. The One who gave you that ministry in the first place.
"A word to the wise: if you are a faith-based charity performing a valuable service providing for those in need, stay away from federal funds. Your program will survive on willing private contributions. If you accept federal dollars to pay for your program then you deserve what you get."
Much more on this topic, with many links here at FailureIsImpossible.
The liberals and secularists oppose the OFBI, but for the wrong reasons. When church and state become enmeshed, it is the church, not the state, that is endangered.
Posted by Jim at 09:00 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Newsweek in the Toilet
The Newsweek story is a bit old by now, but I don't think we've written about it here at SCO yet, so why not jump in with a few thoughts. First, I can't say that I'm surprised. I've blogged about visceral bias in the MSM before and will continue to blog about it until I find some time to sit down and formulate a more coherent theory supported by analysis of a dataset for a manuscript.
And second, the US Government shouldn't directly censure/censor Newsweek, although I think the DOJ should do whatever it can to help the government of Pakistan and/or the families of those killed in the riots incited by the Newsweek story file suit in US Court against the publication. Okay, I admit that I have no idea whether what I suggest here is possible or even prudent. But, it's my gut reaction after catching up on the story that I had to ignore this week due to finals.
Newsweek did America great harm. For that, they should pay. I suppose Americans should cancel their subscriptions as well, but that should go without saying.
As you may have noticed, I didn't touch on the facts of the story. If you have no idea what I'm talking about, please visit just about any of the major bloggers, but I found Daddypundit's couple posts informative to start.
UPDATE: It looks like I’m not the only one who thinks that Newsweek is at risk of legal action.
Posted by Rick at 06:30 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
May 22, 2005
Supermajority Required to Reject Presidential Nominees?
I haven’t had time to check this out, but Instapundit seems to have endorsed this find by Anne Althouse that Madison actually proposed and the founders discussed requiring a supermajority vote of the Senate to deny a Presidential appointment. Betsy Newmark has more.
Posted by Rick at 08:35 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Santorum's New Book
Posted by Matt at 03:49 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Mt Soledad Cross and War Memorial
Another City of San Diego church-state issue made news this week. The spineless City Council will put a referendum to save the Soledad Mountain cross to a citywide vote. The Council could have simply approved the land transfer from City to federal land, but instead passed the buck. (HT: Michelle Malkin).
Posted by Rick at 03:29 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Assault on the Boy Scouts
In January 2004, the City of San Diego caved to the ACLU and agreed to pay them $950,000 and terminate their lease with the Boy Scouts. The ACLU claimed that the City's $1/year lease of a part of Balboa Park was unconstitutional because the Scouts are a religious organization. The Boy Scouts carried the lease for nearly 50 years and maintained the property for the City. A U.S. District Judge agreed with the ACLU ruling that there was "overwhelming and uncontradicted evidence" that the Boy Scouts are a "religious organization."
On Wednesday, a panel of scholars and lawyers debated the Constitutionality of leasing public land to the Boy Scouts. Lowell Brown of The Hedgehog Blog alerted his readers to the event's webcast. Lowell's post drew a lengthy comment from Eric Isaacson of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, one of the panelists. Lowell elevated Mr. Isaacson's comments to a post and provided a few responses that are worth checking out.
I'm solidly behind the Scouts in this matter and my City Council makes me sick. Earlier today, my son's Little League team took the field. Just before the opening pitch, the boys and girls took to the baselines, removed their caps, turned their attention the American flag, and said the Little League pledge, which begins: I TRUST IN GOD. They did this on public parkland provided to Little League by the City at a great price in exchange for maintenance. Is Little League the next great institution of this great land to be targeted by the ACLU and our liberal courts?
Next week the Senate may go Constitutional on the obstructionist Democrats. I only hope that Senate Republicans have more spine than my City Council. Hugh Hewitt, ConfirmThem, and Hedgehog Blog will keep you informed.
Posted by Rick at 01:37 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
May 20, 2005
Getting Old
Earlier this month, my wife plucked two gray hairs from my head. At least I still have a few hairs to pluck! Although graying hair and male pattern baldness aren't typical of a man in his late twenties, these aren't the signs that I'm getting old. My wife just called with my son to sing happy birthday. She forgot all about my birthday this morning as we spent about 20 minutes together before I dashed off to work. Now I know that I'm getting old!
