« May 2005 | Main | July 2005 »
June 30, 2005
The Founders' Cornerstones
The Federalist Patriot is a wonderful E-mail newsletter that I get 3 times a week. (There are actually 4 separate E-mails sent out weekly, and I get three of them.) According to their website, the newsletter is, "a highly acclaimed publication of anecdotal rebuttal to contemporary political, social and mainstream media Leftists". Today's E-mail noted, as Independence Day is just around the corner, that many of the Founding Fathers' list of grievances against King George, itemized in the Declaration of Independence that were the basis of their desire to become independent, could be charges levelled at the Supreme Court of today. They accused the King of faithlessness to British law, and they let him know the particulars. Mark Alexander gives examples of 7 of the 27 indictments and how they'd apply to today's justices. It's a very telling look at how far we've returned back to the very government abuses we fought a war to be free from.
I highly recommend signing up for one or more of their E-mails.
Posted by Doug at 04:31 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Sex Sells ... Or Not
Looks like sex didn't sell as well as they thought it would.
The hot controversy over Paris Hilton's sexy burger ads for Carl's Jr. and Hardee's has not translated into a surge of sales at the fast-food outlets.CKE Restaurants, parent company of both chains, says Carl's Jr. posted a 1.7 percent rise in same-store sales for the four weeks ending June 20, while Hardee's notched an increase of 0.7 percent.
Yes, Andrew Puzder (president & CEO of CKE) is putting a positive spin on it, suggesting that people who came in asking for "the Paris Hilton burger" would not have otherwise purchased anything at all. That's a bit of a stretch. Looks like, at most, this may have increased the demand for Paris Hilton video on the 'net, but it did virtually nothing for sales.
Meanwhile, Boddie-Noel Enterprises, which owns around 330 Hardee's franchises, says they're not going to run the ad in their area (four southeastern states). This is the first time they've done that, and it may not be the last.
The conventional wisdom is that all publicity is good publicity as long as they spell your name right. It's possible that it's time to unlearn that.
Posted by Doug at 12:56 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Justice Souter's Property to Be Seized?
This story is pretty ironic given the fact that Justice Souter voted with the majority in Kelo vs. City of New London. (Hat Tip: Polipundit)
Posted by Tom at 11:20 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Mohler on Hillary, Emergents
Via Steve McCoy comes this quote from Al Mohler concerning the new book on Senator Hillary Clinton:
We must not give ourselves permission to read a book that will encourage us to feel morally superior about ourselves, even as it poisons our hearts about someone seen as a threat to what we cherish.
That's a poignant quote, and well worth considering for the next three and a half years.
Mohler also has a two part series up on the Emergent Church (see here and here). Not everyone will like his conclusions but it's a fair analysis and worthy of consideration.
Edit: I spoke too soon. Scot McKnight, author of the Jesus Creed, thinks Mohler's view of the Emergent Church is far too simplistic. And he may well be right.
Posted by Matt at 09:14 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Robert P. George Interview
Here's a link to an article discussing an interview with a leading opponent of embryonic stem cell research. Robert P. George is a professor at Princeton and a member of the President's Council on Bioethics. Read the interview for yourself to get a better understanding of the ethics involved with creating embryos just for the purpose of experimentation. Here's the best quote:
We cannot say with certainty that embryonic cells will never prove therapeutically useful in treating other diseases, but as a matter of sheer fact not a single embryonic-stem-cell therapy is even in clinical trials. No one knows how to prevent tumor formation and other problems arising from the use of embryonic stem cells. No one knows whether these problems will be solved or solved before other research strategies render embryonic research obsolete. Like John Kerry, John Edwards, and Ron Reagan, Cuomo is elevating the hopes of suffering people and their families who are desperate for cures and eager to believe that if only embryonic-stem-cell research were federally funded they or their loved ones would be restored to health.
I realize this is something of a controversial topic, but George, who is a Christian, provides both a scientific and a moral basis for his opposition. I highly recommend the read, particularly if you've decided the embryonic research is going to be a cure-all for diseases and disabilities.
Posted by Matt at 09:10 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Another Stone to Cry Out
She's witty, intelligent, and has a keen insight into issues of the day. She is Abigail Brayden, the newest Stone (or as Doug refers to her, Stonette). Abigail has been blogging at her self-titled blog since August 2004 and we have been fans of her blog for quite a while.
As you can see from her bio, she is a woman of many talents. We believe that she will help advance the mission of this blog and are thrilled to have her as part of the Stones Cry Out team.
Posted by Tom at 08:57 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
A Sad Day in Our Home
There is deep sadness in our home today that many homes have known, but never this one. After a short pregnancy that still had the freshness and vibrancy of an early spring day, our baby has died. There is no good reason at such an early stage, just six weeks old, and there will be no great physical trauma. But the new trajectory that we had just been planning for our lives must now be recalibrated without this child, who we resisted naming even as my other children reveled in the process of coming up with new names and possibilities.
The joy, which I described in an earlier post, was strong and heartfelt, but it was not the opposite of this bitter taste of death. For the joy was mitigated with the view of danger—we knew this was a high-risk pregnancy—and the anticipation of the hard process of bearing and birthing a child. In this world there is little that can mitigate the terrible finality of the death of such promise, the end of a life before it can be truly celebrated.
Because we believe in life and know beyond doubt that human life begins when it is conceived as such, we also know that God took home this young addition to our family, who we had not even named except to call it our “little pumpkin seed,” and He has a name for it that is listed in his book of life.
Almost everyone we have talked to has suffered similar pain, and we know the loss is a common one. We don’t mean to heighten our own sorrow as something special or even unique. But we mourn the loss of this child and the suspension of this hope and the darkening of the light that this growing baby was already bringing to our lives.
We’ve prayed long and hard about all of this, and we don’t have any thought that God lost control. No, we recognize His hand, and we are sad that today His plan was for our home to suffer this loss.
Goodbye little pumpkin seed, until we meet again.
Posted by Jim at 08:09 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
Writing on Celebrity and True Stardom
Ben Stein, in his last column for E Online in December 2003, asked some very important questions, such as “Who is a star?”, “What is my purpose here?”, and “Who is in charge of the universe?”, and comes up with some very good answers.