I received the best birthday present on Wednesday - more time. With finals complete, I am looking forward to summer and can again turn my attention to current events. So, what's going on in the world? A blogger shouldn't have to ask that question (sigh).
Posted by Rick at 10:37 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
May 19, 2005
Words to Ponder
Whilst reading my Mars Hill Audio Addenda for May (not yet online), I came across an article entitled Christianity and Culture, by J. Gresham Machen, with this intriguing opening that I think gets at the heart of some of the concerns I have about two movements within the Church today:
One of the greatest of the problems that ha[s] agitated the Church is the problem of the relation between knowledge and piety, between culture and Christianity. This problem has appeared first of all in the presence of two tendencies in the Church—the scientific or academic tendency, and what may be called the practical tendency.
Some men have devoted themselves chiefly to the task of forming right conceptions as to Christianity and its foundations. To them no fact, however trivial, has appeared worthy of neglect; by them truth has been cherished for its own sake, without immediate reference to practical consequences. Some, on the other hand, have emphasized the essential simplicity of the gospel. The world is lying in misery, we ourselves are sinners, men are perishing in sin every day. The gospel is the sole means of escape; let us preach it to the world while yet we may. So desperate is the need that we have no time to engage in vain babblings or old wives’ fables. While we are discussing the exact location of the churches of Galatia, men are perishing under the curse of the law; while we are settling the date of Jesus’ birth, the world is doing without its Christmas message.The representatives of both of these tendencies regard themselves as Christians, but too often there is little brotherly feeling between them. The Christian of academic tastes accuses his brother of undue emotionalism, of shallow argumentation, of cheap methods of work. On the other hand, your practical man is ever loud in his denunciation of academic indifference to the dire needs of humanity. The scholar is represented either as a dangerous disseminator of doubt, or else as a man whose faith is a faith without works. A man who investigates human sin and the grace of God by the aid of dusty volumes, carefully secluded in a warm and comfortable study, without a thought of the men who are perishing in misery every day!
I think that Machen has eloquently stated the feelings of, and problems with, the extremes of both camps. On the one hand are those who want to out-Calvin Calvin and, to a greater or lesser degree, exhibit an "unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction between men of corrupt mind." (1 Tim. 6:4-5) On the other side, equally dangerous, are those who are so wrapped up in emotivism that they "believe every spirit," and fail to utilize the reason that God gave them to "test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world." (1 John 4:1)
Both extremes, then, are dangerous to the body, which is why I think so many are attracted to the concept of the Mere Christianity outlined so eloquently by C.S. Lewis. Lewis, as well as others like G.K. Chesterton, managed to take a reasoned approach to Christianity, while maintaining a love for the world and its inhabitants. They also did it in a winsome and winning way.
Kudos to J. Gresham Machen, then, for putting our modern American Christian dilemma so well into perspective. Kudos, in particular, to his prescience. He gave this talk, after all, in 1912 at Princeton University.
It just goes to show that some things don't necessarily change.
Posted by Mark at 09:59 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Not the Real Thing: Pepsi President Flips Out
As a present day Atlantan and as an American I’m more than happy to link to Hugh Hewitt’s post on Pepsico President Indra Nooyi's "America is the middle finger" speech at Columbia University graduation. How injudicious, unpatriotic, and amazingly juvenile for a commencement speech. It’s worth a look.
Posted by Jim at 06:24 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Trial by Jury
A tall, soft-spoken, 62-year-old Jamaican immigrant spent last night in the Gwinnett County Jail because I joined 11 other citizens of the county in convicting him of aggravated assault in a March 2 attack on his wife of two years, when an argument over money got out of hand.
After two days of intense testimony and deliberation, I was the foreman of a jury of mostly young people who found “Alfie” guilty of grabbing his short, stocky and combative wife by hair, punching her, and wielding a knife and waving it threateningly.
His wife’s daughter-in-law jumped on him and no one was stabbed. The overly dramatic and reasonably obnoxious defense attorney (as a jury we joked about asking the judge for permission to indict him for being a drama king) said the slight Vietnamese daughter-in-law could never have stopped Alfie from stabbing Dolores, if he’d wanted to. That’s possible; we’ll never know. What is clear is that he was holding her down on the stove by the hair and waving a knife in her face.
There was a 911 tape that made the case for the prosecutor, in that it captured the terror of the two women. It really defined terror. And it corroborated the testimony of the police officer and the daughter-in-law.
The two Jamaicans were a disaster on the witness stand. Neither could answer questions directly. It’s probably a cultural trait, although perhaps it was just these two individuals. The wife was particularly maddening. She was the last witness the first day of the trial, and I think we all went home thinking we’d acquit the guy, and in our minds figured we’d count living with this overbearing woman as “time-served.”
But the defense brought the defendant, Alfie, to the stand the next day. Although he was much more likeable, his story was ridiculously fictionalized. It didn’t match any of the other evidence and made it sound like he and his wife were discussing poetry in the kitchen on the afternoon of the incident.
Bad decision by the defense. Another bad move by the defense counsel was in his closing argument. His central argument was that his defendant was 62, and that the rules are different for someone 62. He really said that, several times. “When you’re 62, the rules are different.” I still can’t figure out what he meant by that. It sounded like the argument for some government program, where the rules are different for some groups that are old or poor or illegal immigrants, or gay.
No, we compared the evidence to the indictment, and the rules weren’t different for Alfie, although he was 62, affable, and simple.
As a jury we didn’t think the prosecution was able to prove three other counts—aggravated assault on the daughter-in-law and two counts of making dangerous threats, called “terroristic threats.”
We were unanimous on one count of guilty, and three counts not-guilty. No jury room arguments or stubborn hold-outs. No arm twisting.
So Alfie went to jail to await sentencing, and we went home for dinner.
But the trial will not go away in my mind. Surprisingly, it is a heavy weight to stand in judgment on another human being. There was a solemn responsibility that we felt to rule justly. We recognized that we would be altering the life of this generally likeable man—he didn’t have any previous convictions—if we found him guilty. But he had clearly snapped, and may do it again and put these women in further danger if he was not punished for what he had clearly done.
I prayed for Alfie last night, that God might be with him and redirect his life. And I prayed for peace in the family.
Posted by Jim at 09:29 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Evangelism, the Left, and the Air Force Academy
From time to time it seems as though there can be no meaningful discourse in American public life, particularly between those of diverse philosophies, faiths, or worldviews. It is easy to diagnose this as an inability of the Red States and Blue States to communicate, because red values and blue values are so drastically different. And there is some truth to that.
But perhaps more accurately, we are many red and blue islands, not necessarily geographic, but spiritual, economic, racial, and social. The islands have their own communications channels; their own books, magazines, and newspapers; their own churches, social gatherings, television shows, and political parties.
I’ve seen this kind of an island for many years in the evangelical Christian community. Having been raised in a Christian home, educated in a Christian college, and working much of my career in Christian organizations, I have met many, many believers who cannot identify one non-Christian friend. Or even a non-Christian acquaintance with whom they’ve had a meaningful conversation. In fact, many conservative Christians have never knowingly had a conversation with a homosexual person.
I confess all of this because I know that the flip side is also true—secular elites and many unchurched folks don’t have an evangelical friend or acquaintance. They’ve never met a authentic evangelical person. Most have never had a decent conversation with a serious Christian believer.
This all came to mind when I wrote a post on the criticism of Air Force Academy Christians. Seeing some of the visceral reaction on liberal blogs, I wondered who these bloggers were describing when they wrote about evangelical Christians.
The aggressive, take-no-prisoners evangelical zealots described in media coverage of the Air Force controversy bear no resemblance to 90 percent of the evangelicals I have met and played with, learned with, worked with, and worshipped with. I have been an evangelical Christian for 36 years. And since I have been working in what we call the evangelical cocoon, I have not been isolated from the trends and teachings of the evangelical community.
There are at least three things that we are taught within the evangelical cocoon about evangelism, or sharing your faith. (Never once have I ever heard it called prosyletizing by the church. It’s a word critics use to make it sound scary). First, in order to be obedient to instructions from Jesus Christ, we are taught, we must be a witness of our Christianity to others who are outside the faith. And it’s a joy—although most of us are uncomfortable with intruding on others’ personal privacy—because we believe we have the best news in the world.