On the latter he writes:
“We are not responsible for the operation of the universe, and what happens to us is not terribly important. God is real, not a fiction, and when we turn over our lives to Him, he takes far better care of us than we could ever do for ourselves.In a word, we make ourselves sane when we fire ourselves as the directors of the movie of our lives and turn the power over to Him.”
(Hat tip: Broken Masterpieces)
Posted by Jim at 07:31 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 29, 2005
Religion, minus the "G" word
You can write about religion, but don't dare mention..well, you know, the "G" word.
For using the "G" word 41 times in a term paper, Bethany Hauf was given an "F" by her Victor Valley Community College instructor.Hauf's teacher approved her term paper topic - Religion and its Place within the Government - on one condition: Don't use the word God. Instead of complying with VVCC adjunct instructor Michael Shefchik's condition Hauf wrote a 10-page report for her English 101 class entitled "In God We Trust."
"He said it would offend others in class," Hauf, a 34-year-old mother of four, said. "I didn't realize God was taboo."
Hope the potential offendees never look too close at the money in their wallets. The idea that a report on religion should avoid the word God is akin to writing about the role of government in general without using the words "law" and "order".
I suppose that the teacher can place whatever restrictions he wanted to on classroom assignments. Still, this particular restriction seems one that was designed to ensure failure or at least discourage the topic. The American Center for Law and Justice is representing Hauf, asking for an apology and a re-grading of the paper. Oh, and one other nice bit of irony.
In addition to an apology and a re-grading of Hauf's paper, the ACLJ demands Shefchik "receive some kind of training to sensitize him to the constitutional dimensions of his employment in a public educational institution, including his duty to respect constitutional freedoms of expression."
Sensitivity ought to work both ways.
Posted by Doug at 04:09 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Your Ring Looks Good on My Finger!
Talk about a cultural misstep (if that’s what it was). Vladimir Putin apparently pocketed New England Patriot’s owner Robert Kraft’s 2005 Super Bowl ring after he allowed the Russian president to try it on. I spent a month in Russia when it was still the Soviet Union as a student ambassador. Customs are different for sure, but I’m not sure I buy the “misunderstanding” story. This action seems fitting with Putin’s character. He’s a bit out of touch and a rather confused individual.
UPDATE: Kraft now says that he intended the ring as a gift.
Posted by Rick at 04:03 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Newsweek on Dinosaurs: Science or Science Fiction?
Mark Tapscott takes a closer look at an article entitled Buried Treasure from the latest issue of Newsweek and finds more science fiction than fact in their report on dinosaurs. He also links to some great resources on the scientific data available to show how dinosaurs really lived.
Posted by Tom at 01:57 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Rite of Passage
Last week I finally took the big step with my son. He’s 10 and I thought it was time. Why wait any longer for the important rite of passage.
I took him to Starbucks.
I had my usual coffee of the day with cream. He had some health bar thing, which he found lacking.
While there he asked: "Why is there a girl on the Starbucks logo?" I did not know. Here are some explanations.
(It’s a mermaid. But I still haven’t figured out what this has to do with coffee).
Posted by Jim at 07:56 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Denominating
Just what flavor of Christian are you? MediaCulpa is trying to help you with his latest quiz, and Joe Carter at Evangelical Outpost has a tongue-in-cheek tool called The Denominator.
Posted by Jim at 07:40 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 28, 2005
Woody Allen's Insanity
Woody Allen is one of my favorite filmmakers; I'm a fan of both his nostalgia and his neurotic sensibilities. That said, his recent remarks about are 9/11 are inexcusable and asinine.
Thus spake Lileks.
Posted by Matt at 06:42 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The Forgotten Emergencies
Either by sheer magnitude, access by the world’s communicators, or political prominence, some humanitarian crises grab international attention, appearing on the evening news or in the morning papers, and staying there for some time.
Even then, the attention moves elsewhere as people focus on their own lives and the daily pressures and problems that face anyone, whether the residents of affluent cities or squatters in refugee camps. Life goes on, and even the horror of a natural disaster, war, or genocide disappears into crowded memories.
The tsunami is no longer news and last year’s Caribbean hurricanes have blown by. Buried even more are the lingering multi-year crises that never made it to page one and have never been of major concern to the world’s powers or the media gatekeepers.
Humanitarians call these The Forgotten Emergencies.
Reuters AlertNet asked more than 100 humanitarian professionals, media personalities, academics and activists which of the world's "forgotten" emergencies they wanted the global media to focus on in 2005. Among them are eight regions that have been in crisis for many years. Conflicts in Congo, Uganda and Sudan are the three biggest forgotten emergencies, dwarfing the Asian tsunami's death toll but attracting scant media interest.
Top forgotten crises include:
o Congo
o North Uganda
o Sudan
o West Africa
o Colombia
o Chechnya
o Haiti
o Nepal
Reuters also found AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa and infectious diseases worldwide to be of paramount concern but relatively uncovered by the world’s media.
Posted by Jim at 05:15 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
FEC Crackdown
A couple of lefty bloggers head to Washington and get some press...and I'm rooting for them!
Posted by Rick at 10:25 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
More Analysis on the Supreme Court's Hair-Splitting
There is some great analysis on yesterday's hair-splitting decisions from the Supreme Court on the 10 Commandments. Paul Mirengoff of Powerline examines some of the legal reasoning in these cases. Hugh Hewitt says that long-time court watchers were not surprised by the decisions. George Will looks at the historical context of the Establishment Clause to reveal the absurdity of the Court's decisions. Finally, Dr. Albert Mohler says in his commentary today that the decisions reveal the Court's increasing hostility towards religion, specifically Christianity.
Posted by Tom at 10:13 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 27, 2005
Judgement Day; Muslim & Christian
Don Sensing explains how different Christianity and Islam are by considering what each believes will happen at Judgement Day for each believer. If you're one of those who thinks that Christians and Muslims really just believe in the same deity, you have a big chasm to cross.
Marwan's god wants to know whether he committed mayhem and murder. Christ wants to know whether we fed the hungry and thirsty, welcomed strangers, clothed the naked, nursed the sick and visited the imprisoned.The contrast could not be clearer.
Suggesting that one god could require such diametrically opposed standards is to make Him just a generalized, all-inclusive guy with no real standards to speak of. That doesn't describe a good God, and it frankly makes it impossible for both religions to be talking about the same one.
Posted by Doug at 10:19 PM | Comments (15) | TrackBack
UK bank bans Christian group
On Friday I noted a news report about a guy who was fired from Allstate for personal views he held. Today comes word that a religious group is no longer welcome at a bank in the UK for their views.
The Co-operative Bank has asked an evangelical Christian group to close its account because of its anti-homosexual views.The bank said the opinions of Christian Voice were incompatible with its support for diversity.
Christian Voice said the bank, based in Manchester, was discriminating against it on religious grounds.
It is now waiting for other religious groups with similar opinions to be asked to close accounts, it added.
Christian Voice has held an account with the Co-operative Bank for about three years.
But now the bank has decided the group's stance on homosexuality is so extreme, it has asked members to look for a new bank.
"It has come to the bank's attention that Christian Voice is engaged in discriminatory pronouncements based on the grounds of sexual orientation," a spokesman for the bank said.
"This public stance is incompatible with the position of the Co-operative Bank, which publicly supports diversity and dignity in all its forms for our staff, customers and other stakeholders."
Isn't the removal of someone because they don't think the way you do the exact opposite of "diversity"?
Posted by Doug at 12:45 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
The Supremes & the 10 Commandments
The much-anticipated Supreme Court ruling on the display of the 10 Commandments on government property will, I think, reign in the extremists, but still leaves room for local courts to determine how much religion is too much. I've been really waiting for this ruling in light of the fact that the 10 Commandments, or at least references to them, appear in the Supreme Court itself.
Sending dual signals in ruling on this issue for the first time in a quarter-century, the high court said that displays of the Ten Commandments _ like their own courtroom frieze _ are not inherently unconstitutional. But each exhibit demands scrutiny to determine whether it goes too far in amounting to a governmental promotion of religion, the court said in a case involving Kentucky courthouse exhibits.In effect, the court said it was taking the position that issues of Ten Commandments displays in courthouses should be resolved on a case-by-case basis.
I haven't read the whole ruling (and probably wouldn't understand a lot of it if I did), but I do appreciate the clarification that the court gave to the Establishment Clause.
"Of course, the Ten Commandments are religious _ they were so viewed at their inception and so remain. The monument therefore has religious significance," Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for the majority in the case involving the display outside the state capitol of Texas."Simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the Establishment clause," he said.
It has been this misapplication of the Establishment Clause that has given the ACLU their teeth in taking down anything remotely religious from he public square. Just because a text or an idea lines up with someone's religious belief, it doesn't automatically make it an establishment of religion by the government. Take these displays, for example. All the religious displays on that page (and don't forget to click on "Part II") are from Washington, DC, and if the ACLU had been around then, they'd have never been made. Go there now, and be astonished at what used to be considered acceptable religion in the marketplace until people started misreading the Establishment Clause.
I agree with Justice Thomas that "a more fundamental rethinking of our Establishment Clause jurisprudence remains in order." While I was hoping that this would be case in which to do it, it is a step in the right direction.
Posted by Doug at 12:09 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Linda Foley Won't Back Down
Media Slander has been following the story of Linda Foley, president of The Newspaper Guild, who recently accused the military of deliberately targeting journalists. Rather than apologizing for her remarks, she instead attacks her critics in a recently published statement. Media Slander has responded by fisking her statement. They are also calling for people to write to the individual Guild chapters to express outrage over Ms. Foley's remarks.
While it's no secret that many journalists oppose the war on terror that does not give them the right to make slanderous accusations against the U. S. Military. As my colleague Jim points out in a previous post, anti-war remarks from the Left have historically done more harm than good. Ms. Foley should apologize immediately. Based on her most recent statement, it doesn't appear that will happen anytime soon.
Update: The Augusta Free Press has a column today entitled Potty Mouth Politics that directly addresses over-the-top rhetoric such as what we have seen from Ms. Foley. (Hat tip: The Blue State Conservatives)
Posted by Tom at 10:31 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Finish the Job in Iraq
The Democratic Party is ratcheting up the anti-war rhetoric of retreat. For those of us old enough to remember the retreat from Vietnam, the voices sound eerily familiar.
As Hugh Hewitt points out, the unintended consequences were devastating:
The Democratic Party and its liberal/left supporters negligence with regard to southeast Asia in the '70s bought about the deaths of millions and the enduring communist governments of Vietnam and Laos and the desperate circumstances of Cambodia. They did not intend that result.
Unlike South Vietnam, there is a credible and viable political solution. But this solution is possible only if the coalition maintains a strong military presence. Because the insurgency shows no sign of folding, it is time to escalate, not retreat. Unleash the troops; allow our military leaders to take the actions necessary to defeat the enemy.
As David Brooks wrote last week, ignore the polls and finish the job.
Posted by Jim at 07:58 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
It's OK, Dr. Graham
Billy Graham’s last crusade in New York City has become a media love fest, and it is really great to see the admiration for Dr Graham and the way the Crusade is pulling together the Christian church in the city. But please don’t pay attention to anything Dr. Graham says these days, except in his prepared sermon. He has lost his political discretion, but it’s OK. He deserves a little senility late in life. Don’t condemn him, as some have. Just smile when it sounds as though he’s endorsing Hillary Clinton for president (when Bill Clinton joined him on stage, Graham "quipp[ed] that the former president should become an evangelist and allow 'his wife to run the country'”). This wasn’t politics; just a good-natured quip at an evangelistic crusade. We need to read in the discretion the grand old man of evangelicalism is now lacking.
Posted by Jim at 07:42 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Examining the Joel Osteen Cult
The teaching of Joel Osteen has great appeal because of its sunny prescription for good times. It’s the epitome of the froth that is bubbling up in pulpits throughout the nation. Ken Silva has a sobering look at Osteen and the Word/Faith movement:
As one looks deeper into this “feel-good” message of Joel Osteen, however, it becomes clear that his doctrine is actually far worse than junk-food, for it is indeed the spiritual poison of the metaphysical Mind Science cults which is the actual root of W/F.
Posted by Jim at 07:27 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
June 25, 2005
Question of the Day
Martin Luther once said that there is no salvation apart from the church, implying that the Christian life is meant to be lived within the context of the Body of Christ.
Here's an idea, and I'm curious to know what my colleagues and our readers think: There is no democracy outside of the community.
What do you say?
Posted by Matt at 04:53 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 24, 2005
The Iran Situation
Tomorrow Iran will have a runoff in its Presidential "election." I'm not sure how it's possible to have a runoff when the originial election was a sham from the get-go. This situation is so tragic and infuriating. The Iranians are desperate for freedom and the mainstream media hardly utters a peep. There's no ending the terrorism in Iraq, or anywhere else in the world, so long as the Islamo-facist nexus is based out of Tehran. There was a headline on MSN earlier today saying that some Al-Qaeda types have been found in Iran. No kidding. Michael Ledeen has been talking about this for close to four years.
Something needs to be done in Iran, though I realize it's a sticky situation for the Bush administration due to all the intangibles with the largely Sunni Pakistan, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, to say nothing of Israel's interests in all of this. Still, the rights of the people of Iran and the safety of our nation is dependent upon the removal of the current power structure. In the meantime, the rest of us can continue to push for reform and draw attention to the crisis. And as a believer, I can continue to pray that any and all missionaries or small pockets of Christians in Iran (for they are no doubt present) will find strength and encouragement in their suffering, and eventually enjoy a nation where they can proclaim the name of Christ in peace and freedom.
See RegimeChangeIran for more.
Posted by Matt at 03:22 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
New All-Girl Group Blog
Intellectuelle, the new all-ladies group blog spearheaded by Marla Swoffer looks to be great.
Keep an eye on this one; launch date is soon.
Posted by Matt at 03:07 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
One less bonus to embryonic stem cells
One less benefit of embryonic stem cells over adults ones:
Hailed as a ground-breaking study, scientists in Pittsburgh say they've discovered that adult stem cells have the same ability as embryonic stem cells to multiply.The previously unknown characteristic indicates post-natal stem cells may play an important therapeutic role, according to the researchers at the city's Children's Hospital.
In the heated national debate, embryonic stem cells -- regarded as destruction of human life by opponents -- have been touted as having a greater capacity than adult cells to multiply, making them more desirable to research as a potential treatment, noted Johnny Huard, director of the hospital's Growth and Development Laboratory.
"Scientists have typically believed that adult or post-natal stem cells grow old and die much sooner than embryonic stem cells, but this study demonstrates that is not the case," said Huard, the senior author of the study.
I have to wonder why we'd bother with all the ethical issues regarding embryonic stem cells when, the more we learn, the more we're seeing that adult stem cells are almost as good. In addition to multiplying as well, they can differentiate just about as well. Not to mention their proven track record in actual use.
Posted by Doug at 02:38 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Corporate values vs your values
If you write an essay on your own time with your own equipment and of your own thoughts, should your company be allowed to fire you if the essays conflicts with the company's values, even if you don't specify your connection to your company? The Allstate insurance company thinks so. J. Matt Barber, a former manager for Allstate, is suing the company after they fired him for writing an article against homosexuality from his Christian viewpoint that was posted on several websites. A month after it was posted, he was suspended with pay and escorted off the premises because, as the Human Resources assistant VP told him, the column didn't reflect Allstate's views. Three days later, he was phoned to tell him he was fired "for writing the article". Allstate even lobbied to keep him from getting unemployment benefits, but after bringing his case to the Illinois' Dept. of Employment Security, the agency sided with Barber and said he was entitled to the money. In their report, the agency said Barber's action was not misconduct, which is deliberate and willful, and his actions were neither.
The firing by Allstate was not specifically due to the Christian viewpoint, but the anti-homosexual ones that came from it. This is the latest symptom of a society that is becoming so "tolerant" of homosexuality that you don't deserve a job if you disagree. Back in October, 2004, the Royal Bank of Canada started handing out special "Safe Space" stickers that workers could place in their cubicles to show they wouldn't tolerate "homophobia". If you didn't agree with the company's position on homosexuality, you weren't "safe"; you were "homophobic". We've now moved to the point that Christians now may have to fear for their jobs if they speak out on their own time. "Sure, we're tolerant of your views, as long as you don't express them" is the motto of this new "tolerance".
Some who agree with Allstate's position on homosexuality may also agree that they shouldn't have fired Mr. Barber. That's all well and good, but it should be clear that we crossed a line quite some time ago where this sort of reaction is not just possible but actually occurring. Unless we reign in this sort of behavior, and I don't see the willingness to do that from "tolerance" advocates, it'll be a brand of intolerance that we'll be seeing more of.
Posted by Doug at 12:11 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
June 23, 2005
Miscellany
A few quick hits:
- Matt Crash! has a new look and content focus. Check it out if it's your thing.
- A big welcome to our new colleagues here at SCO.
- The SCOTUS decision today is really disheartening.
- Game 7 is pretty intense right now.
More later when I'm fully awake. Life's been busy.
Posted by Matt at 11:32 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Will a Book Sink Hillary Clinton?
A new book entitled The Truth About Hillary Clinton is being breathlessly promoted in conservative circles as the book that will do to the Senator's presidential hopes what Unfit For Command did to John Kerry's presidential bid.
Peggy Noonan has a column today on Opinion Journal that pretty much confirms what I already suspected about the book: it doesn't live up to the hype.
Noonan, who wrote the book The Case Against Hillary Clinton, could be considered somewhat of an authority on the Senator. In addition, she is an astute political observer who understands that it will take far more than a so-called expose to undermine the Senator's presidential hopes.
Unlike John Kerry, Hillary Clinton is a known quantity after serving as First Lady for eight years and the junior Senator from New York for six years. The electorate already has strong opinions either for or against her. Democrats, anxious to regain the White House, will be willing to rally around her. Although she has recently tried to paint herself as more of a centrist, she has very liberal views that will play well to the Democratic base.
If Republicans are serious about thwarting Senator Clinton's presidential ambitions, they need to first pick a serious candidate to oppose her. In order to retain the White House, the GOP will have to mount a sustained campaign against whoever is the Democratic nominee.
Unfit For Command did help defeat John Kerry. However, John Kerry helped defeat John Kerry more than anyone else did. Conservatives should not expect one book to be enough to defeat Senator Clinton. She is a far more formidable opponent than John Kerry was. If they expect to win, they better be prepared for a difficult fight.
Posted by Tom at 04:55 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Kelo v. City of New London
As a land use and environmental planner by trade, I have developed what many have called “socialist” positions on land use and zoning-related issues. For example, I have the audacity to believe that citizens should not be able to use local government as a tool to artificially constrain residential development in an attempt to limit housing opportunities for people of all incomes or pad their own wallets (i.e., boost property values). If I own a tract of land and want to put low-income apartments on it, I should be able to do so with MY LAND. For reasons beyond me, this position draws ire from my conservative friends.
Also drawing ire from conservatives (including friends), is today’s Kelo v. City of New London SCOTUS decision.
Local governments now have the power to condemn private land for private economic development projects. A local jurisdiction’s power of eminent domain to acquire land for public uses, such as schools, roads, fire stations, libraries, etc., while often abused, has gained rather wide public acceptance. However, this expansion of power will allow cities to, as the article puts it, “bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.”
Don’t get me wrong, local redevelopment agencies have done this for a while now. In the 2003 report, Public Power, Private Gain, the Institute for Justice documented more than 10,000 cases where condemnation was used for private gain. It’s just that Kelo sanctions Constitutional a practice that many cities in the past have pursued with relative caution. The floodgates are now open.
Allow me to summarize the petition, majority opinion of the Court, O’Connor’s dissent, and present my thoughts on the decision and its effect in California.
In 1998, Pfizer expressed interest in building a research facility near the Fort Trumbull neighborhood of New London Connecticut. With an unemployment rate twice as high as the County’s and this part of the city experiencing an greater degree of decay than other parts of the city, New London’s City Council gave the go ahead to the New London Development Corporation (NLDC) to prepare a development plan for 90-acres of the Fort Trumbull area. The plan was essentially built around the Pfizer concept plan for a research facility and strived to “create jobs, increase tax and other revenues, encourage public access to and use of the city’s waterfront, and eventually build momentum for the revitalization of the rest of the city” (App. to Pet. for Cert. 5). The Kelo petitioners own property in two of the seven parcels of the NLDC development plan. One of the parcels was designated for “research and office space” while the other was designated, rather vaguely, for “park support” (possibly parking).
Understand that the NLDC is not a public entity. It is a non-profit entity effectively created by the city to assist the City Council with redevelopment and economic development planning. It is not therefore directly accountable to the public, although the City Council, which has the power to condemn the land, is.
The Court ruled that New London’s condemnation of Kelo et al’s property for economic development qualifies as a public use and is therefore not an unconstitutional take. Rejected was the claim that the condemnation was an abuse of public power for private gain. The City had established a thorough development plan that the Court did not find to be adopted for the purpose of benefiting “a particular class of identifiable individuals” (Midkiff, 467 U. S., at 245). The Court argued that “public use” has been defined broadly with deference given to local jurisdictions in defining what justifies use of eminent domain (Berman, 348 U. S. 26; Midkiff, 467 U. S. 229; Ruckelshaus v.Monsanto Co., 467 U. S. 986. Pp. 6.13).
The City’s development plan for the area, which included Kelo’s property, included a variety of proposed land uses, including commercial, residential, and recreational uses, together would provide a number of public benefits, including, but not limited to new jobs and increased tax revenue. Therefore, the petition was considered in context of the whole benefit to be provided by implementation of the City’s development plan. The Court felt that the City’s redevelopment plan for the entire area “unquestionably” provided for a public use and therefore taking of Kelo et al’s property met the public use standard.
In her dissent, Justice O’Connor wrote:
To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings for public use is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property and thereby effectively to delete the words for public use from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Accordingly I respectfully dissent.O’Connor argues that the majority’s references to Berman and Midkiff are inappropriate. In both those cases, the land condemned “inflicted harm on society.” That is, the land had a direct impact on the public good and the Court’s decided in both cases that removing the direct harm caused a direct public benefit. In Kelo, the land in question caused no immediate societal harm, only that the economic and aesthetic environment had a chance of improving if the land was condemned.
This is a subtle, but wholly consequential shift from the Court.
In moving away from our decisions sanctioning the condemnation of harmful property use, the Court today significantly expands the meaning of public use. It holds that the sovereign may take private property currently put to ordinary private use, and give it over for new, ordinary private use, so long as the new use is predicted to generate some secondary benefit for the public, such as increased tax revenue, more jobs, maybe even aesthetic pleasure… It was possible after Berman and Midkiff to imagine unconstitutional transfers from A to B. Those decisions endorsed government intervention when private property use had veered to such an extreme that the public was suffering as a consequence. Today nearly all real property is susceptible to condemnation on the Court’s theory.I’m not too familiar with state-local fiscal regimes of other states, but I have an idea how this will play out in California.
Proposition 13 capped property taxes in the 1970s and other initiatives in the state require supermajorities to raise taxes, forcing local jurisdictions to rely on other revenue sources to balance municipal budgets. Since land use powers are a last vestige of local autonomy in California, and a jurisdiction can increase local revenue by increasing the amount of sales-tax generating uses within its borders, a phenomenon referred to as the “fiscalization of land use” ensued. (See this publication for a good overview of CA issues and Fulton’s The Reluctant Metropolis offers a fascinating case study of fights (even lawsuits) between neighboring Ventura County jurisdictions over sales-tax revenue generating uses.)
In my article, A Marriage of Convenience: Fiscal Incentives and Residential Development Patterns, I define fiscalization of land use as a “phenomenon whereby local land use decisions are mostly influenced by fiscal concerns, contrary to the expressed desires of the affected community.” In light of today’s decision, this definition falls a bit short as it is limited to land use and zoning powers, not powers of eminent domain. Nevertheless, the concept is the same. In California, where the State has a penchant for raiding local revenues to balance its budget, the incentive to bulldoze otherwise viable neighborhoods to capture sales tax revenue is even greater. Local governments now are freer to condemn land to pad local coffers and where jurisdictions have limited revenue alternatives, land use fiscalization can be expected to increase.
As detailed in Fulton’s book linked above and elsewhere in the literature, neighboring jurisdictions often offer a variety of concessions to developers of retail uses to “win” the new big-box use. Under this arrangement, non-constituent private corporations, become a client of the jurisdiction. Set aside for the moment the moral problem with condemning private land to make a buck, stuck between a rock and a hard place, the suburbs, dependent on sales tax revenue, may discount the expressed opinions of their current constituents when considering requests from powerful corporations.
Fiscalization of land use is one likely unintended consequence of the decision. Justice O’Connor’s nailed another with this statement:
Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more.With Kelo, incentives are structured to encourage local governments to discount the opinions of existing, perhaps less mobilized or influential, constituents in pursuit of balancing local budgets. But objecting to the Kelo decision on these grounds is a bit wonkish.
Kelo blurs further the line between public and private land. While I agree that in the specific Kelo case, the overall development plan would provide for a public benefit, since the petitioners’ property was causing no immediate harm to the public, the government’s role is to establish the plan, and the market’s job to implement it. If Pfizer could not purchase the land required to build their factory, then they have to take their project elsewhere; they have no inherent right to the property. Taking it in this instance is not only unconstitutional (despite what five justices say), it is immoral.
QUESTION: Does anyone know what impact, if any, this decision may have on protections afforded under the Religious and Institutionalized Persons Land Use Protection Act? Can a City now condemn a church to make way for a WalMart?
Posted by Rick at 04:12 PM | Comments (19) | TrackBack
More Stones to Cry Out
On April 29, 2002, when most of us still thought a blog was the result of a spill or computer term that remained beyond us, an Atlanta-based blogger cited bias in the media as it related to the homosexual elements of the molestation crisis in the Catholic church. He has been blogging regularly ever since.
During the blog explosion of 2004, a Virginia-based baseball fan, homeschool advocate, and prolific reader launched his blog in the run up to the election and called John Kerry’s hypocrisy as a goose hunter.
On behalf of the Stones Cry Out team, I am pleased to announce that these two bloggers, Doug Payton—the pioneer, and multi-faceted and well-read Tom Parsons, have agreed to join the SCO team of contributors.
If you’ve had an eye on our blogroll—-which probably isn’t all that likely—-you would have noticed that we’ve been fans of Doug’s Considerettes, and Tom’s Daddypundit for some time. (Doug is also my brother-in-law—-he coined the term, blogger-in-law; and the person who launched me into the blogosphere).
The Stones Cry Out vision statement reads in part:
We believe the role of a blog produced by followers of Christ is to--like Paul at Mars Hill--"reason in the marketplace day by day with those who happen to be there" (Acts 17:17). As we contend for the faith, we seek to bring glory to Jesus Christ (Luke 19:40), and advance His kingdom.
We firmly believe these two talented bloggers will help us advance this mission.
We’ll be getting their biographies and photos up shortly. In the meantime, please join us in welcoming the newest Stones.
Posted by Jim at 03:37 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
What’s in Domain Name? This Eminent Domain is Called Tyranny
Stay tuned for Rick's post on the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision today to allow governments to use eminent domain to seize the land of private landowners for the purpose of giving the land to other private interests, for economic purposes. He has professional expertise that will inform his analysis.
From my standpoint, this is one of the worst Court decisions since Roe v. Wade.
Property ownership is a pillar of our free society, is it not? Not according to the liberals on the Supreme Court. We’re not talking about taking private land to build a road or put in a river levee or a power plant. We’re talking about seizing land so Wal-Mart can add a store, or a land developer can put in a multi-use development, office park, or hotel complex.
Why is it that the liberals want every kind of freedom, except the freedom to buy and own land?
The battle to put conservatives on the Court gains in importance as each day passes. Especially today--a bad day for freedom in America.
Posted by Jim at 01:34 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Oh, the Boycott Hadn’t Already Ended?
The Southern Baptist Convention, which kick-started a widespread conservative religious boycott of Walt Disney Co. eight years ago, voted Wednesday to end the action but warned Disney that it was keeping its eye on the company (MSNBC).
I’m not against boycotts, but they just invite derision if they have absolutely no impact. It seems to me the boycott by the Southern Baptists and others had no effect on Disney, either because not enough conservative Christians participated or because Disney’s size and popularity could sustain the loss of a small portion of its business.
Next time, it would be good to do an impact study before sticking out our necks.
Posted by Jim at 07:52 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
“It Can Never Forget What They Did Here”
We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of it as a final resting place for those who died here that the nation might live. This we may, in all propriety do. But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead who struggled here have hallowed it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. (A. Lincoln, Gettysburg Address, Nov. 19, 1863)
We are met to build a casino on this hallow ground? Is there nothing in our history sacred enough to shield it from the developer's shovels. A casino by the Gettysburg battlefield? A bad idea.
A group of developers proposing to build a casino, hotel and spa near the Gettysburg battlefield call the plan synergy that would benefit the national park, the community and the state of Pennsylvania, but a local citizens' group that opposes the plan says it is just a sin."This is a desecration. They're bringing in a product. They're saying we want to sell this product in your town and we're saying that product is fundamentally exploitation, and it's a product we don't want here," said Susan Star Paddock, a spokeswoman for No Casino Gettysburg, a group that formed in the town after the investors' group announced its plan on April 26.
The plan needs to die at this hallowed resting place.
Posted by Jim at 07:40 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Air Force Academy Findings
A Pentagon panel investigating charges of improper religious pressure at the Air Force Academy found zealotry and what it called “insensitivity” by Christians sharing their faith, but no overt religious discrimination. (Source)
Of course this wasn’t good enough for the likes of the NY Times, which editorialized that the findings were a whitewash, evidently because they didn’t agree with a Yale University investigation.
Let’s see, who do a go with on issues of Christian expression, the Pentagon or a liberal east coast university? I’m supporting the men in uniform. This was a witchhunt from the start, which took advantage of the whines of a handful of cadets and tried to smear Christians preparing men and women who will put their lives on the line.
Posted by Jim at 07:24 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 22, 2005
How Are We Doing? A Mid-Year Look at 2005
In December 2004, in the afterglow of a Bush victory and solid Congressional gains fueled by a coalition of values-voters, I made my predictions for this New Year. While only a few of the predictions were off-track, somewhat unrealistic optimism is clear in the timetables for change. Meaningful social, political, and geopolitical change is slow cooking. While we see some of the predicted advancements brewing, it appears that it will be some time before they are possible. Many will depend on the mid-term elections of 2006, the 2008 presidential election, and the effectiveness with which the conservative evangelicals use their supposed political power.
Let’s take a look at mid-year progress on these predictions:
1. Iraq: There will be no meaningful reduction in the number of U.S. troops in Iraq during 2005, and there may be an increase. However, the insurgency will begin losing its popular support and violence will decline.
I did not envision the dramatic success of the Iraqi election, or its impact on the movement of democracy throughout the Middle East and the world. There is no sign of troop reduction and solving the insurgency remains a mystery. But I still predict that by year’s end the Iraqi political progress will take some of the wind out of the insurgents sails.
2. Iran: The opposition in Iran will grow in strength and the government will accelerate meaningful reforms rather than face upheaval. There will be a thaw in U.S.-Iranian relations.
The protests prior to the election, and the election itself, suggests that there is, indeed, a meaningful move toward reform. I believe this prediction is on the right track, but that it is unlikely that there will be signficant reform during this year.
3. Palestinians: There will be significant progress on an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement, with Egypt and Jordan exercising a strong hand. A firm timetable will be set for the establishment of a Palestinian State.
Things are relatively quiet and there are more positive signs than negative. I’m optimistic about continuing progess, but don’t see a firm timetable for a Palestinian state this year. Hope can be dashed so easily here.
4. Attack on the U.S.: As a result of the progress in the Middle East, those who do not benefit from the advance of democracy will turn to additional terror in the U.S. and attempt another major attack in 2005.
Not yet, praise theLord. Although I’m grateful, I honestly don’t know why. Our homeland security isn’t that good; we know that. Border security? All a Middle Eastern terrorist has to do is learn Spanish and swim the Rio Grande disguised as a Mexican peasant.
5. Deaths: There will be major losses in evangelical leadership, as key leaders die. As I’ve mentioned in this space, there is a generational shift in the evangelical community, with the entrepreneurs of the 1950’s passing or fading from active involvement. (Who will die in 2005, and what will the impact be? I’ve provided my 15 names to the morbid Dead Pool, competing to predict the most of those who will pass to the next life during 2005. Mine are a combination of religious leaders, statesmen, and heads of state, among others.)
Here are the 15 that I predicted will pass in 2005:1. Rev. Billy Graham, evangelist, born November 7, 1918
2. Pope John Paul II, Bishop of Rome, (Karol Józef Wojtyła), born May 18, 1920
3. William Rehnquist. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, born October 1, 1924
4. Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State, born May 27, 1923
5. Rev. Robert Schuller, TV pastor, born September 16, 1926
6. Gerald Ford, former President, born July 14, 1913
7. Hamid Karzai, President of Afghanistan born December 24, 1957,
8. Dr. Iyad Allawi, interim Prime Minister of Iraq, born in 1945
9. Margaret Thatcher, former British Prime Minister, born October 13, 1925
10. General Pervez Musharraf, president of Pakistan, born August 11, 1943
11. Fidel Castro, dictator of Cuba, born August 13, 1926
12. Nelson Mandela, former President of South Africa, born July 18, 1918
13. Rosa Parks, civil rights hero, born February 4, 1913
14. Muhammad Ali, American boxer, born January 17, 1942
15. Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (Philip Mountbatten), born June 10, 1921I’m failing miserably. Only the Pope has died,which is great news for these other folks, and really for all of us. In fact, Billy Graham is preaching a New York City Crusade this week. Never say die.
6. Conservatives: Bush will begin falling out of favor with the most conservative groups, as more focus returns to domestic issues and he fails to deliver on their social priorities.
More than anything, the President has been falling out of sight, with the focus on Congressional Republicans. Conservatives seem to hanging with the President, but largely in support of his war against terror. Hard to find a rock-ribbed conservative with any enthusiasm for Bush’s domestic policy. The greatest disappointment may be in his failure to lead in stopping illegal immigration. This prediction is on track; the disenchanment will deepen..
7. Evangelical Politics: The political high water mark will soon pass for the evangelicals, as leading evangelicals overplay their hand and politicians calculate that they will succeed in 2006 with more moderated positions.
The high water mark probably passed when the Senate Moderate Club dictated how the filibuster issue would be handled, which left First hanging out in church with the suddenly emasculated religious right. The evangelicals seem more comfortable in the opposition. In power, they find ways to eat their own young. This prediction seems to be on track.
8. Network Change: At least one of the major networks will make an attempt to bring more conservative viewpoints to its reports, but in a way that will be more showcasing than meaningful change.
Anyone see any evidence of this? This prediction now looks like wishful thinking.
9. Blogosphere: Blogging will explode, but there will be efforts to organize the blogosphere to create categories of bloggers, and to further separate types of blogs and degrees of professionalism.
The explosion continues, although we feel as though the fever has broken in the post-election months. The organization is yet to come. I have no idea when this may happen, but if the growth continues, it must.
10. Charity Scandal: There will be a major legal case against one or more charities, probably Trinity Broadcasting Network, but perhaps elsewhere. This will have a slight negative impact on charitable giving.
Might be TBN, or perhaps Benny Hinn. Could happen at any moment, or might not be part of the 2005 story.
11. Supreme Court: Two Supreme Court seats vacancies will be created, one at Chief Justice. Bush will want only two confirmation battles, so he will nominate two new justices—a conservative for Chief Justice, and a moderate for Associate Justice. This will enrage just about everyone, but both will be confirmed.
Renquist should retire soon, which will set up the battle everyone has been preparing for. I don’t think Bush will try to move Clarence Thomas to Chief Justice, facing that confrmation battle, and then another to fill Thomas’ post. The White House must already know who they’ll nominate as Chief. This selection and the battle that ensues will frame the relationships and effectiveness of the White House and Senate over the remainder of the Bush presidency.
12. Bin Laden: Osama Bin Laden will be captured or more likely killed, but the impact will be largely symbolic, since he has been ineffective hiding in a cave anyway.
This may or may not happen in 2005. At some point, Bin Laden will be history, as will al Zawari. But the inevitability of these captures no longer captivates the public as much as the question of when the insurgency will be defanged in Iraq. That won’t happen in 2005, but if the situation in Iraq is not greatly improved by November 2006, the nation may be seeing blue.
13. Fair Tax: The Fair Tax movement will grow and progress will be made in the Congress, although passage is years away.
There’s good momentum for the Fair Tax legislation, but right now it appears impossible to get much of anything done in Congress. Still waiting for the new book on the fair tax by John Linder and Neal Boortz, which should be out any day.
14. Radio: Democrats will push for a return of the Fairness Doctrine, as an attempt to defang the Republican advantage on talk radio. The effort will not succeed.
At the moment, the liberals are still playing with a competitive radio network, but it’s failing, so an attempt for legislative remedies can’t be far behind.
15. China: The growing business class in China will push for more civil freedoms as their economic power grows, and the Communist government will yield some ground.
This is going to happen, but no news yet.
16. Same-Sex Marriage: The homosexual community in America will change tactics, backing away from the same-sex marriage initiatives and seeking equal rights for homosexual couples without using “marriage” language. This will not raise the same red flags among many groups across the country.
Except for a few localcourt rulings, there isn’t much happening on this front. Mitt Romney is trying to reverse the Massachusetts measures. And it does appear that the homosexual community is laying low on this for now, looking for a fight they can win.
17. Economics: There will be steady economic growth, and the stock market will continue its climb and end the year over 11,000.
We’re over 10,500, and with a little good news out of Iraq or Israel, or a significant drop in gasoline prices, we’re reach 11,000 this year.
18. Pharmaceuticals: The positive economic trends will be marred by the collapse of major pharmaceutical companies, fueled by massive class action suits.
If a pharmaceutical company can come up with vaccines for the bird flu, it will give them some air to breath.
19. Social Security: Social security restructuring will see some progress in 2005 because of a relentless campaign by the Bush administration. Fear of demagoguery will prevent meaningful reform, but the steps taken will be seen—in retrospect—as the beginning of serious change.
I think I got this one wrong. Social security reform is probably dead for now, and I’m sure Bush is wishing he hadn’t burned so much political capital to fight for the private accounts. The groundwork by this Adminsitration may payoff in the long run, however.
20. EU: The European Union will seek to flex its muscle and establish itself as a major economic and political competitor to the United States—opposing the U.S. on key international and trade policies. The U.S. will shrug and turn to the Far East.
The death of the EU constitution makes it more difficult for the EU to be a unified competitor. Until the Europeans work as hard as the Americans, the Japanese, and Chinese, they’ll never pose a serious economic threat.
What is most striking about making any predictions for a new year, is that other events overtake those that seems so important at a previous time. Who could have predicted that Terri Schiavo and the filibuster would dominate political news in the New Year. Or that the Democrats would let Howard Dean push their national rhetoric further to the left.
Posted by Jim at 07:30 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
June 21, 2005
Durbin Apology - Only the Beginning
Number two ranking Democratic Senator, Dick Durbin apologized for his utter ignorance of history, insult to those who suffered at the hands of Pol Pot, Nazi's, and the Soviet's, and smear of the U.S. military.
While those harmed by his outrageous comments may accept his apology, as Trent Lott learned, an apology does not absolve one from responsibility. Let's see if the Democrats pressure Durbin to forfeit his leadership positions, like Republicans pressured Lott, for his reprehensible comments. I'm not holding my breath.
Bravo to Democratic Mayor of Chicago, Daley, whose son serves in the ARMY, for standing up to his Senator. Hiss to John McCain for suggesting the apology should end this issue. An apology is only the beginning of an appropriate response.
Posted by Rick at 06:56 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Schiavo Tombstone
Terri’s “husband” refused to tell her parents when and where her ashes were to be buried and had the audacity to inscribe “I kept my promise” on her tombstone (HT: Drudge). This man is an adulterer. If he had kept his promise to Terri, he wouldn’t have had children with another woman while still married. His abuse of her and her family is disgraceful and this final thumb in the eye makes me sick.
Posted by Rick at 01:56 PM | Comments (34) | TrackBack
June 20, 2005
The Pope and Animals
Good stuff from Benedict XVI. Does this make the Pope a crunchy con?
Posted by Matt at 03:24 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Bloggers Could Have Told Them It Would Be a Problem
Frank Barnako relates that:
“The Los Angeles Times' experiment with readers' comments on editorials came to a crashing halt over the weekend. Trouble occurred soon after the newspaper, owned by Tribune Co. (TRB), posted an editorial about the Iraq war, and opened it for comments, additions and corrections. "Unfortunately, we have had to remove this feature, at least temporarily, because a few readers were flooding the site with inappropriate material," said a message on the Times' Web site. Michael Kinsley, the newspaper's editorial and opinion editor, was pleased that hundreds of people did respond to the invitation to add their two cents to the paper's opinion. However, he added, the mischief was "quite a strange thing."
At SCO, like many other blogs, we know all about inappropriate commenters spamming up our site.
Posted by Jim at 01:41 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
PCA Rejects Anti-Public School Resolution
Last week the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) wisely rejected a resolution that would encourage Christian parents to remove their children from public schools. It was proposed by a Tennessee minister who does not believe any subject can be taught separate from a intentional Christian worldview.
The PCA stated:
"We strongly affirm that it is the responsibility of Christian parents to raise their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; it is not appropriate for the General Assembly to make such a recommendation as contained in [the] Personal Resolution to all the members of the PCA,” stated the Bills and Overture Committee.
Those who have made the legitimate choices of Christian schools and homeschooling often unfairly criticize those who make the choice to sent their children to public schools. Well-grounded Christian children who received proper training and care at home can thrive in public school settings. And they can be salt and light in school. Who is going to do that if all the Christian kids are pulled out of school?
And many families cannot make the choice to send their kids to private schools of any kind, and cannot teach them at home. Nothing but public schools are available for families who can barely make ends meet with both mother and father working.
Instead of demeaning their brethren who either choose to mainstream their children or don’t have any choice at all, Christians are better served engaging the system, tackling the structures and policies of public education, and seeking to make a difference in this very public square.
Posted by Jim at 09:28 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Romney: The Right Stuff?
There’s a nice post on Mitt Romney at Homocon, which also links to SCO.
Posted by Jim at 09:22 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Study Skewed Facts on Sexual Conduct of Virginity Pledgers
The results of a study on sexual activity by young people who have taken a virginity pledge were purposely