Second, we are taught that individuals come to faith in Christ as a result of the moving of the Holy Spirit in them and it is our task only to present the good news with logic, emotion, anecdote, or personal reflection. We don’t bring anyone to faith in Christ. God does that.
Third, we learn that people who are turned off by us personally are not going to be receptive to what we are presenting. Converts at the edge of the sword are converts in name or number only. No one teaches us to badger seekers or use threats or intimidation. That’s a crazy evangelistic strategy.
Because the message of Jesus Christ is unwavering—“no one comes to the Father but by Me”—the Christian message is often characterized as arrogant. The message is clear and unchanging, but not boastful. When Christian believers are arrogant in their manner or words, they do damage to that faith. At those moments, they are an embarrassment to the Kingdom.
All that said, what is it that Americans for the Separation of Church and State, the New York Times and other MSM, and Yale Divinity School are talking about when they describe the activities of Christians at the Air Force Academy?
The NY Times describes what it sees at the Academy as “unconstitutional proselytizing of academy students by evangelists whose efforts were blessed by authority figures in the chain of command.” What is that? Is proselytizing unconstitutional? No, in fact it is unconstitutional to be” prohibiting the free exercise” of religion. Is it unconstitutional for the leaders of a military academy to bless the efforts of those who share their faith on campus? It would be only to the extent that it established one religion as the official religion of the academy or the military.
To avoid the appearance of the establishment of evangelical Christianity as the religion of the Academy there are legitimate lines that should not be crossed. No one should have their rights abridged because they are not adherents to a particular faith or if they have no faith at all.
But the free expression of faith, the open dialogue of all faiths, is not what is at stake here. My hunch is that Christian witnessing—Christians explaining the truths and benefits of trusting Jesus Christ—just grates on those who detest Christianity, or are repulsed by certainty.
The critics have mentioned several incidents:
Chaplains
In its analysis of the Academy’s actions, the Los Angeles Times quotes the Yale report: “During Protestant worship services, cadets were encouraged to proselytize to others and ‘remind them of the consequences of apostasy.’”
Wait. This is during the Protestant worship services! Is Yale suggesting that the administration of the Academy control the worship services? And look at their incendiary message: Go tell it on the mountain that Jesus Christ is Lord and that rejecting Him will have negative consequences.
We are in trouble as a nation if Christians cannot share that message everywhere and anywhere. The report continues: “Protestant Cadets were regularly encouraged to witness to fellow Basic Cadets.” Welcome to Evangelism 101. What a threat to the Republic. As I said earlier, this is what we are taught from our earliest days as Christians. Why did it become so shocking just because the men and women are wearing uniforms?
Passion of the Christ
The Times says there were flyers on dining hall chairs inviting cadets to view The Passion of the Christ. What strong arm tactics! How could these impressionable, vulnerable airmen resist such pressure?
Name Calling
Evidently, a Jewish cadet was called a “filthy Jew” by someone. That’s stupid and childish. But if it was an evangelical Christian, denigrating the Jewish people is totally out of line with the teachings of the church. There isn’t a faith group that has more respect for Jews and for Israel than evangelicals. Anyone who would take a little time to learn about evangelicals would know this. To include this in an analysis of the lines between church and state indicates the bias of the reporter.
Christians are not the persecuted minority in America and we shouldn’t act like it. But Christians are, interestingly, the constantly belittled and criticized majority.
When it comes to matters of faith, there is too much whining on the left and too much hand wringing on the right.
Frankly, if we—-as evangelicals—-took all of the opportunities presented to us each day to authentically and sensitively communicate our faith and our concern for others, the rapid expansion of the Christian community might scare the daylights out of those who think the armed forces that we rely on to defend our nation can’t possibly resist the spiritual entreaties of their colleagues.
Posted by Jim at 08:44 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack
May 18, 2005
New Lost!
There's a new episode of Lost tonight. Excellent.
Posted by Matt at 04:24 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Bono In Print
Thanks to comments like these at Looking Closer (a crucial site for Christians and culture), I can't wait to get a copy of Bono's new book.
And if anyone needs reminding, U2 is the best rock band of the last twenty-five years. No ifs, ands, or buts.
Posted by Matt at 10:40 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 17, 2005
Showdown Over Filibuster Looms
A friend has sent me the latest story on the filibuster showdown from Roll Call, which story I cannot legally reproduce here, nor is there non-subscription access. The jist of the story, which is also being reported in other outlets, is that the Senate negotiations over whether the President's previous judicial nominees will receive a majority up or down vote are over. Unless a group of "moderate" Republicans and Democrats can broker another agreement, at some point Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Frist is expected to "call up the nominations of Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen and California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown." The fireworks would then ensue. Among the many sites following this story is the excellent Confirm Them, which you should continue to check to keep up to date.
Posted by Mark at 01:29 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 16, 2005
Mohler vs. Hitchens
This is the first in what I hope becomes an ongoing examination of the evangelical approach to conservatism. The lack of evangelical presence within the conservative intellectual world is no accident, and I am eager to explore the reasons behind this development. Reader comments, e-mail and trackbacks are encouraged and appreaciated.
Though the relevant pieces are a week or so old, two recent works by Christopher Hitchens and Al Mohler reveal some interesting viewpoints on the part of a leading evangelical. Though Hitchens was recently described by Hugh Hewitt as being “center-left,” Hitchens is one of the most difficult pundits to categorize. The patient reader finds much to chew on concerning his work, even if he does not agree with the author. Mohler, too, is confusing in his own way. A leader of the Southern Baptist Convention with heavily Reformed leanings, he is a fine scholar. He is conservative, generally speaking, but Mohler has yet to come out as a anything resembling a Buckley or Kirk-style conservative. The closest parallel that I can find is that of the brilliant Catholic Richard John Neuhaus, though Neuhaus’ work has for a long time been more specifically political.
It was Mohler who brought the matter of Hitchens’ view of religious conservatives to his own blog, referring to the juxtaposition of contrasting articles by Hitchens and James Taranto concerning religious conservatives that recently appeared in OpinionJournal. Hitchens’ piece clearly discusses his disagreement with, if not his disdain towards, Christianity. Nothing new there; Hitchens' atheism is well-documented. Hitchens goes on to demonstrate his opposition to a “shallow, demagogic and above all sectarian religiosity.” It is worth mentioning that the only evangelical leaders mentioned in his article are Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. In his own analysis, Mohler would have done well to acknowledge this tidbit. Hitchens points towards two thinkers who have been influential in modern American conservatism: Ayn Rand and Leo Strauss. Both were non-religious if not atheistic, and Hitchens is acknowledging that conservatism has heretofore allowed such thinking into its tent. (Readers interested in the fumbling talk of Pat Robertson should follow this link to the Evangelical Outpost.)
Mohler’s disagreement with Hitchens is muddled, in my own view, simply because in many cases Mohler’s point is unclear. Hitchens cites Barry Goldwater as a model conservative, a point duly noted by Mohler. Would Mohler disagree with this? I should hope not, but if so, there’s a lot of conservative – many of whom are religious believers – who would jump to Hitchens’ and Goldwater’s defense. Whereas Hitchens merely denounces a particular religious approach to politics, Mohler claims that Hitchens seeks a Right willing to denounce all believers. This is nonsense. Hitchen’s citing of Rand and Strauss is simply a demonstration of the fact that conservatism, while rooted in a Judeo-Christian ethos, has never been an idea exclusive to those who profess Christ. The Christian Russell Kirk would agree with this, as he included the works of nonbelievers, Benjamin Franklin and John Locke, to name two, in The Portable Conservative Reader. Hitchens himself defended religious conservatives (in his own unique manner) in this post-election piece for Slate.
Dr. Mohler is a wise man, and I wish very much that all evangelical leaders possessed his level of knowledge. Yet at the risk of sounding like a certain boor from Massachusetts, I wish his own writing bore a trace of nuance. Hitchens may be philosophically at odds with the Christian faith, but does not suggest that Christians stay quiet in their churches while the atheists run the land. He does, however, disapprove of a certain political approach that is embodied in the Falwells, Robertsons and perhaps even Dobsons of the world. It is not likely that Hitchens would take such umbrage at the political work of Neuhaus or Chuck Colson. While I do not fully agree with Hitchens, it is disappointing that Mohler cannot understand the differences between Robertson and Neuhuas. Until such distinctions can be made and articulated, it is unlikely that the evangelical influence on politics will progress beyond a grass roots campaign.
Posted by Matt at 07:29 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack