The Clubhouse

Judicial Stupidity

2012-02-14T12:42:00.001-05:00

An interesting court case is under appeal in Georgia. Read more about it here, but some relevant details are as follows:

In 2010, the State of Georgia enacted a law making it a misdemeanor offense for a person with a concealed weapons permit to carry a concealed weapon "in a place of worship." Several plaintiffs, including a church and its pastor, filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of this law.

The fundamental question before the court was whether a state law prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons in a church violates the constitutional rights of church members to bear arms and practice their religion. In January 2011, a federal court in Georgia said no.

That decision is going to an appeals court. One key point of the lower court’s decision was this:

"Although the Constitution protects a person's right to free exercise [of religion] only against governmental intrusion, it is clear that the protection of religious freedom against private bias or coercion is also an important governmental goal. Prohibiting the carrying of firearms in a place of worship bears a substantial relationship to that important goal by protecting attendees from the fear or threat of intimidation or armed attack."

Kent comments:

It is amazing how ‘factually stupid’ some court rulings can be. The quote above was offered by the court as part of the reason why the Second Amendment guarantees can be preempted in this case. Notice how the court assumes that if concealed carry permit holders brought concealed weapons into a church building, it would amount to “private coercion” and would constitute a “threat of intimidation or armed attack.”

There are many odd points to this reasoning.

First, if that is a reason to preempt concealed carry, then it could be preempted everywhere. If the mere fact that someone could be carrying concealed weapons constitutes a “threat of armed attack” then that threat does not exist in church building only. It exists everywhere.

Also, as a matter of fact the misuse of weapons to threaten or attack innocent people by those with concealed carry permits is statistically almost non-existent. So, while a meteor might fall on me while mowing my yard, the likelihood of that happening is so small as to make it irrational to avoid mowing my yard for fear of being hit by a meteor. It is just as irrational for the court to, it appears, rely on this statistically insignificant possibility as a basis for its ruling.

Finally, what the empirical evidence shows is that we are generally safer in a population that contains armed citizens who are concealed carry permit holders. But such permit holders will usually obey the law as it stands. This means that in Georgia, they will either not attend church meetings, or do so unarmed. This also means that, like the Virginia Tech situation of a few years ago, someone who wants to commit multiple murders is fairly safe in choosing a church meeting in Georgia as a target. It would be a perfect place to kill many innocent people before anything could be done to stop the killing.

So the court made an assumption based, not on factual considerations, but on its own ideological suppositions. The court simply assumed that an armed concealed carry permit holder is a standing threat to those around him. That is simply false.

We can only hope that the appeals court reverses this rather idiotic decision. And we can only hope it is before someone bent on mass murder picks those at a church meeting as his victims. If that occurs, it will not be martyrdom. It will just be judicial stupidity.

Ideology vs. Reality

2012-02-13T17:43:00.001-05:00

The President’s budget plan calls for more than $1.5 trillion in new taxes on corporations and wealthy. This is supposed to help the economy. The President said in a speech today that this is not ‘class warfare.’

It matter little what you call it. This kind of policy has demonstrable effects. As a recent study shows:

corporate income taxes have a highly significant and negative effect on long-term growth.
The estimates suggest that cutting the corporate rate by 10 percentage points is associated with an increase in total real gross domestic product (GDP) growth of 11.1 percentage points over the period.
This would move the United States from below average to above average in terms of economic growth among OECD countries.

Personal income taxes on high incomes also have a significant negative effect on growth, such that cutting the rate by 10 percentage points is associated with an increase in total real GDP growth of 7.5 percentage points over the period. This would bring the United States to roughly an average level of growth relative to OECD peers.

If lawmakers want to have the biggest impact on boosting long-term economic growth in the United States, they should turn their attention to cutting tax rates on corporate and individual income.

Studies showing this relationship are neither new nor rare. This means the President is well aware of this relationship. So when he says that his policy is an attempt to help the economy, he cannot possibly be speaking from ignorance. He is speaking from ideology, which in this case means he is lying.

For some reason we find it is easy to envy those with high incomes and incorporated businesses. But it is easy to figure out why taking more money from those with large incomes and from businesses will hurt the economy. These are two important sources of capital: goods used to produce the things we want to consume.

You cannot both remove the source of production and hope to have more to consume. The President knows this very well. He is simply not an honest man whenever his ideology conflicts with the facts.

Are You Ready for ‘Evolution Sunday’?

2012-02-11T13:15:00.001-05:00

Did you know that tomorrow is “Evolution Sunday”? It is a new thing to me. It is apparently a time when some churches attempt to urge their members to “be reconciled to Darwinism.” You can find an interesting report on this here. There is also a good article on the compatibility of Darwinism and historic Christianity here.

Many think of some Christians as being ‘knee-jerk’ anti-Darwinists. I think there is a lot of that going around. I try not to be one of those.

I am compelled to reject Darwinism because Darwinism excludes anything other than pure randomness in its explanation of life, including human life. You can read about attempts to reconcile Darwinism and the historic Christian faith in the article linked above. It seems that even theistic evolutionists must decide whether they will attempt to construct their views on randomness or something else. Whenever, in the end, that ‘something else’ is mind, they have in essence departed from Darwinism.

Even beyond the ‘Evolution Sunday’ debate, randomness cannot be a sufficient explanation of order. We might say that you cannot even get Darwin and Darwinists by chance. Darwinists are not complete idiots. Many are very intelligent people who have simply not sufficiently considered the implications of randomness. One such implication is that the very defense of Darwinism offered by Darwinists is merely a random happening!

Darwinism and historic Christianity are mutually exclusive. Randomness is the dividing line.

They Are Doing Just What You Want

2012-02-09T11:52:00.001-05:00

Perhaps you saw this very interesting, recent story from The Washington Post:

Public projects, private interests

The Post compared the annual financial disclosure reports filed by every member of Congress over the past decade to a wide range of public records. The resulting snapshot was then matched to earmarks and other spending provisions members sought for pet projects. The process uncovered nearly 50 members who helped direct millions of dollars in earmarks to projects that either held the potential to enhance the surroundings of a lawmaker's own property, or aided entities connected to their immediate family. Lawmakers said their earmarks and spending provisions were done to benefit the public, not their private interests.

Kent comments:

In perusing the list of offenders, there seemed to be a slight weighting toward the “D” for Democrat members. But it was very close, so it is not at all a one-party problem.

The problem, in fact, is not with the members of Congress who arranged for spending on projects to benefit themselves and their friends. The problem is with you.

With a few exceptions, you are mostly likely and American who likes the idea of your members of Congress “bringing home the bacon” for your area. You probably respond positively when your members of Congress brag about this.

You are probably an American who is in favor of our current system in which everyone is trying to out-plunder everyone else. You are probably an American who wants government to pay for your goodies. You consider it a political ‘victory’ if you can get a few more goodies than the people in the next district or state.

You are probably not willing to give up these goodies, even if the system that brings them to you wastes a lot of resources in the process of delivering those goodies to the clamoring crowds. You just want your goodies.

These nearly fifty members of Congress are simply using the system that you are unwilling to give up to get some things they want. And the problem is not just that some members of Congress seem to be misusing the system.

The real problem is the system itself, not just the fact of ‘earmarks’ or even the seeming misused of ‘earmarks’ for the personal benefit of members of Congress. The real problem is that most Americans want to plunder other Americans for all they can get the government to give them.

If Congress spent money only on the items mentioned in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, ‘earmarks’ would not be a problem. Massive deficit spending by the government would not be a problem. Many things that are problems now simply would not be on the problem radar at all.

But the Constitution was trashed in this regard long ago, and you want what you want from the government, which is almost everything. It’s not our government as conceived by most of the founders, but it is what you want. You say it loudly and clearly by the way you vote and almost everything you do.

So don’t blame these poor saps who are simply gaming the same system that you want gamed on your behalf all the time. Instead, you should be honest and say to these members of Congress, “Well done, good and faithful servants of the collectivist system.”

The Unorganized Jesus

2012-02-02T16:26:00.001-05:00

from “Church, Take Up Your Mats” --

The truth is that Jesus didn’t have much patience for organized religion. He spent most of his time walking around, meeting people face to face. He had a few donors but no annual operating budget. He brought with him a volunteer group of disciples, but had no paid administrative staff. The numbers of followers ebbed and flowed, growing to the thousands on good days, but on his last, only a couple of faithful women were anywhere to be found.

Kent comments:

I understand that churches can and have sometimes become institutions for their own sake. This would, of course, be a problem. In spite of that, there is a serious – and too often glibly repeated – mistake here. The mere fact that Jesus did something does not necessarily prove that we should do exactly the same thing, the famous novel In His Steps notwithstanding.

During His time on earth, the church as such did not yet exist. Jesus mentioned it in a “coming soon” way. So many things connected to an organized congregation could not yet exist, and Jesus could not participate in them directly or even comment much on them in a meaningful way.

So what does that say about how a church should be organized, whether to have donors, budgets, paid staff, etc.? Absolutely nothin’ – say it again! Did Jesus have any ‘patience for organized religion’? At some point, His Apostles would give directions for how His church should be organized, at least in outline form. So the comment about Jesus and ‘organized religion’ seems to be just so much bluster rather than a well-considered conclusion.

When people, including Christians, do anything together, some degree of organization is unavoidable. So, unless this writer is advocating that Christians never do anything together on behalf of Jesus, this whole idea is rather meaningless.

It is cool to be anti-institutional these days. I suppose it makes Jesus seem cool to portray Him as anti-institutional also. I have a bit of leaning in that direction myself. But let’s not be silly about it.

Hey, Kentucky!

2012-01-30T18:24:00.001-05:00

Kentucky is a place mostly full of a lot of nothing. Nothing can be very pleasant for some purposes. But nothing makes no stuff, and making no stuff makes no jobs.

So why do businesses tend to shy away from Kentucky? Just don’t like Bluegrass – the region, the grass, or the music? Probably not.

One important reason can be found in a recent study published by the Tax Foundation. They examined various taxes that negatively affect businesses, and produced a ranking of states by their tax-friendliness to business. Here is a chart from that study:

The lower the ranking number, the more tax-friendly the state is to businesses. Kentucky is #22. But it is bordered on the north by Indiana at #11, and on the south by Tennessee at #14. And not all that far down the road is Florida, where it is both warm all the time and #5 in the tax-friendliness rankings.

The only bright spot for Kentucky – and it is a rather dim bright spot – is that our neighbor to the north, Ohio, is a miserable #39. Any wonder businesses are leaving Ohio? But they are not coming from there to Kentucky. Why should they?

Kentuckians seem to worry (or rejoice) over college basketball rankings. That’s fine, but if they pay more attention to things that really matter for human prosperity, they would try to improve our ranking in this important contest. We have been losing at this for far too long here in Kentucky, the land of taxes.

The Fault Line

2012-01-25T16:58:00.001-05:00

From a Leadership article about Steve Jobs:

"In July 1968 Life magazine published a shocking cover showing a pair of starving children in Biafra. Jobs took it to Sunday school and confronted the church's pastor, 'If I raise my finger, will God know which one I'm going to raise even before I do it?'

"The pastor answers, 'Yes, God knows everything.'

"Jobs then pulled out the Life cover and asked, 'Well, does God know about this and what's going to happen to those children?'

"'Steve, I know you don't understand, but yes, God knows about that.'"

The pastor's answer badly underestimated the young teen's intellect and left him unsatisfied. According to Isaacson, Jobs walked away from the church that day and never returned.

For the pastor, that brief exchange was likely incidental and forgettable. Yet it was a turning point that would point Steve Jobs toward eastern philosophy.

Kent comments:

I am very sorry about Steve Jobs. I am never happy to see anyone abandon the faith. But it is not at all clear how this little exchange would “point Steve Jobs toward eastern philosophy.” God does know about deprivations and evils in this world. Should we pretend that He does not?

There seems to be a never-ending analysis among Christians that parallels the author’s evaluation of this episode. “If only we had used a different word. If only I had turned a different phrase.” In other words, if only Christians could refine their marketing and presentation techniques, think of how many people would accept God’s grace!

While there is nothing wrong, of course, with making the best presentation of the Christian faith we can, there is an important factor that is ignored here: the individual will. When you read this rest of this article, you learn that much of Steve Jobs’ character was at odds with the Christian faith. To be a Christian, Jobs would have needed to repent (as does anyone) of many of his attitudes and actions.

And Steve Jobs was not willing to do that. It’s sad, but its not the fault of a minister’s Sunday School class.

It was Steve Jobs fault.

As Obama Says . . .

2012-01-24T12:58:00.001-05:00

Obama: Roe v. Wade Ensures Our Daughters Have Same Chance to 'Fulfill Dreams'

In a statement on the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, President Obama said it was a chance to recognize the "fundamental constitutional right" to abortion and "continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams," CNSNews.com reports. Obama added: "We must remember that this Supreme Court decision not only protects a woman's health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on family matters." On Friday, the Obama administration finalized regulations that would require every health insurance provider to cover all contraceptive drugs, including those that cause abortions.

Kent comments:

Will the ‘right to abortion’ ensure that our daughters have the same rights, etc., as our sons?

Not for the daughters killed in abortions.

And for the daughters who survive the abortion holocaust – they will be afforded that extraordinary ‘freedom’ to produce unwanted children who will die in the abortion mill.

Yes, we live in the land of the ‘free.’ Well, except for those doomed to die before they are born.

Words to live by from our Beloved Leader.

The Big ‘Green’ Lie

2012-01-18T15:49:00.001-05:00

Does Solarizing Your Home Make Financial Sense?

A report about green energy celebrated a Hawaiian couple that “spent $23,000 to put solar panels on their house . . . . Some neighbors sniffed that only rich people could afford such a luxury.” But “The family’s utility bill dropped from $110 a month to about $23.” The couple saved $87 a month. Right? Wrong. At that rate, they’d break even in slightly over 22 years—not counting maintenance costs to keep the panels functioning efficiently, without which their savings will decline. But suppose they had invested their $23,000 at 4%. In 22 years it would have grown to over $54,508, an average gain of $119.35 a month. Rather than saving $87 a month, the couple is losing an average of $32.35 a month. Their investment will never pay off. It will impoverish them more every year. Forty years down the line (long after the panels wear out), they’ll have forgone $87,423.50 in potential earnings—an average of $182.13 a month. It may be, as the “neighbors sniffed,” that “only rich people could afford such a luxury.” But those who think it’s going to save them money won’t get rich—they’ll get poorer.

Kent comments:

I found this interesting little report at Cornwall Alliance. This is a very worthwhile resource for those interested in a truly Christian view of ‘the environment.’

It would be interesting to see similar calculations done various other ‘green’ projects. My best guess is that many of them would be money losers. We need to remember that money-loser really means resource waster. So if you think that the ‘greens’ are conservationists, think again.

There is a reason environmentalists are constantly at work to make it more difficult (and thus expensive) to produce energy. As things now stand, the ‘green’ preferred ways of producing energy are wasteful. But the greens irrationally hate our current ways of producing energy. The only way they can make things like solar panels attractive to people is to artificially drive up the cost of competing ways of production by using the force of the state.

The environmentalist agenda is about the use of governmental force to control people. This means that rainbows, mountainsides, streams, and wildlife are only the images behind which environmentalism hides. The ‘greens’ really don’t want to save anything as much as they want to control how other people live.

That is not idyllic, pastoral, or beautiful. It’s totalitarian.

Lies, and more lies

2011-12-21T12:12:00.001-05:00

If you are not acquainted with the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, you should be. This is a group of Christians who have not gone over to the dark side of modern environmentalism, but who are concerned about the physical creation.

In a recent article one of their members explores the deception being foisted on the public by a group (the Evangelical Environmental Network) dedicated to the idea that mixing environmentalism with Christianity will yield anything more than moral and conceptual sewage.

I will not explore the details here. If you want to do that, read the article for yourself. In the end, this campaign by the Evangelical Environmental Network is a collection of lies built on a foundation of lies.

One of the most significant reasons why Christianity is not compatible with environmentalism is this inextricable connection between environmentalism and lying. Environmentalism is a kind of ‘religious’ (in the way that word is so often misused) fervor that attempts to convince humans beings to do things harmful to human beings. It does this by lying about the danger of human activity that has produced a setting in which human beings can thrive.

These lies are sometimes grand ones, and they are sometimes detailed ones that are somewhat technical in a way that most people will not take the time to understand. These are often the most effective kinds of lies. Lies that are very broad in scope at one end of the spectrum, or lies that are very detailed at the other end of the spectrum, are the ones most likely to overwhelm people. We sometimes tend to ignore them because of the effort required to analyze them properly.

Environmentalists – ‘Christian’ or otherwise – exploit this situation to their advantage. I try to be charitable with people, assuming that they might be honest but misguided. In the case of environmentalists, this is not possible. Their views, as well as the tactics they use to promote their views, are inseparable from a whole collection of lies.

The Cornwall Alliance is a good resource for uncovering these lies. I highly recommend their work.

PETA People–Wrong, Even When They’re Right

2011-12-12T12:50:00.001-05:00

Found an interesting article in Christianity Today recently:

December 8, 2011 12:19PM

FRC, PETA Call for Continuing an Explicit Military Ban on Bestiality

Tobin Grant

In an unlikely alliance, the Family Research Council (FRC) and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have found a common cause: the criminalization of bestiality in the military. Both groups are calling for keeping an explicit ban on sex with animals in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) that may be eliminated by the Defense Authorization Act.

Kent comments:

While these two groups both don’t want to decriminalize bestiality in the military (or probably anywhere else, for that matter) they get there by such different routes that this “cause” is only marginally “common.”

Presumably, the Family Research Council opposes bestiality because human beings, being made in God’s image, are qualitatively different from animals. (The article does not get into the rationale of this group explicitly, but it is a fair assumption.)

PETA, on the other hand, has a radically different reason for their opposition to bestiality. As the official PETA statement said, they want to “protect all Americans—human and nonhuman alike.”

The PETA people (redundant, but it sounds good) seem to base their rather insane agenda on the idea that animals are persons, and thus “Americans” just like human beings. To give them their due, however little that may be, they never quite say that animals are persons. What they do say is that “supporters of animal rights believe that animals have an inherent worth.” If that is not personhood, it is as close as you can come to it.

What I can’t quite figure out is how the PETA people think they can know that animals don’t want to have sex with humans. From perusing their website, my best guess that they think animals are somehow morally innocent and would never “want” to do something like engaging in sex with humans. Humans, on the other hand – well, we all know how they are about such things.

As one Family Research Council member said about another issue, “PETA folks get this one wrong, too, as they get most things wrong.” They mostly get this one wrong too. They just blindly stumbled into the right conclusion for all the wrong reasons.

But that’s just the PETA people way.

How to Rid the World of Lobbyists

2011-11-15T12:46:00.001-05:00

Considering:

Equality and Envy
The Proper Role of Government
By: Kim Moreland|Published: November 15, 2011

This is today’s Breakpoint, today not by Chuck Colson, but by Kim Moreland. This column is generally good, pointing out that the kind of social/political equality that should interest Christians is not the current “income equality” that is currently so incessantly demanded. Rather, it is equality before the law and within the political process. From this Moreland goes on to say, “But the Christian tradition also puts limits on the size and scope of government.”

Amen, and amen.

Later, Moreland makes this comment:

But we should work to make sure that the law doesn’t treat them [those with larger incomes] more favorably than other, lesser-paid, people. That’s why, for example, lessening the influence of lobbyists is so desperately needed today. Their entire purpose is to shape the rules so that one group benefits at the expense of everybody else.

What needs to be said here, and was not in this column, is that if the proper limits are placed on government, the influence of lobbyists will approach zero. If the state carefully avoided the matters of taxing to redistribute, of social engineering, of subsidizing businesses, of providing benefits to individuals, and all such manner of things, there would be nothing for lobbyists to do!!!!

Lobbyists today typically spend their time either trying to keep the government out of their business – in the broadest sense of that term - so that business is able to continue (can’t blame them for that) OR trying to get some favor from the government to give them a one-up on everyone else (can and should blame them for this). But if governments simply stayed out of those areas, lobbying would soon become a thing of the past.

There is one possible exception here. If governments removed themselves from these areas, people might employ lobbyists to try to persuade governments to re-enter these areas. My only suggestion to help prevent this involves a liberal application of tar, feathers, and rock salt to such lobbyists, those who hire them, and any legislators who listen to them.

Unjust Charges of Injustice

2011-11-13T11:14:00.001-05:00

Charles Colson has a recent Breakpoint titled “Predators at Large.” At first glance this conjures up pictures of pedophiles or perhaps those who mug helpless old ladies on walkers. Perhaps that is the effect Colson wanted as he begins a discussion of so-called “payday lenders.”

These lenders make short-term loans at very high interest rates. Why does anyone use these lenders? As Colson points out, it is almost always because they are people whose credit history is so bad that no one else will lend to them.

Colson calls this “predatory lending” and says that those who take out such loans have “fallen victim to human greed.” Colson condemns this whole practice in no uncertain terms, and this has been the attitude of much of Christendom for a long time. It sounds horrible to talk about 390% APR loans, doesn’t it?

As is too often the case, we have here an example of Christians failing to do proper economic analysis. Is there greed involved in these kinds of loans? Most likely. Sometimes it might be on the part of borrowers who refuse to delay their gratification until they have the cash in hand. But more often, I am sure it is simply people who fall into hard economic times.

Are these lenders really “predatory”? Colson gives a tear-jerking example of a lady who borrowed $500 to pay her car insurance and ended up paying much more than that in interest on her loan. (As an aside, perhaps we should not be content to concede that everyone has some inalienable right to own a car – but that’s another matter.)

Suppose YOU decided to gather all your available cash: your retirement savings, your bank accounts, and any other funds you could generate. With these funds you decide to start a small, personal loan business. When customers come to you with a credit history that indicates there is only a one-in-five probability that they will pay back the principle of their loan and they have no collateral to secure this loan, what kind of interest rate will you have to charge to keep your little company in business? These aren’t your friends. These are strangers with a shaky loan-repayment history.

The answer is, unless you are willing to lose your life savings that you have put into your little company, you are going to have to charge rates high enough to cover the likely default rates on the loans you make. Since these people cannot even get a loan anywhere else, you are doing them a service by making one available to them. And remember, they come to you and agree to the terms of the loan.

Colson says of these supposed victims that they “didn’t have any other options.” But that is simply not true. They had the options of continuing to shop for a better loan, or not borrowing at all.

To his credit, Colson does not call for the government to shut down such lenders. He instead points to a church in Pittsburg that has set up program that offers $500 loans with thirteen days interest-free. This program also encourages those who use it to become savers.

That is a wonderful idea, but it is a charity, not a business. It is an admirable charity at that, but it’s still a charity. And as Colson admits, “Not that there aren’t risks, but who ever said that fighting against injustice wouldn’t be costly?” What is implicit here is this: unless the clientele of this church’s charity program are somehow self-selecting better credit risks, the church will have a significant number of these loans that will never be repaid.

There is nothing wrong with this. Clearly, this church is aware of that, and is willing to lose some of its money as part of this charitable endeavor.

But your little loan business is not a charity. You have to make a profit, and that profit has to be in place even after many of your customers fail to repay all or part of the principle of their loans. Your loan company, contra Colson, is not “unjust.” It’s just not a charity.

Cut, Ricky, Cut

2011-11-10T16:18:00.001-05:00

From ABC News:

GOP presidential candidate Rick Perry’s memory lapse at Wednesday night’s CNBC debate will go down as one of the worst debate flubs in history, but it may not mean the campaign kiss of death that the Twitterverse quickly proclaimed it to be.

Kent comments:

Here is the sort of garbage that has become the subject of political discussions. I do not endorse Rick Perry. But I also do not endorse the output of the stupid babblers who worry about a candidate having a bit of memory lapse during a so-called debate. Two points need to be made here.

First, these side-shows of candidates answering idiotic questions from dimwitted news people are not debates. I usually pay no attention to these displays of inanity. Debates would be interesting and informative. In a debate there are propositions that are affirmed or denied. Participants give reasoned speeches in support of their contentions.

I don’t expect to see any debates because they are televised by networks that feature idiotic talking heads, and real debates do not require the presence of idiotic talking news heads. I doubt if most network talking heads would understand a real debate.

As for Mr. Perry’s memory lapse – it does not cause me any concern. What he could not remember was the name of the third government agency he wants to eliminate. The reason it does not concern me is because no matter which agency name he recalls, it will be one that needs to be eliminated. And there are so many that who could expect a candidate to remember them all?

Earlier I said that I did not endorse Rick Perry. Mr. Perry, you say that if you are elected three executive branch agencies will be gone? If you will add about a dozen more to your list (and feel free to write it down so you won’t forget), you can count on my vote.

It’s the Socialism, Stupid!

2011-11-01T11:51:00.001-04:00

Here is an interesting post from The Heritage Foundation. The key part is as follows:

But a new paper by Jason Richwine, Ph.D. and Andrew Biggs addresses the question of teacher pay head on and asks whether teachers today receive the right level of pay. They find that when benefits such as tenure, health care, and pensions are considered, the typical public-school teacher is well-paid: “We conclude that public-school-teacher salaries are comparable to those paid to similarly skilled private-sector workers, but that more generous fringe benefits for public-school teachers, including greater job security, make total compensation 52 percent greater than fair market levels, equivalent to more than $120 billion overcharged to taxpayers each year.”

The same study goes on to say:

While union contracts help secure overcompensation for the average teacher, they may still leave the most valuable teachers underpaid. School administrators need to be able to hire and fire teachers as needed, basing personnel decisions on rigorous value-added evaluations and setting pay based on prevailing market rates.

But why should this surprise anyone? It could be predicted without a study. With government school teachers we have what is perhaps the worst of all possible situations: socialism in bed with a union. The devilish children of such a mating will always be horrible inefficiency and great cost to taxpayers.

We sometimes forget that governments owning schools – which they very directly do in most k-12 schooling – is the classic definition of ‘socialism.’

I have always wondered about the mentality of the person demanding more. If teaching at a government school doesn’t pay as much as you want, why not try something else? The study reveals the answer: you are more likely to get more by lobbying the socialist state than by anything else you might do.

I am often amused by the constant calls of well-meaning people to ‘reform’ various school systems. Hints of that appear in the second quote from the study above.

But you can’t ‘reform’ your way out of socialism. Giving new power to officials in a socialist school system will not cure the problem. The problem is socialism. The ills of government schools are very predictable, and will be persistent, as long as we insist on using the socialist model.

To expect otherwise borders on insanity.

Praying and Governments

2011-10-30T11:58:00.001-04:00

I recently noticed this comment in a Christian periodical:

"I urge . . . that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone—for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness" (1 Timothy 2:1, 2). Do we pray for our government leaders—even those with whom we disagree?

This oft-made comment seems to miss the point here. In fact, even in this short quotation, this is rather obvious.

Paul is not telling us to ask God to help government officials lead easier lives, or anything like that at all. And our agreement or disagreement with such officials has nothing to do with what Paul is talking about.

Paul very straightforwardly tells us that we should pray for governing officials so that we may live in peace. Paul knew that the default would tend toward governing officials behaving in ways that would not allow people, especially Christians, to live in peace. That would require divine intervention.

When governing officials do the job that Paul describes elsewhere (Rom. 13:1-7) they help make a peaceful life possible for those who wish to follow the ways of peace. But as history has repeatedly shown, the power bestowed on governing officials tends to be misused.

So we need to pray for God, via His providence, to control governing officials. In fact, God seems to be the only one who can control an out-of-control government.

Have you seen any of those around lately? It’s not too late for some prayer time.

Democracy: Not all it’s cracked up to be

2011-10-24T16:17:00.001-04:00

In today’s Breakpoint Charles Colson, in discussing events in the Middle East, says this:

There’s no reason, as writer Rod Dreher reminds us, to assume that democracy and religious tolerance go hand-in-hand. On the contrary, recent history suggests that what the so-called “people” often want is to mistreat the “others” in their midst.

It is a very good point, and needs to be taken far beyond the context of the Middle East. We need to bring this point back home, too.

Here in the good old USofA we have the almost demented tendency to think that, once something has been approved by a majority, it is prudent, wise, and even just. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact, the real problem in the political world is not who rules, or the mechanisms by which that rule is carried out. Rather, the real problem is to avoid tyranny and injustice. A benevolent dictator could easily have a more just rule than many so-called democracies do today.

Of course, the problem is that you never know when a good dictator might go bad, or who might come to power when the good dictator dies. But again, we experience most of the same uncertainties under situations where we vote. That is why it is very hollow indeed for western politicians to run around heralding the establishment of “democracies” in the Middle East, or any where else for that matter.

It was for this reason that our Founders did not establish an unqualified democracy. Part of the reason for the division of powers, and the intentional pitting of one power against another, was to insure that no one, including even supermajorities, could become tyrannous.

Most of the modifications that have been made to the Founders’ original system have had the effect of making tyranny easier to implement. We live with the sadly successful results of that today.

The Place of Religion in Political Evaluation

2011-10-17T16:31:00.001-04:00

At today’s edition of Breakpoint Charles Colson makes this statement:

First, there is no religious test for public office. If you don’t believe me, check out the Constitution of the United States, Article VI, Paragraph 3. The public statements of some evangelicals that they wouldn’t vote for Romney because of his Mormonism would cause the Founding Fathers to spin in their graves.

Surely Colson knows that the section of the Constitution to which he refers has no reference to why people might decide to vote as they do for President. The “no religious tests” for office means that a person must not be prohibited from running for, or serving in, an office under the Constitution, based on that person’s religious views.

So the fact that someone might decide not to vote for a candidate because of the candidate’s religion would not cause any Founding Fathers to rotate in their repose. Some of them would have agreed that religion is not important when considering a candidate; others, I am fairly sure, would not agree. But we can’t sort that out here.

The rest of what Colson says makes the point that religion can be a distraction when considering people for political office. While I agree that religion can be a distraction when evaluating candidates, I do not think that it always is, or must be.

Any religion, when taken seriously, implies a worldview. Chuck Colson should be aware of this, since he devotes much effort to helping people think through their worldviews.

The worldviews implied by some religious views could be a very reasonable consideration when evaluating candidates for political offices. For example, the oath of office carries much less force if there is no transcendent being to which we must answer for our deeds.

An animistic worldview, in which spirits inhabit what we think of as inanimate objects, could have a profound effect on policy decisions. The list of such possibilities here is very long.

If a candidate does not take his religious views very seriously, he might work out fairly well in spite of them. But if office-holders don’t take their religious views seriously, are they really people we should trust in public office? What does that kind of inconsistency say about a person?

But, assuming that candidates do take their religious views seriously, what might Mormonism imply for political office? Mormonism is not Christianity. But I am not convinced that only Christians could be good office-holders. However, Mormonism holds to some very weird – and that is putting it rather mildly – views that go far beyond simply not being Christian.

For example, Mormonism teaches that God was once an ordinary human being, and that ordinary humans beings like us can, if we do enough Mormon-defined good deeds, someday become divine and rule our own universes. What bearing does this have on political views?

I am not completely sure at this point. But religious views that freakish are enough to at least make me think about all this more carefully.

If you think religious views are simply meaningless for the rest of your view of life and reality, then they are not politically important. But Chuck Colson does not think that. So it is especially strange to see him dismiss them as he does here.

The Problem of Not Recognizing the Problem

2011-10-10T20:33:00.001-04:00

There was an almost-good article today at Christianity Today. It deals, in general, with the ethics of, and blame for, financial problems in our country today. While some good points are made in the article, I had to give it the “almost-good” rating because of this:

Both sides of the political aisle are to blame for the Great Recession and its repercussions on the American (and world) economy. Republicans recycled the old Reagan mantra of the 1980s that "government is the problem, not the solution," blindly applying it to our financial regulatory institutions while failing to recognize that even the most free-market economists point to the need for careful government regulation of the financial industry. In doing so, they let the Labrador off the leash. But seeking to appease their own constituents, Democrats pressured quasi-government lenders Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to offer easy loan terms to Americans of modest incomes, relieving them of the self-discipline of having to save for an adequate down payment on a house.

While ‘both sides’ (as if there could only be two) of the aisle are to blame for the problems, it is not for the reasons the author states. The problem is that no one, including the Republicans, really acts as if government were a significant part of our financial problems.

I’m not sure who these “even the most free-market economists” this author has in mind are, but there of plenty of economists who will point out in great detail how and why the current maze of governmental attempts at regulation of the economy in general are the direct cause of all kinds of problems. You can locate these economists at places like the Mises Institute, the Cato Institute, The Foundation for Economic Education, and The Heritage Foundation. You will find some policy matters about which these groups will disagree. But one thing they do daily is offer evidence for the proposition that, in matters economic, the government very often is the problem.

Government would be doing quite well if it could only manage to punish economic fraud and theft. It mostly fails to do that. On top of that, governments propagate a good deal of their own legalized fraud and theft.

But even when governmental financial rules and regulations have purported good intentions, they often fail the “have you considered the unseen side of things” test. Take something as innocent-seeming governmental insurance of savings accounts. While it sounds nice, think of how it has perpetuated the idea that a bank account is a riskless investment. There are no riskless investments. The only way to make it appear that there is comes with government stepping in to “rescue” depositors and failing banks. If the premiums for this “insurance” really covered the cost, that would be one thing, but they do not.

We learned this in the 1980s when there was a cascade of ‘savings and loan’ failures. The government simply supplied billions (or at least hundreds of millions – dollars went a bit farther in those days) of other people’s money to bail out investors who had been told for years that there was no risk to their investments in savings and loan institutions. There was plenty of risk, and some of that risk was created by the incentives placed on the savings and loan institutions by previous government regulations!

Most of us wouldn’t know a free market if it slept in our bed. (OK, I wasn’t sure how best to say that. But you get the idea.) A free market is simply what happens when individuals are allowed to interact economically without government restraint, other than punishment for theft and fraud.

When governments intervene in other ways, the individuals (and the ‘market’ they create) are no longer free. Neither economic preclusion, nor requirement are compatible with freedom. To say otherwise – as does this Christianity Today article – is utter nonsense.

Cheering for Justice

2011-09-24T22:15:00.001-04:00

In a recent “Breakpoint” Chuck Colson tells us that he was bothered by something at a recent political debate. (Those things aren’t really debates, but that is another matter.) The thing that bothered Chuck was what Rick Perry said when he was asked about being worried about the innocence of people recently executed in Texas for murder. As Colson reports this:

… the governor instantly replied, “I’ve never struggled with that at all.” He cited what he called Texas’ “very clear process” and added that “if you come into our state and you kill one of our children” or “kill a police officer” or “one of our citizens, you will face the ultimate justice in the state of Texas.”

Colson thinks this answer is too flippant. He thinks Perry was taking the whole idea of capital punishment (which Colson does not, in principle, oppose) too lightly. My main point here is not to defend Perry on this matter. But at these “debates” there is really not time to treat much of anything with the depth that most such things deserve.

But something that bothered Colson even more was the reaction of the audience. After Perry’s answer, the crowd cheered. As Colson comments:

“it certainly shouldn’t be the occasion for cheering as the crowd in California audience did twice. If the governor’s response troubled me, the crowd’s cheering chilled me.”

Colson goes on to say, in several ways, that this response is un-Christian. I’m not so sure.

Of course, I can’t know what was in the hearts and mind of Perry and those in the crowd. But cheering for capital punishment might not be cheering for the demise of a human being, even one guilty of murder. It might be an expression of approval for the idea that those who intentionally take the life of an innocent person will be required to pay the appropriate – and I would add, Biblically appropriate – penalty for murder.

We live in a society that sometimes winks at murder. We often protect murders rather than their victims.

So perhaps at least some of those cheering were Christians, Chuck. Maybe you just missed the point.

Joking and Praying about Presidents

2011-09-22T10:20:00.001-04:00

In a recent article from a church publication, I noticed the following line:

“If normal means joking about our president far more than we pray for him, then I don’t want to go back.”

As you might guess, the article was about the effects of the September 11, 2001 attack. The line made me think, but perhaps not thoughts the author intended to provoke.

In perusing the library of my son the political science professor, I noticed a book about the ambivalent attitude Americans have long held toward the presidency. Apparently for a long time before 9/11 we both prayed for and joked about our presidents. I don’t think it needs to be an either/or situation.

We pray for presidents because we hope they will be better than they usually are. More often than not, they disappoint us. But if we thought about the nature of the presidency carefully, we should not be at all surprised by our disappointment.

We have invested the office of the president with far too much power for any one person. We have forgotten what our fourth president - before he was a president - told us in The Federalist (Papers) about angels, men, and governments. Madison was talking about how sin requires us to disperse and limit power in government. We have done a rotten job of listening to Mr. Madison on this point. We have allowed our system to become one that is almost guaranteed to produce bad results in government: an executive with too much power in a government with too much power. Those who staff these positions are far from Mr. Madison’s “angels” so they often abuse their power.

In the process they make fools of themselves, and so we laugh at them. It is better than crying, which one can do only so much before exhaustion sets in!

And, to be honest, praying probably won’t do much good here either. It’s not that God can’t do whatever He will. But He is usually not willing to do certain things. If you tell your five-year-old who loves candy not to eat any before lunch, but you set him down at a table filled with enticing candies an hour before lunch, would it really be reasonable to ask God to give the little tyke the strength to resist temptation?

Of course not. It would be an insult to God to make such a request in those circumstances. You would need to realize that you are an idiot, and first of all go about correcting your idiocy.

That is where we are with presidents these days. Prayer, in this case, is not the answer. Correcting our political idiocy would be step one. Prayer would be step two.

There Is One Born Every Minute

2011-09-08T10:25:00.003-04:00

F.E.E. recently did a rerun on (the late) Hans F. Sennholz’ Machiavellian Politics. You should read the whole thing – it’s not long. Here is the first paragraph just to tempt you:

The morality of an action depends upon the motive from which we act. If we deny ourselves for the benefit of a needy person, we may experience the joys of charity. If we seek to impress our friends, we may act from ostentation and pride. If we seize income and wealth from some people and share the take with other people, we engage in Robin-Hood plunder. If we hasten to proclaim the giving to the world and expect to be rewarded with public acclaim and election, we are in politics.

Sennholz wrote this article in 1996. It would have been just a relevant in 1976, and it will no doubt have lost nothing in this regard by 2026 – and beyond. I met Sennholz just once, though it involved a week-long seminar in which he lectured often.
As a young man in Nazi Germany he was drafted into the Nazi war machine. I think he said he was in Luftwaffe maintenance. He eventually came to the U. S. and taught economics at Grove City College. You can read a bit about him here.
He probably has some extra insight into what he is writing about here given his background. In the article, he goes on to say:

In the footsteps of Machiavelli many American politicians seek to gain the support of the electorate by any conceivable methods. They chatter, coax, and cajole, and if this is ineffective, they pretend, deceive, and promise the world. Promises are useful things, both to keep and, when expedient, to break. Since people are taken in by appearance, politicians appear devout and loyal; yet, in political theory, it is better to be a clever winner than to be a devout loser. Indeed, many American politicians are instinctively Machiavellian, denying the relevance of morality in political affairs and holding that craft and deceit are justified in pursuing and maintaining political power.

We find ourselves in a big “political season” once again. It is probably time to remind ourselves of what some good thinkers like Sennholz taught us about the nature of politics and politicians. In the midst of all this – Republican debates and campaign speeches by our ‘Beloved Leader’ – keep in mind the wisdom of Dr. Sennholz:

Unfortunately, it is not in the power of government to make everyone more prosperous. Government only can raise the income of one person by taking from another. The taking and giving are not even a zero net game; they require an elaborate apparatus of transfer that may consume a large share of the taking.

As true as this is, and in spite of the fact that many realize it at some level, the politicians will keep suckering us with the promise that government will make us prosperous. And it is sad to have to admit that most people will continue to be willing suckers, no matter how much we warn them of the consequences.

The Uncertainty Cycle

2011-09-01T17:57:00.001-04:00

It has been common fare for a long time, and I saw it again today in an article from Christianity Today:

“I'm going to assume that faith, by its very nature, assumes uncertainty—otherwise, why would we need faith and hope? We are not given to know as God knows—with utter and complete and perfect knowledge. We are, however, given faith that God knows with utter and complete and perfect knowledge, and thus we can trust in him.”

As you can tell, this is not the main point of the article. But it is an assumption that is often made with far too little critical examination.

According to this author, faith assumes uncertainty. If it did not, he says, why would we need faith and hope?

Notice how this simply assumes that Biblical faith and hope necessarily have an element of uncertainty. Without going into all the details here, this sounds much more like modern cultural assumptions than Biblical definitions of either term. I’ll let you do your own research on that point.

But notice also how one argument put forth in favor of this is that “we are not given to know as God knows.” But why is that relevant? The question is not whether our knowledge is “complete and perfect.” The question is whether our faith involves an element that is related in some way to knowledge of which we are capable, and whether our faith and knowledge, by its very nature, must involve uncertainty.

Given that our knowledge is less than complete, why does that require that our incomplete knowledge always have an element of uncertainty? Many make this assumption, but why?

Then this little discourse wraps up with “We are . . . given faith that God knows with utter and complete and perfect knowledge, and thus we can trust in him.”

I don’t think we are “given” faith at all in certain important senses, thought I know Augustinians tend to think this way. But leave that aside. If “faith” is necessarily uncertain, then even if we are “given” it, it would never allow us to know that God knows. So how could we trust Him?

Faith that is necessarily uncertain cannot break the uncertainty cycle. Of this I am quite certain.

Theft, Murder, and Sexual Perversion and the Churches of Christ

2011-08-20T11:42:00.001-04:00

I receive email updates from the “Official News Blog of The Christian Chronicle.” The Christian Chronicle reports on news of the members and congregations of the non-instrumental Churches of Christ. I affectionately call them my “non-fiddlin’ brethren”. The typical stories are often about the details of life among the non-fiddlin’ brethren, and it is nice to see what is going on there.

I think of the non-fiddlin’ brethren as being very “conservative.” I suppose I assumed that they would tend to be politically conservative to some extent, at least. So I was a bit shocked to see a story today about a Church of Christ member named Janice Hahn, who recently won a special election in a California U. S. House of Representatives district.

When I saw a “D” behind Janice’s name, I became curious. Maybe this was a conservative Democrat. There used to be some of those creatures around here and there, and I thought I might have stumbled upon one here. I was a bit shocked to visit Janice’s website and find that she is a dyed-in-the-wool big welfare state leftist of the Obama persuasion. (Check it out here.)

Being a big welfare state leftist necessarily means you have no respect for the Eighth Commandment. If I were the non-fiddlin’ folks, I wouldn’t want to brag about a church member who studiously avoids the Eighth Commandment. But so be it. Unfortunately, it didn’t end there.

As I poked around some more, hidden among here “other” issues section I found these statements:

“Janice supports a woman’s right to choose” (i.e., wants to legalize and most likely use tax dollars to pay for murder) and “Janice will be a fighter for the LGBTQ community” (i.e., wants push the political agenda of sexual perversion).

How do we so easily pretend that Christian ethical matters can just be ignored once a Christian enters the realm of politics?

I was very surprised that a Church of Christ would want to advertise a prominent member who pushes for theft, murder, and sexual perversion. And that made me think about this matter in general. Church discipline is, it seems, almost non-existent in all kinds of churches today.

Perhaps churches should reconsider this. When a prominent church member behaves like Janice, perhaps the elders of the church should talk to that person and say, “Of course, you can behave any way you like. But you can’t behave anyway you like AND be a member-in-good-standing of this congregation.” Imagine that!

Are churches that ignore this sort of thing really doing their duty?

God and Cheap Sunglasses

2011-08-19T12:47:00.001-04:00

I ran across this article today:

94 Servant Evangelism Ideas for Your Church

I realize this is hot new technique that many churches are using. But I had never read an article about it until now. The basic idea is this: “A small act of kindness nudges a person closer to God, often in a profound way, as it bypasses one's mental defenses.”

Does that mean people are more likely to move “closer to God” if they don’t think about it?

In any case, the first four giveaways that might “nudge a person closer to God” suggested by the article are coffee, newspapers, donuts, and soft drinks. So far, I can see some trouble with the health police.

I decided to apply a version of the “do unto others” principle to this. Suppose a pantheist gave me a cold soft drink on a hot day along with an invitation to consider being more at one with the universe as I sip my soda. I must say that, while I would think the free drink very nice, I would not be a bit more likely to turn pantheist than I am right now. No doubt, I am very atypical in this.

The list of giveaways-to-bring-people-closer-to-God went on to include lifesavers, lollipops, popcorn, and sunglasses. What was odd was the parenthetical comment after sunglasses that read “cheap ones.”

The author used the term “Christ-followers” rather than “Christians.” But whether you use trendy, hip new terminology or not, wouldn’t expensive sunglasses be a better reflection on God that “cheap” ones?

The more I thought about all this, the more convinced I became that if cheap little trinkets will “nudge” people toward God, why not see what serious cash giveaways would do. Why not just pick the neighborhood where you want to bribe people . . . ugh, I mean . . . “nudge” people closer to God. Then, based on the income level of the neighborhood, decide what amount of cash would impress people there.

If that turns out to be, say, twenty dollars, then get a bunch of $20s, attach a little note to each one that says, “God loves you, and has more of these for you down at First Christian.” That might be more “effective” than cheap sunglasses.

Is Profit Without Honor?

2011-08-13T12:32:00.001-04:00

Christian Colleges Part of White House Interfaith Service Push
Schools say listening is a key part of the project—but theological pluralism isn’t.

Chris Norton | posted 8/08/2011 10:34AM

Christian colleges and universities were among the 195 higher education institutions represented Wednesday in Washington at the launch of President Obama's Interfaith and Community Service Campus Challenge.

The White House initiative, first announced in March, aims to mobilize college students of various religious backgrounds for community service around the nation.

Kent comments:

Apart from the fact that it is no proper business of the government to be involved with what Christian colleges do in regard to their projects, this article suggests another problem that is widespread today. Our society, and Christians in particular, have a skewed view of what constitutes “community service.”

The other day a large van was patrolling my neighborhood. It was carrying people from a lockup somewhere who were being forced to pick up trash along the road. The name on the van included the words “community service.” Courts often sentence people to “community service.” So we sometimes use the phrase as a synonym for “punishment.”

Then we have the phrase as it is used in the article above, where it is equated with voluntary, but unpaid, participation in various projects. What bothers me a bit is the neglect of another kind of “community service” – perhaps one that best serves the most people.

Last night I went with some friends to an ice cream shop. This little place was staffed entirely with very friendly, very ready-to-serve, college students. Theirs was a busy shop – they were busy serving people from all over the community in which they were located. Their colleges were not involved in this community service, and neither was the White House – except, perhaps, for the efforts of the White House to make this kind of community service more difficult.

The problem is, most colleges and governments would not think of this as “community service” because these college students were being paid for what they were doing, and those who owned the ice cream shop were (presumably) making a profit on the whole community service project.

In the eyes of the government, academia, and (sorry to say) many Christians, this puts what these nice college students were doing outside the realm of “community service.” Perhaps we cannot expect better from governments and academia, but Christians should know better.

There is nothing wrong, of course, with working for nothing. But there is also nothing wrong, or even less commendable, with working for a profit. As a matter of fact, it would be impossible for anyone to work for nothing if someone else were not working for a profit.

Christians need to recognize and defend the value to communities of those who work, save, and invest in productive enterprises. They are not somehow morally tainted. They are, rather, people doing part of the work of God. Some of the best community service around is done for profit – and the prophets of God should say, “Amen.”

Don’t Preach About This!

2011-08-10T16:15:00.001-04:00

As reported in an article in Your Churchmagazine, 55 percent of pastors can identify one or more topics on which they would not preach at all or only sparingly, because the sermon could negatively affect their hearers' willingness to attend church in the future.

Among them are:

Politics - 38 percent
Homosexuality - 23 percent
Abortion - 18 percent
Same-sex marriage - 17 percent
War - 17 percent
Women's role in church and home - 13 percent
The doctrine of election - 13 percent
Hell - 7 percent
Money - 3 percent

Kent comments:

My first reaction to this was: What a bunch of weenies! Just how much like John the Baptist, Jesus, or the Apostle Paul are you if you are afraid to preach on some topic because someone listening might not like it?

But then I had a second thought: Even in the “Politics” category, this would indicate that 62% are willing to preach on the topic. So perhaps most of the “pastors” aren’t such weenies after all!

And then I had a third thought. For much of the preaching I have heard and read on these topics, I would rather that “pastors” didn’t preach on them at all, because most of the preaching in these areas is either so shallow as to be pointless, or just plain wrong.

What Are You Thinking, Chuck?

2011-08-03T12:22:00.001-04:00

It appears that Charles Colson has lost his mind, or at least some important parts of it. In his latest Breakpoint commentary, while lamenting the temporary and unsustainable nature of the recent “budget deal”, he nevertheless can remark:

Folks, I see no biblical warrant for the two positions being embraced in Washington today — a total refusal to raise taxes on one hand; a total refusal to cut government spending on the other. They are both based on man-made ideology.

Is it too much to hope for — as a very well written letter signed by Christians for a Sustainable Economy argues — that our leaders correctly identify the problem (the debt, which the Bible certainly speaks about), put aside narrow political interests aside, and lead for the long term?

I think Chuck has a case of the “stupids” from his old boss Richard Nixon who liked to position himself “in the middle of the road” – a place, by the way, where it is easy to be run over.

But Chuck made me question myself. So I zipped over to the web site of Christians for a Sustainable Economy, wondering what they had to say about all this. When I arrived I saw the names like Mark Tooley and Marvin Olasky, so I was a bit shocked to think that they would condemn as un-Biblical the idea that we are “taxed enough already.”

When I read their letter to the President to which Colson referred, I found this very clear statement:

To give more money to Washington is to give the sickness the remedy it requests. The last thing the government needs is more money. It needs to cease its unwise and profligate spending.

But that sounds exactly like an endorsement of one of the “un-Biblical” positions that Colson condemns, “a total refusal to raise taxes.” What is wrong with Colson lately? And why is he citing for support a letter from a group that clearly does NOT agree with his “middle of the road” position?

I can’t answer that. I can only say that I will pray for Chuck Colson’s mental recovery.

And one final note to Chuck: sometimes raising tax rates brings in LESS total money to the government. But that is not the main point here. The main point here is that Christians for a Sustainable Economy is right – the last thing our government needs is more money.

(By the way, the letter looks very good. If you scroll to the bottom of that page, you will find a place where you can add your signature of endorsement.)

Un-true Lies

2011-08-01T19:46:00.001-04:00

Today I received an email announcement which I reproduce, in part, here:

Congress Must Pass this Debt Ceiling Deal
Dear Harold,

We are on the cusp of averting a default — but we need your help to urge Congress to quickly pass the debt ceiling deal that was struck this weekend.

The deal isn’t perfect — but it prevents default, reduces spending, and avoids higher taxes. . .

Not passing this bill would be catastrophic. If Congress cannot reach an agreement by tomorrow, the federal government would be forced to default on its debts. That could lead to higher interest rates and higher costs for employers and consumers alike. . .

Sincerely,

Bill Miller
Senior Vice President and National Political Director
U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Kent comments:

What Bill Miller is hoping for appears to be a done deal at this point. But in spite of that, I am a bit surprised that the U. S. Chamber of Commerce would be willing to propagate the lies found here. (I say “lies” because it is difficult to think that an intelligent person would be ignorant of the facts in these matters.)

If Congress had done nothing, there is no reason to think the U.S. would default on its current debt obligations. It certainly would NOT “be forced to default on its debts.” That is a lie, and I am sure Bill Miller knows it.

This being the case, why would not passing the bill have been catastrophic? It would be nothing more than forcing the government to balance the budget. And why shouldn’t we want that? – unless, of course, you are some kind of statist who, on statist principles, wants an ever-expanding state.

The bill passed by the House today does NOT reduce spending. It reduces the rate at which government spending will increase.

Shame on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for promoting lies – dirty lies at that. Perhaps these people should re-name their organization “U.S. Chamber of Government Expansion.” At least that wouldn’t be a lie!

Aubrey Says

2011-07-28T16:35:00.001-04:00

I found this as a comment on an article at The Patriot Post. The name on the comment is Aubrey Hagan. It is very good, and speaks to the point I have been harping about lately. I reprint it here for your enjoyment:

That debt limit thing is just like me and my brother-in-law Jimmy!

My brother-in-law, Jimmy, has been borrowing money from me for years. Although he's always paid me on time, he just asked me to borrow another $30,000 on top of the $140,000 he already owes me.

Being a prudent person, before giving Jimmy the additional loan, I looked into Jimmy's spending habits. Here's what I found:

Although Jimmy doesn't work, an old trust fund pays him $21,900 in annual income. Further investigation reveals that his annual expenses exceed his annual income by $14,600. In other words, Jimmy's expenses are about 60% higher than his income.

(Now I understand why Jimmy wants to increase his loan from $140k to $170k!)

When I diplomatically explain to Jimmy my reluctance to loan him another $30,000 given his poor money management, Jimmy gets angry: "if you don't lend me another $30k by next week, I'm not sure if I'll be able to keep buying your sister's heart medication. And I'm not sure if I'll be able to buy groceries or heat the house this winter either! In fact, if I don't get the $30k by next week, the bank is going to repo your sister's car and foreclose on her house."

"But, Jimmy", I say, "I thought you told me you'd used the initial $140k loan so that you could pay for that house in cash?"

Long story short, although I don't appreciate Jimmy's threats, since I love my sister (his wife), I offered this compromise (I'll let you know his response when and if I get it):

I agreed to lend Jimmy another $9000, but only if he agrees (starting "very soon"!) to decrease his spending by $2.46 per day.

When I said this, Jimmy got really angry and threw another tantrum: "there's no way that could work! You are trying to KILL your sister!!"

More from Chuck

2011-07-28T11:43:00.001-04:00

Today Colson followed up yesterday’s Breakpoint commentary fiasco with:

A Fool’s Tower

Debt, Default, and Worldview

By: Chuck Colson|Published: July 28, 2011 7:30 AM

Kent comments some more:

Chuck was back today with more on this topic, and he didn’t completely rehabilitate himself. He starts out by saying:

The clock is ticking. The United States is on the verge of default. Congress and the president seem unable to come together and find an agreement avoiding an economic catastrophe.

The lie that the United States will default on its debt in the next few days is being circulated by those who don’t know better, or who do know better and just want to punch up the “news.” If the debt ceiling is not raised, it simply means that the government will have to live on its income. It has quite a lot of income – plenty to pay the interest on the debt, and several other things. But not everything. So failing to raise the debt ceiling will not cause a default. It would cause an out-of-control government to have to decide which of the many things it now pays for are most important. That’s not default – default is failing to pay the interest on or redeem government debt obligations. Living within your means is fiscal sanity and responsibility. Colson should know all that, but if he does, he doesn’t acknowledge it.

Then Colson goes on to say:

How in the world did we get into this fix? Well, it didn’t happen overnight. It’s been coming for a generation. For years, fiscal conservatives have warned about the dangers of out-of-control borrowing and spending, but current and previous presidents and congresses have ignored them, rolling up a massive national debt.

What’s that, Chuck? Yesterday those fiscal conservatives were lumped in with “ideologues” who refused to “compromise” and “solve” this problem. Today, they seem to be “voices crying in the wilderness” calling on presidents and congresses to repent. What happened since yesterday, Chuck?

In any case, Colson is now ready to diagnose the problem:

The bigger question is why did the American people stand for this? The answer is painfully clear. Because the people themselves were busy borrowing and spending like fiends.

Now Chuck is on to something. But there is a bit of the “chicken or the egg” matter hidden here. Did American’s make their government in their own “borrow and spend” image, or . . . did activists shape government into a borrow and spend mode which in turn influenced Americans?

Colson’s thought is that:

This is what happens when a false worldview comes home to roost. Remember that it was in the 1960s that existentialism and relativism took over college campuses. If there truly were no God and life were devoid of meaning, well, live it up while you can. Throw off the burden of moral restraints, of civic duty and responsibility.

Chuck comes close, but he never really grabs the gold ring. Existentialism and relativism did take over college campuses in the 1960s. And who sponsors and controls most of those colleges and universities? Governments. At those colleges and universities are departments of education, though which these worldviews were and are actively propagated though government controlled schools.

Perhaps everyday people changed in regard to the ethics of spending and borrowing because, through its various arms and institutions, those who ensconced themselves in positions of power and influence in government have pushed for those changed attitudes.

Colson says “The greatest generation scrimped and saved; their kids, the boomers, went on a big shopping binge.”

Let’s think back to what happened with “the greatest generation.” Their parents mostly idolized FDR, the president who did his level best to kick tax, spend, and borrow big government into high gear. The “greatest” generation elected people like LBJ and Richard Nixon, who kept the legacy of FDR growing.

And the baby boomers watched what their grandparents and parents had put into place in government, and decided to imitate the monster that their forebears had created. The greatest generation scrimped and saved, but they never insisted that their governments do the same. When they turned the education of their children over to those same governments, what did they expect?

Yes, Mr. Colson, it is a matter of worldview, but probably not in quite the way you think.

Think Again, Chuck Colson

2011-07-28T10:30:00.001-04:00

Nothing Like It Before

The Battle over the Debt

By: Chuck Colson|Published: July 27, 2011 12:00 AM

Kent comments:

I often find something useful in Colson’s “Breakpoint” commentaries. But I have no idea how, given what he seems to think about the Christian faith, he came up with some of the ideas in this one.

Colson is worried about the debates in Congress over spending, debt, and budgets. That’s reasonable enough – it is a matter worthy of concern. After some introduction, Colson says:

I’ve never seen the kind of chaos, recalcitrance, and perhaps downright obstructionism that I’m witnessing in the battle over the budget and the debt ceiling.

I’m still with you, Chuck. There is plenty of all the things you mentioned going on in this debate. But then Colson goes on to say in regard to previous political debates:

But almost every time . . . agreements were reached when both parties put the national good over ideology. Even if it took, as I remember one time long before that, Lyndon Johnson, then majority leader, locking the parties in a room and telling them not to come out until a deal was reached. And they stayed there until they did reach a deal.

Now I am starting to get worried about old Chuck. Is he really longing for the days of Lyndon Johnson (practically a political gangster) locking people in a room until “a deal” is reached? I would remind Mr. Colson that many of these “deals” forced on people by Mr. Johnson were the very things that have led us to the fiscal precipice at which we now stand.

Colson goes on to say:

But that isn’t happening now. And I find it both bewildering and alarming. I cannot explain the behavior of either side. It’s bordering on the irrational.

I am rather glad things – bad things – are sailing smoothly into law as they did with LBJ. Then Colson come to the heart of the matter:

What is going on? I can only think of three possibilities. None of them are good. First, is ideological madness. Both sides held captive by a political ideology that won’t let them settle for anything short of total victory. If that’s the case, the system may be badly broken.

I won’t go into Colson’s other possibilities, because they are really just variants of this one. When Colson says mentions “both sides held captive by a political ideology” he seems to be forgetting that there are more than just two “sides” in this debate. There is President Obama, who has never really made clear what he wants other than higher taxes and increased spending and debt. There is the majority of Congressional Democrats who are – I don’t know how else to say this – fiscally insane. There is the Republican leadership which keeps proposing ever-changings “solutions” that do not solve anything.

And then there is a sizeable minority of Republicans (and perhaps a Democrat or two I don’t know about), led by people like Rand Paul and Jim Demint, who see that we have a fiscal crisis rapidly approaching and are trying to do something that could actually address the problem. They do have what Colson would call an “ideology” behind what they are uncompromisingly advocating.

That “ideology” informs them that it is practically impossible for the United States government to continue to borrow trillions of dollars each year that is cannot repay. That “ideology” also has a moral component that informs them that it is morally wrong for a government to borrow money that everyone knows it will never repay. That “ideology” informs them that it is wrong to promise people that we will pay their bills for them by borrowing money we cannot repay.

Then Colson goes on to make a statement that causes me to question his rationality in this matter:

Our society has jettisoned the belief in moral truth and absolutes and we have grasped at man-made answers and ideologies; whether it’s angry anti-government sentiment on the far right or the sacredness of entitlements on the left, or any host of other political pathologies.

It is not a “political pathology” that causes us to conclude we cannot, and we must not, continue to spend money that we do not have for things that we do not need. That conclusion is drawn directly from the Christian worldview that Colson professes to love and teach. It comes straight from the “moral truth and absolute” that it is wrong to borrow money that you know you cannot and will not repay.

And if Chuck Colson does not understand that, then he does not understand the moral teaching of the Christian faith.

Uncle Sam: You Need to Cut Up Your Credit Card!

2011-07-26T21:54:00.001-04:00

Today I heard our great Senator Rand Paul on the radio being interviewed in regard to the current government budget and debt debate. He reminded me of something I had forgotten. In the proposals by both Democrat and Republican leadership, an ever-increasing baseline budget is the starting point for any supposed cuts. I think the annual baseline increase is around 7%.

This means that, in the end, the proposal that is being worked out by the Speaker of the House does not actually cut government spending at all. In fact, it allows it to increase significantly as time goes on, along with an ever-increasing government debt.

Suppose a friend with a “cash flow problem” (what a euphemism that is!) came to you for budgeting help. The friend has an enormous balance on his credit card, and not only is the balance increasing, but it is increasing at an ever-increasing rate. The friend wants to know what he can do other than declaring bankruptcy.

The friend is going to have to spend less. That will mean that he will have to stop buying many of the things to which he has been accustomed. He is necessarily going to have to trim his lifestyle significantly.

Surely any meaningful advice would also have to include this: stop borrowing money immediately. Do whatever you have to do to make sure you borrow no more! Cut up your credit card.

Could good advice in such a situation ever be “just try to slow down the rate at which you are going into debt?” Could good advice include the idea “assume you will spend and borrow more each year, and just cut down how much more you are going to go into debt”?

But this is exactly what even the Republican leadership is proposing for the United States government. It sounds utterly idiotic when you put in terms of your hypothetical, over-spending friend. And it sounds just as idiotic when it comes from the Speaker of the House.

Just like a person with a massive, continuing credit card balance, the United States needs to stop borrowing money. We should have stopped it a long time ago. But now it is now, and now is always good time to stop borrowing.

It would be a good thing, not some kind of tragedy, if the “debt ceiling” were never raised again.

It’s Time for Repentance

2011-07-19T11:10:00.001-04:00

from The Freeman, in an old article by Hans Sennholz:

Most Americans favor it [government spending], legislators enact it, and government agents administer it. A Constitutional amendment calling for balanced budgets, enacted under such conditions, may restore balance through significant tax boosts. But it may also lead to massive reorganization of government activity and spending. In particular, it may prompt a Federal rush to the backdoors of government spending, and give rise to countless new off-budget agencies and private enterprises under government control. The possibilities of concealment and just plain trickery are endless. It is naive to believe that a balanced budget amendment, enacted by the masters of subterfuge, could dampen the enthusiasm for Federal largess.

Kent comments:

I hope “Cut, Cap, and Balance” passes the House today. It has little chance to pass the Senate, and no chance to avoid an Obama veto.

But even if it, or anything like it, were to pass through Congress and the President, Sennholz (he is now deceased, I met him long ago - He had a very interesting life story) has a good point to make in this article from 1987. We are in the current fiscal mess because most Americans want the government to spend a lot of money. They also do not want the government to collect (in taxes on them) all the money they want the government to spend. The government couldn’t collect that money because we don’t have it.

Most of us have wanted all this for a long time now – as did our parents and perhaps even some of our grandparents. Politicians have simply done the bidding of most of us. This means that ever-increasing government debt is a spiritual problem, involving greed, envy, and many other issues that are ultimately spiritual.

Wanting things you can’t afford, and acting to get them even when you can’t afford them, is a spiritual problem. It is the kind of problem which can be solved only by repentance, that is, a fundamental change of your mind about the problem at hand.

Nothing is changed by the fact that the things you want might at least seem good, benevolent, or nice. Take careful note of this: at one level it is just as wrong to borrow money you can’t pay back to help your needy neighbor as it is to borrow money you can’t pay back to buy yourself a new car. (Think about that again, and maybe a third time.)

I utterly detest the ideology of Obama and his whole gang of thugs. But his resistance to correcting the problem of ever-increasing government spending and the resulting increasing debt simply mirrors what most Americans want. And I am confident that if you examine yourself carefully, you will find that you want governments to do all sorts of things that governments need not do – and you don’t want to pay for them.

So until YOU are willing to repent of your government spending addictions, don’t blame politicians for simply carrying out the desires of you and most of your neighbors. The national government has a large credit card with a limit it can raise at will mostly because you want it that way. You like at least some of the results. You like to spend money you don’t have. The only solution to that problem is repentance.

True and Literal

2011-07-12T13:00:00.001-04:00

May 25, 2007

One-Third of Americans Believe the Bible Is Literally True

High inverse correlation between education and belief in a literal Bible

by Frank Newport

GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

PRINCETON, NJ -- About one-third of the American adult population believes the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally word for word. This percentage is slightly lower than several decades ago. The majority of those Americans who don't believe that the Bible is literally true believe that it is the inspired word of God but that not everything it in should be taken literally. About one in five Americans believe the Bible is an ancient book of "fables, legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by man."

Kent comments:

Educated people should understand that it is nearly meaningless to modify “true” with “literally” in this way. The real question is: are all the statements of the Bible true? It is pointless to insert “literally” here.

Of course we can debate what kinds of language are being used at various points in the Bible. There are many ways to express truth, many of which are some kind of figure of speech. But even figures of speech must, in some sense, be taken “word for word.” Every word of a figure of speech is important.

Notice the categories in this poll:

When you try to understand these categories, you run into a conceptual brick wall. (That last phrase, by the way, is a figure of speech. But it is one that rather clearly expresses a truth.)

I imagine now these three options presented to me in a poll. I have to try to answer a poll that presents a false trichotomy. I believe the Bible to be the “actual word of God” in the sense that God superintended its production so that all that it claims is truth. But if I am forced to add “to be taken literally” I must quickly add that if you take the many figures of speech in the Bible literally, you will most certainly misunderstand many parts of the Bible!

As for the second choice, I don’t even know what to make of saying that the Bible is “inspired by word of God.” I could affirm that the Bible “is the inspired word of God” but that is very different.

The third option is also problematic. I don’t think the Bible is fable or legend as those words are normally used. I do think that some of it is history as recorded by some men, men whose recording activity was overseen by God.

So, in the end, this Gallup Poll is nearly meaningless. We don’t learn what people believe about the Bible here because the responses are too limited, and very vague. It might be difficult to learn what people think about the Bible in a poll, because many people, even Christian people, have not thought very much about what they do, in fact, think about the Bible.

I know a wonderful church lady who insists that the Bible must be everywhere and always taken “literally.” But I doubt that she believes we should rip out our eyeballs when we have a problem with a sin that involves seeing things – as you might have to conclude if you really took Matt. 18:9 “literally.”

The Value of ‘Values’ Polls

2011-06-28T20:43:00.001-04:00

Poll: Most Americans No Longer Want Government Promoting 'Traditional Values'

The recent recession and a movement favoring less government may contribute to recent poll numbers.

Tobin Grant | posted 6/16/2011 09:52AM

A new CNN-Opinion Research poll finds that a majority of Americans think government should not promote "traditional values," the first time in the past two decades that support for promotion of traditional values has been below 50 percent. The June poll finds that more Americans now believe that the government should stay out of the values business.

Since 1993, Gallup, CNN, and USA Today have occasionally asked whether people think "the government should promote traditional values in our society" or "the government should not favor any particular set of values." Just three years ago, only four-in-ten polled said government should not support any one set of values. In this month's poll, 50 percent said this. For the first time, a minority (46 percent) wanted government to push traditional values.

Kent comments:

I find these kinds of polls amusing. It’s as though pollsters make an effort to dream up truly idiotic things to ask people.

First of all, what exactly are “traditional values”? If you ask people about something as vague as that, each one will answer based on how he defines the term in his mind. So the hidden questions in such a question includes: how do you define “traditional values”?

And since “traditional values” remains undefined by the pollsters, it is not, in fact a “particular set of values” even though it sounds like a particular set as the question is worded. So in essence the question is: should the government promote an undefined set of values, or should the government not favor any particular set of values. Those two questions so similar that picking one over the other tells us almost nothing about what the respondent is thinking.

Another problem here is this: the mere existence of a government necessarily involves favoring a set of values that includes the legitimacy of government. This fact makes the question a bit of worded nonsense. The government cannot both exist and “stay out of the values business.”

Perhaps, worst of all, the question assumes a kind of values relativism. It seems to assume that sets of values are completely interchangeable and even discardable. But the introduction of “should” into the question implies that, in theory at least, there are things governments should and should not do. Such “shoulds” are part of a set of values.

The moral of the story is this: when you ask idiotic questions, the answers are completely meaningless.

The Spirit of Prohibitionism

2011-06-28T10:49:00.001-04:00

Just the other day the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional a California law that prohibited the sale of ‘violent’ video games to minors. (Of course, the video games I know are not ‘violent.’ Rather, they portray violence on a game screen. We should not confuse the two with deceptive semantics.) Several states have recently passed, or are considering, laws banning some kinds of bath salts. Why? Some people use them to try to obtain some kind of ‘high’.

Just recently I stopped at a Wal-mart in Indiana to purchase a can of lubricating oil. It being the only thing I was purchasing, I proceeded to the self-checkout. When I scanned the item, the system summoned the attendant to confirm that I was over 18 years old.

Apparently a fleeting glance was enough to confirm that fact (sigh), but I asked, “Why does my age matter?” I should not have needed to ask. It was because it was an aerosol can. Some kids will ‘sniff’ anything from an aerosol can.

I am here to declare that the spirit of prohibitionism has given rise to a nanny state that has gone way off the deep end. The ‘war on drugs’ (always beware when the state declares a ‘war’ or any inanimate object) has become a war on everything.

But the problem is not just that the prohibitionist principle has been taken to extremes. The problem is deep within the prohibitionist principle itself. And it is very unfortunate indeed that many Christians hold the prohibitionist principle almost as an article of faith.

I assume the motives are good. Item X can be misused by people to harm themselves. We love people. Therefore we will convince the government to ban X. What could be more reasonable?

But it is not reasonable at all, and it is not particularly Christian, either. It gives the state power that God never authorized. The only way for the state even to attempt to prevent you from harming yourself is for the state to attempt to control everything you do. That is the essence and definition of totalitarianism.

Many things we use everyday could be used to harm ourselves. God made us decision-making creatures who are also required to suffer the consequences of our decisions. Prohibitionism attempts to deny this.

Even when prohibitionism is directed only at minors, it interferes with God’s order of things. Minors are in the charge of their parents. It is the job of parents to see that minors do not engage in self-harmful behavior. “But,” the prohibitionist will say, “some parents don’t do their jobs very well. So the state needs to do it for them.”

But this amounts to a kind of state vigilantism of the family. When the state fails to punish someone who has done great harm to someone else (and it happens frequently) would you then say that it is appropriate for the families in the neighborhood to simply take the offender to the nearest oak tree and hang him high? We would all call that vigilantism. So why then do some think it is appropriate for the state to step in and take over when a family fails to do its job well?

We all need to ‘gut up’ a bit in this regard. If some teenagers are going to sniff aerosol lubricating oil in an attempt to get high, their parents should stop them. If the parents fail, some teenagers will probably die. That is a horrible situation, but it is not business of the state. Christians can preach, teach, council, and comfort in regard to this problem. But we align ourselves against God’s order of things when when we turn to prohibitionism.

Of Father’s Day at Church

2011-06-20T17:36:00.001-04:00

Father’s Day at church

Yesterday was, of course, Father’s Day. Over the decades of my church-going life, I have noticed some odd and interesting things about Father’s Day at church. When I say “at church” I am talking about my experiences at (independent) Christian churches.

First off, it is amusing that both Mother’s Day and Father’s Day are almost always celebrated at church. These are congregations that would never think of celebrating long-standing days on the church calendar like Advent or Pentecost. That would be too “ecclesiastical” I suppose. But Mother’s Day and Father’s Day – those receive significant attention in many ways.

It is also odd to see what usually happens in regard to the symmetry of these two days. (My wife pointed this out several years ago.) On Mother’s Day, there is usually much ado about the glory of mothers. Mother’s with the most children, the youngest child, the mother who came from the farthest, etc., are all recognized and given awards of some kind. After that, a sermon is preached in which the virtues of motherhood are extoled.

Then there is Father’s Day. Father’s get raked over the coals. They are urged to improve. They are urged to do their duty. They are urged to repent of their insufficient fathering. Have you ever heard that sort of approach to mothers at church? I have not. I would be surprised if most churches could survive this kind of treatment of mothers on Mother’s Day.

Just to illustrate this asymmetry, this year at our church on Mother’s Day, every mother present received flowers. On Father’s Day every father received a book about avoiding sexual temptation. Interesting, isn’t it?

Overall, the general message from churches on these matters seems to be this: praise mothers, they are wonderful; you rotten fathers need to shape up and get your act together. And to think that I read somewhere that men seem to like church less than women – I wonder why?

I think my wife is right about all this.

The Nonsense of ‘Just Do It’

2011-06-18T12:42:00.001-04:00

In a recent editorial in the Christian Standard the reader is asked to consider trends among Christian Churches. One of these trends is described as:

The question is changing from “What do you believe?” to “What are you doing?” This doesn’t mean today’s church leaders no longer believe anything. Most of them hold firmly to the deity of Christ, the authority of the Scriptures, and the efficacy of baptism. But correct doctrine isn’t their first discussion; crucial to them is correct practice: How are we living out the gospel and offering God’s hope to our world? Is ours a good church for the community as well as in the community?

The editorial ends by challenging us to “respond to such changes.” If I am reading the editorial rightly, the kind of “response” called for is to accept the “trend” and simply work with it as a fact.

This idea of “practice first” goes beyond Christian Churches, beyond Christendom in general, and even beyond religion. In no field can the first question be “practice.” It is simply a nonsensical order of things.

There is absolutely no way to know that your practice is correct apart from correct theory. To put this in terms of the Christian faith, you cannot even begin to know if what you propose to do will please God unless you first consider what God has said about that matter in scripture.

Doctrine controls practice. Therefore, doctrine must logically precede practice. You cannot “live out the gospel” if you are not clear what the gospel teaches, and what the gospel teaches is doctrine – what you believe.

I know I am beginning to repeat myself here, but this trend is really not all that new, and it is completely untenable. It reminds me of people who want to play a game without reading and comprehending the rules. We want to “just do it” because we are impatient pragmatists. But there is no way to know what to do, or if you are doing the right thing, without first knowing the rules.

The editor tells us that this whole trend “doesn’t mean today’s church leaders no longer believe anything.” But what it does mean is that this trend is in fact a trend toward not allowing beliefs to define or constrain practice. That lack of definition and constraint is beginning to become obvious in the practices advocated by some “church leaders.”

Freedom Rankings in the States

2011-06-17T15:11:00.001-04:00

Which State Is Most Free?

Freedom in the 50 States, a study from the Mercatus Institute, comprehensively ranks the American states on their public policies that affect individual freedoms in the economic, social and personal spheres.

Mercatus' approach to measuring freedom in the states is unique in three respects: (1) it includes measures of social and personal freedoms such as peaceable citizens' rights to educate their own children, to own and carry firearms, and to be free from unreasonable search and seizure; (2) it incorporates more than 150 distinct public policies; and (3) it is particularly careful to measure fiscal policies in a way that reflects the true cost of government to the citizen.

Kent comments:

The Mercatus rankings are intriguing. New Hampshire ranks highest in freedom. I’m glad to hear that, since their motto is “Live Free or Die.” I guess this means they don’t have to die just yet!

New York is the least free – surprise, surprise. California is third from the bottom. Again, no surprise there.

But here in the greater Cincinnati area, we are in the so-called ‘tri-state’ of Ohio, Indiana, and Kentucky. I was surprised to find that good old Indiana, the country of my birth and childhood, ranks number three in this freedom index. But her neighbors don’t fare so well.

Kentucky is 32nd. I have lived in Kentucky for the last thirty-some years. It is filled with mostly very friendly people, far too many of whom who would not know freedom if it bit them in the posterior. There is a ‘good old boy’ network in Kentucky politics that is essentially statist in nature, including far too many of the Republicans. Kentucky is a low-population state that is waiting to explode in economic activity and prosperity as soon that good old boy (and it includes plenty of females) is cast aside in favor of low taxes and low regulation. Almost everything in Kentucky is taxed. If I were starting a business, I would not do it in Kentucky. So it almost surprises me that Kentucky made it as high as 32nd!

But even worse here in the tri-state is Ohio. The formerly great state of Ohio ranks 42nd in the freedom standings, which is below Illinois! People in Ohio complain that business is leaving their state. They could easily solve that problem by reinstalling freedom in Ohio. This takes courage because, once addicted to government, it can be difficult to break that bad habit.

Freedom is a means to many ends. Freer people tend to be more prosperous. But even without accompanying prosperity freedom is a good. Freedom of the kind we are talking about here has an intrinsic value for human beings because it simply comports with our very nature.

One idea mentioned more than once in The Federalist Papers is that of the several states under the Constitution being in a kind of social competition. While the central government has assumed many of the powers once held by the states, there still seems to be room for some competition in regard to freedom.

But it is more and more the case that much of the room for improvement in regard to human freedom lies with the national government. As a whole, the United States has been slipping in the various rankings of freedom in countries around the world. Even in New Hampshire, people are not nearly as free as the should be because of our bloated central government.

The Audible Voice of God

2011-06-11T15:33:00.001-04:00

In a recent article about the importance of Bible reading, I came across this interesting passage:

Has God ever spoken directly to you? While I’ve never heard the audible voice of God, many credible people have. This morning I spoke with the wife of one of our elders about her recent experience. Betsy had just finished teaching a Bible lesson on the experience of Hezekiah as recorded in 2 Kings 20. If you remember the account, the prophet Isaiah told the king he was about to die. The king fervently prayed, and God spoke through the prophet once again, promising to extend Hezekiah’s life by 15 years. Isaiah knew exactly what the Lord had said.

Does God ever clearly speak like that today? Betsy said shortly after teaching that lesson to her class, God taught her one as well. After a coffee break, she was praying while walking back up the stairs to her classroom. Her prayer concerned the possibility of her husband’s job being moved to another city. She was anxious. But during the prayer, she was stunned by a calm but challenging voice: “Why do you not trust that I will take care of you?” The surprising clarity of that message brought immediate peace. Even though Betsy didn’t yet know where her husband’s next assignment would be, the message God spoke was both deeply calming and convicting. She renewed her commitment to simply trust the Lord.

Kent comments:

I know we are not supposed to comment on things such as this, so, or course, I will comment.

First, if God will speak to us in an “audible voice” why do we need to read the Bible? Do we just “fall back” on the Bible when God refuses us the audible voice? (By the way, I’ve always wondered how an inaudible voice of God would sound.)

Second, since this is God speaking, why shouldn’t it be inscripturated (written) with all the other recent messages people claim to have received from God. Should we expect the Holy Spirit to become involved in assuring that these messages are accurately recorded? Do these then form the newest book in the Bible?

Third, How does Betsy know this voice she heard was from God? One answer might be, “She was praying, so of course this ‘answer’ must be from God.” The problem with this kind of reasoning is that God has never promised to answer prayers in an audible voice. So the mere fact that Betsy reports hearing a voice does not mean that voice is from God. And while the writer reports that “the surprising clarity” of the message brought “immediate peace” this also does not prove it is the voice of God.

Finally, notice how the writer of this article attempts to connect the case of Betsy the elder’s wife with the case of Hezekiah. If it could happen to Hezekiah, why not to Betsy? But notice that in the Biblical episode of Hezekiah, Hezekiah’s prayer was answered not through an audible voice of God, but rather, through the prophet Isaiah. The two cases are not really parallel, it seems.

What if I were to claim that just now, God spoke to me in an audible voice to tell me that He did not speak to Betsy in an audible voice? How could we even begin to evaluate two such claims? Does Betsy’s claim win because she is the wife of an elder? (I’m not even a wife!)

This kind of thing comes up periodically in Christian circles. Usually, no one points it out or questions it. I suppose such questions are simply considered unseemly. In the case of Betsy, it all seems very innocent enough since nothing important is at stake.

But what happens when later, perhaps, God speaks to another elder’s wife explaining the “correct” understanding of the Book of Revelation? (Or something else, perhaps – try your own example here.)

A Bad Idea, and Evil to Boot

2011-05-25T17:07:00.001-04:00

Here is an excellent article that came out today:

The Lehman Brothers Plan

You should read it and think about it – it is not long at all. Just to whet your appetite, here is a big:

People often ask me, "What do you think the government should do instead of QE inflation?" My stock answer is that the government should not try to fight the depression with government spending and cheap credit. Trying to stop the market from correcting the errors of the past only delays the consequences and makes them much worse.

Government should balance its budget. There should be no new credit expansion by the Federal Reserve. Most importantly, government should not meddle in markets to try to soften the consequences of the correction. Specifically, that means no bailouts, stimulus packages, or new public-works projects. Do not prop up wages. Allow competition to lower the prices of land, labor, and capital. The only positive steps for government to take are implementing tax cuts and spending cuts, eliminating regulations, and allowing free trade.

One attendant point that the author does not add is that because of the repeated, failed attempts of government to avoid recessions, our latter-day ones have become more severe. But apart from that, this is a very serious social ethical matter.

One of the main reasons governments try to lessen the effects of recessions (and remember, this does not work – it only postpones and aggravates the problem) is because politicians have for many decades now claim to have done things like “create jobs” and “help the economy.” Governments can do nothing direct that will help any economy. They can be frugal, as the author of the article recommends. But EVERYTHING else governments do supposedly to “help the economy” makes the economy worse.

And this is an ethical problem because ALL the mechanisms governments use to “help” economies are violations of the Biblical Eighth Commandment – inflation, government works programs, you name it and it is more than a bad idea, it is a moral evil.

Have you ever heard a sermon at your church about something related to that?

Some Thoughts On Tornadoes

2011-05-24T12:46:00.001-04:00

Headline from The Washington Post:

Obama to visit Missouri Sunday; deadly tornadoes on the rise

Kent comments:

A deadly tornado wipes out much of Joplin, MO. What does The Washington Post notice about that? What else? Obama will pay them a visit. Obama’s whole public persona rather turns my stomach at bit, but even apart from our beloved leader, I have always found government officials visiting disaster cites amusing. Once a strong storm came through where we live. The next day I was out repairing the house and cleaning up the mess. Did I care if the President, or any other official drove by to have a look? Not really – unless he was prepared to get out of his expensive ride and do some work to help – which such persons never are, of course. (Yes, I know they are sometimes willing to send other people’s money to ‘help’ – but that is another matter.)

But our story continues, and as I read, I wondered when the ‘global warming’ angle would show up. Oddly, the next point was this:

An emerging body of research points to a cyclical drop in temperatures in the Pacific Ocean as part of the answer. Called La Nina, the cycle lasts at least five months and repeats every three to five years. This year La Nina is pushing a strong North American jet stream east and south, altering prevailing winds. The jet stream’s river of cool air high in the atmosphere pulls warmer, more humid air from the ground upward, forming thunderstorm “supercells.”

You mean the Pacific Ocean getting cooler could help create more deadly tornadoes? That’s what some think. But The Washington Post were not just going to leave those chips on the table. The very next words were:

The climate-change factor?

“Climate change could be boosting one of those ingredients [for tornadoes], but it depends on how these ingredients come together,” said Robert Henson, a meteorologist at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.

Well, they tried to get ‘climate change’ in the mix, but their experts weren’t really biting this time. I can just see those reports overcome with disappointment.

Don’t Say ‘Shotgun’

2011-05-21T12:08:00.001-04:00

Shotgun Club raises alarm on campus

Published on February 09, 2011.
By Cassie Stone

A new club forming at Northern Kentucky University and its promotional materials are raising safety concerns for some students.

The Shotgun Club is a registered campus organization designed to bring interested students together to compete in trap and skeet shooting competitions, but the new club’s name choice made some students concerned that it might be promoting personal gun use . . .

Kent comments:

This is a ‘story’ from The Northerner, the official, university-sponsored student newspaper at Northern Kentucky University. I don’t know Cassie Stone, and I am not picking on her in particular. NKU is just ‘my place’ so I pay attention here. But if you have ever wondered why it is that reporting is biased, you can see that it begins early, and appears to be encouraged by those who teach journalism.

Now, to be completely fair (something journalists don’t always bother to do), this story does go on to quote a university official who attempts to disarm (maybe a little pun intended here on my part) these “concerns”.

But notice how this story begins. Our attention is supposed to be arrested by the concern of “some students.” Who are these students? How many students? None of these questions are even recognized in the ‘story’ – let alone answered. One wonders if the “students” who were concerned might be just Cassie Stone and some one person she knows.

But, whoever they might be, notice also exactly what “concerns” these students: the name of the club. These students are “concerned” that a group is named “The Shotgun Club.” A name like that worries me to the point of sickness – how about you?

Can’t you just picture this little group of concerned students (assuming they exist) huddled in some corner of campus, worrying about the name “Shotgun”? Imagine someone passing by whispering the word “shotgun” – at the sound of which the group faints dead away in fear.

And why does this very troubling name “concern” these (perhaps two) students? Because “it might be promoting personal gun use.” What other kind of gun use is even possible – “group gun use”? And what, exactly, is wrong with persons using shotguns? Does out little concerned group want everyone to vote? (I am willing to bet the answer is ‘yes’.) Then why not desire that everyone exercise his right to keep and bear arms?

The attempt to raise false – and somewhat idiotic - concerns about a non-issue in this way is just what recent “journalism” has become.

Cassie should expect offers from The New York Times or The Washington Post at any time.

Control Education, Control Society

2011-05-19T15:19:00.001-04:00

Parts of what follow are from “The Patriot Post” received today. The point of the piece is to mount an attack on Obama and his policies. But in all fairness, this is not just about Obama. Plenty of ‘conservatives’ want the state to control most education.

According to the Communist Party Education Workers Congress, "We must create out of the younger generation a generation of Communists. We must turn children, who can be shaped like wax, into real, good Communists. ... We must remove the children from the crude influence of their families. We must take them over and, to speak frankly, nationalize them. From the first days of their lives they will be under the healthy influence of Communist children's nurseries and schools. There they will grow up to be real Communists."

So far, this effort has generally been successful. That is not to imply that everything and everyone involved in the governments schools are overtly Communist. But the worldview that prevails in Departments of Education around our country are generally in line with the aims of many varieties of socialism.

Benjamin Disraeli, the conservative 19th-century British prime minister, noted, "Wherever is found what is called a paternal government, there is found state education. It has been discovered that the best way to insure implicit obedience is to commence tyranny in the nursery." His contemporary, John Stuart Mill, warned, "A general State education is a mere contrivance for molding people to be exactly like one another; and as the mold in which it casts them is that which pleases the dominant power in the government, whether this be a monarch, an aristocracy, or a majority of the existing generation; in proportion as it is efficient and successful, it establishes a despotism over the mind, leading by a natural tendency to one over the body."

As long as we continue to allow the state to be the main providers and controller of education, we can never hope to recover from the current statist, socialist bent our society.

Are We All Communists Now?

2011-05-19T12:33:00.001-04:00

Soviet dictator Nikita Khrushchev once said, "We can't expect the American people to jump from capitalism to communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have communism."

Of course, as some communists like to point out, the Soviet Union was never really communist. It never made it past the “dictatorship of the proletariat’ stage that communist advocates claimed was necessary to reach true communism. But according to Lenin, this dictatorship would need to be implemented by that elite part of the proletariat, the Communist Party. And the party would need to be “guided” by the party elite, that is, one dictator, or a very small oligarchy of dictators. All of this is necessary because even the proletariat does not know what is good for it.

So how are we doing in regard to Comrade Khrushchev’s prognostication? This little news item comes to mind in this context:

Boeing Corporation decided to build a new assembly plant in Charleston, South Carolina, in order to produce the 787 Dreamliner. The NLRB (which is responsible investigating unfair labor practices) got wind of the decision and last month filed a complaint against Boeing, alleging that the company decided to build the plant in South Carolina out of retaliation for union strikes at its Washington state facilities.

So now it appears you might not be allowed to build a new production facility where you want it. You must build it where the State (caps on purpose) wants it. Before the “New Deal” that would never have been an issue. And we have come a long way – in the wrong direction – since then.

“Until they awaken one day to find that they have communism . . .” Old Nikita was a bit vague. What he should have said (and probably really meant) was, “until the awaken one day to find themselves under a dictatorship of the party elite.” We arrived there a long time ago.

This, that, and the other thing:

2011-05-14T12:05:00.001-04:00

Newspeak – our Beloved Leader has an interesting new term for tax rate cuts: "spending reductions in the tax code." While not quite as blatantly propagandistic as that, pay attention to talking heads talking about recent price increases. These will usually be referred to as “inflation.” While it is true that the word has come to mean “rising prices” it is good to remember the original denotation of the word: “an increase in the supply of money.” Such increases in our system are the result of governments, which are the creators of our money, creating more of it.

This becomes important because the same governments will typically blame those who sell things for “inflation.” Our Beloved Leader’s administration recently launched an investigation of oil companies for “price gouging” in the sale of gasoline. It is a convenient 1984-style way to cover the fact that prices increase that are the result of inflation are also the result of what the government has done in its never-ending creation of money.

Mind Control – Is anyone else tired of hearing state governments whine about not having enough money to “fund” the government schools? As it turns out, “While schools annually spend an average of about $10,000 per student, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) reports that only 60 percent of these expenditures are instructional.”

This means, of course, that schools could cut up to 40% without touching “instructional costs.” Another and better solution would be to get governments out of the schooling business. Just give eligible students vouchers for, on average, $6000 per year. This is a hard-sell because as it is governments and their union allies get to control schooling.

Even better but less likely to be implemented idea is to come to our political senses and realize that no one has a “right” to schooling at the expense of others. But that’s just crazy talk, of course.

The Culture of Lies – Hershel Shanks, editor of The Biblical Archaeology Review says, “J’accuse! I accuse the television program 60 Minutes of unethical and irresponsible reporting.” You can see the story details here, but the problem is that 6o Minutes dubbed words into the mouth of a man to make it appear that he confessed to something that he did not. As Hershel goes on to complain, “60 Minutes supports and demands transparency in government. It seems that 60 Minutes is in favor of transparency except when it comes to 60 Minutes.”

Hershel, Hershel, why are you so surprised? 60 Minutes is just trying to catch up with Dateline NBC which way back in 1992 rigged a truck to explode to help them “make” their point about how a GM truck might explode. The problem was that they did not bother to inform anyone that their example was rigged.

It’s just the way network news works these days. They are just trying to stay in tune with their Beloved Leader (see above)!

Could Design be ‘Intelligent’?

2011-05-11T22:00:00.000-04:00

Politicians Sway With What They Say

Rob Kyff

"Intelligent design."

Journalist Stephen Poole calls terms such as these "Unspeak," and that's the title of his compelling book about the manipulation of language.

While politicians have traditionally used euphemisms and doublespeak to conceal the truth, Poole explains, Unspeak seeks instead to convey an unspoken argument . . . "intelligent design" makes divine creation sound like an empirically validated scientific phenomenon.

Kent comments:

This is from Kyff’s column which he calls “The Word Guy.” It comes once per week from ArcaMax, which carries many things, including comic strips. Kyff’s weekly is usually very interesting and even helpful, but this week it has much in common with the comic strips.

In spite of what “Journalist Stephen Poole” says, the point of putting “intelligent” in front of “design” is to describe a view in a way that distinguishes it from “accidental design” or perhaps “apparent design.”

Note to Rob Kyff – apparent design (which according to its proponents turns out to be accidental) is a very popular view. One alternative is “intelligent design.” The point of the label is not to presume that this view is intelligent. The point of the label is to indicate that, according to this view at least, there was “an intelligence” behind the design, and thus the design is not merely apparent.

It appears that both Poole and Kyff are either unaware of this, or choose to ignore it just to create a supposed example of “Unspeak.” I now need to read Kyff’s column with more scrutiny.

Ding Dong, the Witch Is Dead

2011-05-09T21:58:00.001-04:00

I am reluctant to come even near this topic because I think it has received far too much attention. The topic: the death of Osama Bin Laden. What interests me is the reaction to his death.

That reaction can best be described as “hand wringing” – and it is on display everywhere.

Two periodicals I read regularly, Christianity Today and the Christian Standard were nearly worried sick over the fact that someone might gloat over Bin Laden’s death. At church this past Sunday the minister had written his weekly article about something related to Bin Laden, and even the communion meditation was most about the death of Bin Laden – and all with at least a little worry and a hint of guilt about the possibility that someone might rejoice at Bin Laden’s death.

And this fretting was not limited to Christian publications or other public forums. The whole country seemed almost phobic at the thought of someone celebrating the death of Bin Laden. Even our current President – whose last name was unfortunately often mistakenly inserted in place of Bin Laden’s first name in reports of the death – was careful to remind us that we should not rejoice over this death.

So I went poking around cyber space looking for contemporary reactions to the death of Adolph Hitler. Here are some samples:

“Mussolini is dead, Hitler is dead – but what’s the difference? There are lots more.”

“Why waste words on Hitler?”

“I wish I was the guy who killed him. I’d killed him a little slower. Awful slow.”

“Yeah, I guess he’s dead. But so are a lot of good guys. And you just remember that.”

Without necessarily endorsing anything said about Hitler, I still must ask: what has happened to us since 1945?

For one thing, those people as a group are not “us.” They are or were our parents or grandparents. They seemed to have a very different way of thinking about bad guys than we do. We tend to think that bad guys are bad mostly because of something bad we have done to them. Our forebears did not tend to agree.

I am not about to throw a “Ding dong, the Bin Laden is dead” party. But I don’t feel bad that he is dead. Instead, I am a bit relieved.

But I still have to ask: Why the difference from the reactions to the death of Hitler? Was it because Hitler was responsible for the death of millions of innocent people while Bin Laden was only responsible for thousands of innocent people? Did Bin Laden simply not hit some modern psychological threshold of innocent deaths that would qualify him for our unqualified collective scorn?

I don’t know. I think we just might have become weenies, but of course that is not at all insightful. But I will admit to some degree of agreement with some of those sentiments from 1945, and would reword them thus:

Bin Laden is dead - but what’s the difference? There are lots more.

Why waste words on Bin Laden?

Bin Laden is dead. But so are a lot of good guys. And you just remember that.

It Just Might Be

2011-05-04T20:43:00.001-04:00

Which, by the way, just might be why they have never wanted us to have them. It might also be why they try to invent so many circumstances when we cannot have them, even in the face of “shall not be infringed.”

It might be.

Demand and Deliver

2011-04-29T10:30:00.001-04:00

You’ve gotta love Agnes.Tony Cochran, the creator of this strip, often makes important points via Agnes. I’m guessing this is meant only to be humorous, but I don’t want to deny Tony his due – maybe he is making a deeper point here than I am seeing.

But here is the point I want to make: all these things that Agnes is requesting, and so many more we continue to ask governments to give, are things governments are simply incapable of providing. Governments, at their very best (which they seldom are), can keep the peace so we can have the chance to provide these things for ourselves.

But the moment any government pretends to provide us with anything from cheese to world peace, you can expect less and less of it as time goes by. (Now I want to start singing, “You must remember this . . .”) Demand things all you want, but in the end government will not deliver because it cannot deliver.

For far too long, too many of us have been writing these Agnes letters to government. It has gotten us into our current mess. It is now time to write with only one request on our list: keep the peace, but otherwise, leave us alone.

And They Come With Custom-Designed Wrappers, Too!

2011-04-26T15:51:00.001-04:00

According to a recent new story:

A new campaign by Philadelphia officials to reduce sexually transmitted diseases allows children as young as 11 to receive free condoms via mail order . . .

As young as eleven? Really? Of course, why should anyone receive free condoms from any government? There is, of course, a whole series of answers typically given to that kind of question: because if we don’t give away condoms, there might be more sexually transmitted diseases and more unwanted (by their biological parents) children. Those are problems that will cost the government in question a lot of money to clean up. So we need to give away condoms – deliver them to your door if that helps.

Apparently, it does help. As the story goes on to report:

"Playing it safe just got easier," the website reads. "If you live in Philadelphia and are between the ages of 11 and 19, you can now have condoms mailed directly to you for FREE. Maybe it's difficult for you to stop by one of our sites to pick up condoms. Or maybe you're just shy or feeling weird about picking up condoms."

So you might be “shy or feeling weird” about collecting your free condoms in person. But, of course, you don’t feel at all shy about what you intend to do with those condoms. Seems like good bureaucratic reasoning to me.

You might think someone would complain about this arrangement in Philadelphia, but apparently not:

Jeff Moran, a spokesman for Philadelphia's Department of Health, said the campaign was launched last week. No complaints had been received as of today, he said.

Probably most Philadelphians were just feeling a bit too “shy or weird” to complain. And if no one complains, it must be a good idea! And then, this little detail comes up in the story:

Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter unveiled the campaign on April 7 as he announced the winning design for the city's custom-labeled condom wrapper.

I wonder where this contest from hell took place? Can’t you picture all the grade school teachers in Philly announcing to their classes, “Children, the Mayor has asked that you work on a design for our glorious city’s custom-labeled condom wrapper. And don’t’ forget – the winner gets all the condoms you can use for the rest of your life.”

I wonder if Philadelphia received federal funds for this wonderful project?

No, friends, there is simply nothing governments can do to economize. There are no stupid, pointless, even counter-productive things that are funded by governments. Nothing like a design contest for a custom-labeled condom wrapper for eleven-year-olds in Philadelphia.

Nothing like that.

GPA Redistribution

2011-04-25T19:45:00.001-04:00

In an interesting video piece at Accuracy In Academia (well worth a look) students at a few universities approached their fellow students with a petition that would put in place at their respective universities a policy that those with extremely high GPAs would have some of their GPS “redistributed” to students with low-end GPAs. The point, of course, was to note the reactions.

While some initially questioned the analogy, it was difficult to evade the force of it. If you think the government should redistribute incomes (especially those of the highest earners) then why not do the same with GPAs? Sure, some GPA low-earners are just goof-offs, but not all are. Some are just less talented. Some just are not as smart. On the other hand, some with high GPAs work hard for them, but some just have a “knack” for academics. So why not “even things up” a bit?

Many objected that this “would not be fair.” But if GPA redistribution is not fair, why is income redistribution fair? Many said, “It’s just different.” But they could never explain exactly why it was different. You could see that most had never thought of things in quite this way, and most of them struggled to respond, not dismissing the question or just walking away. It is quite interesting.

One young lady did not reject the GPA redistribution out of hand, but she wanted to understand the proposal better: was it just that students would be permitted to give some of their GPA to others, or would it be out of their individual control? The proposal was to make this a policy out of the control of individual students. The young lady did not think that was fair.

Of course, it would not be fair, any more than is income redistribution. But in our current cultural climate, I would not be surprised to hear some university official propose just such a system in some form or other.

More A Slave Than You Thought

2011-04-21T11:05:00.001-04:00

In a recent National Review article, Iain Murray complains that:

Every year we are reminded how much money the government filches from us on Tax Day. However, there is no equivalent ‘Regulation Day’ to remind us the extra cost government imposes on us through pettifogging regulation. The fact is that federal regulations (never mind state and local) cost even more than the skyrocketing federal budget deficit, and help bring the federal government’s share of the economy to over 35 percent.

However, Americans for Tax Reform does calculate a “total cost of government” day each year. Here is a summary of what they found for last year:

In 2010, Cost of Government Day falls on August 19. Working people must toil 231 days out of the year just to meet all costs imposed by government -8 days later than last year and a full 32 days longer than 2008. In other words, in 2010 the cost of government consumes 63.41 percent of national income.

Many lower-income people pay little or no national income tax. Some pay very little state income tax. Of course, there are many other taxes that everyone pays, regardless of income. When you try to catalog all these, a database is required.

But beyond all the taxes – and they are legion – there is the cost of government imposed on everyone via regulations. These regulations simply (?) makes many things much more expensive than they would otherwise be.

But these regulations certainly make many things unavailable to us. Of course, “things that might have been” are difficult to imagine sometimes. But when regulations inhibit human creative activity, it is inevitable that those regulations also preclude the development of many ideas that might have been useful things.

But these things remain forever unseen – which is exactly what purveyors of government regulation want. So last we were slaves of the state, on average, for 231 of the 365 days available to us. Not only that, but we slaves of the state worked in a world missing some amazing things that might have been.

Lock and Load

2011-04-20T18:05:00.001-04:00

This excellent piece came today:

Three More Attacks on Civilization

Mises Daily: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 by Jeffrey A. Tucker

The article concludes with this:

In these three examples, we can see the model at work: Puritans and paranoids work with bureaucrats to unravel all the gains that markets have made for civilization. And they do this not with persuasion or an attempt to convert us to their primitive faith. Instead, they do it by force, driving us back to the compost pile, the river for cleaning, and, eventually, having to hunt and gather for food that we take back to our caves, which serve as domestic environs for those lucky enough to survive their regime of coerced poverty.

Read it for the details. Those details would be funny if they did not represent what is now a clear and present danger to civilization: environmentalism. Of all the recent “isms” this one might be the worst. It now infects almost all educational institutions, many retailing corporations, most churches, and (of course) governments at all levels.

I have tried to be forgiving and understanding of environmentalists. But the luxury of those days is over. It is now time for all those who prefer not to live in caves to declare war on environmentalism and all of its followers.

Not long ago at the grocery store I was presented with a cloth grocery bag that was inscribed with a slogan about “saving mother earth.” I told the store employee (in a rather loud voice so everyone around would hear) that the earth was not my mother, that the earth was in no danger from human activity, and that I was more than a little bit sick of having this garbage foist upon me when trying to buy some groceries. This employee – a nice lady with whom I am somewhat acquainted – was baffled by what I said. She had never thought about it, it seemed.

We are constantly bombarded with environmentalist excrement to the point that we don’t know that we are covered with it and standing in it. It is past time to clean ourselves up, and take out the trash.

For now this is a war of ideas. But there could come a time when, in order to defend even the possibility of civilization, we might have to defend ourselves physically against the aggression of environmentalists and their “ism.” As Tucker points out above, environmentalists routinely use force to achieve their insane goals.

Remember, self-defense (even according to Augustine) can be a justification for war.

To Market, to Market . . .

2011-04-14T11:20:00.001-04:00

People delaying religion: study

BY DEREK ABMA, POSTMEDIA NEWSAPRIL 11, 2011

Not only are longer life expectancies allowing people to postpone retirement, they feel less rushed to make peace with God, a new study suggests.

Research out of the United Kingdom links the decline in religious participation in developed countries, where life expectancies are high, and the idea that time isn't running out as fast on people's chances to secure a place in heaven.

"Many religions and societies link to some degree the cumulative amount of religious effort to benefits in the afterlife," said Elissaios Papyrakis, an economist at the University of East Anglia and one of the study's authors. "We show that higher life expectancy discounts expected benefits in the afterlife and is therefore likely to lead to postponement of religiosity, without necessarily jeopardizing benefits in the afterlife."

Kent comments:

First of all, the University of East Anglia rings a bell. That’s the place where some purveyors of the phony “climate change” hype were caught “massaging” the evidence. We will assume, for the moment, that since is a different department, the economist cited here is giving this to us straight.

Now, on to the important points . . .

My first thought was: Really? People are doing an implicit cost/benefit analysis on when to “buy your ticket for heaven” so to speak? Really? I’m likely to live longer, so I can put off religion a bit longer, live it up in the interim I suppose, and still “make it to heaven” by becoming religious in my older age. Really?

The study even had some recommendations for the Canadian church as to what could be done about this:

The U.K. study said religious organizations looking to attract members should focus less on benefits in the afterlife, and more on what can be offered in one's worldly life from the Church. Such things could include expanding one's social circle, participation in various activities, spiritual fulfilment and guidance.

In other words, “religious organizations” should market themselves more toward the “what you can get here-and-now” rather than talking so much about eternity.

But a good guess would be that the pandering that is already being done by churches (I’ll limit my thoughts to Christendom here) could well be part of the cause of this whole attitude. Think of the kind of mindset that would even consider this cost/benefit “how long can I put it off and still cash in” approach. It is the mindset of a consumer. And consumers are exactly the group and attitude to which the “marketing church” has been appealing for the last few decades.

Maybe the real lesson to be learned here is not how better to “market” religion, but rather, that religion – Christianity at least – is not something that should be “marketed” at all. Perhaps “marketing” – which might be fine for goods and services – is simply not compatible with the Christian faith, because the Christian faith is not at all something to be consumed, but rather, something to be believed, embraced, lived, and hoped.

And no, that is not a marketing appeal! Just a statement and an invitation.

The Inflation Beast

2011-04-13T11:22:00.001-04:00

There is a nice piece out from the Mises Institute today titled:

“The Fed Obliterates the Savings Ethic”

I won’t review all the details here; go have a read for yourself. But the point is that when our government, via the Federal Reserve System, creates more money (there are several ways it can do this) it has the predictable effect of making existing money worth less – and perhaps, eventually, worthless.

This has, in turn, a predictable effect on how we tend to behave economically. It becomes counter-productive to save dollars “for a rainy day” (more in the article on this) because you notice that the dollars you are holding are decreasing in purchasing power – you have probably noticed some of that lately.

Correctly speaking, inflation is the act of creating additional money or its equivalent. Prices increases, per se, are not inflation. You will often hear the talking heads and their kin speak of someone increasing prices as inflation. Unfortunately, the word has been used this way for so long that it has taken on this misleading connotation.

Strictly speaking, general money prices increases are the predictable, eventual result of inflation. The Federal Reserve intends to create constant, moderate inflation – although it has often gotten our of control.

This is based on the faulty economic views of J. M. Keynes. The economic theories of Keynes have become the unquestioned orthodoxy of most governments today. There is a rich abundance of literature which displays the failings of Keynes’ views, which are generally ignored by those in power. Keynes’ views support government control of money, and government control of money is government control of people. Thus, it is not surprising that those in power are likely to say, along with Richard Nixon, “We are all Keynesians now.”

It is interesting to think of what would most likely be the case if governments did not control money. People trading freely would – as they have done in the past – generally settle on some commodity or commodities to use as a medium of exchange. Precious metals have been the historic pattern in this, because it is almost impossible to increase their supply enough to be inflationary.

In this kind of setting, you might decide to save some money, whatever money might be. If the economy grew, and the supply of goods and services continued to increase, your money would gradually become more valuable. You would have an incentive to save “for a rainy day.”

As things now stand, government policy in regard to money encourages people to consume – which is what governments want because this is what Keynes said made economies grow. But notice how this comes back to create an even more, and ever more, powerful state. When people do not save, they become more dependent on government, giving government an excuse to grab more power.

So to sum up: government controls money and maintains a policy of inflation. Inflation discourages savings. Lack of savings makes more people demand help from the government. This increases the power of government.

Free people cannot tolerate this for long, or they soon will not be free. We are probably not significantly free people in this regard even now. The only question is whether or not it is too late to do anything about it.

Short, but Amusing

2011-04-12T11:33:00.001-04:00

from the Patriot Post:

Two Birds, One Stone

Libya wants a new Muslim leader. I say give them ours.

Solves 2 problems.

[Objections pre-noted – it’s still funny!]

Are Statists Really Smarter Than God?

2011-04-10T17:06:00.001-04:00

Today at church the sermon covered what has been the big objection to the Christian faith in the modern world: How can a good God allow all the evil and suffering we see in the world?

The best answer I have ever heard (and it does explain much) is that if God wanted to create creatures with freewill such as we are, the possibility of evil could not logically be excluded. In other words, once God decides to create human beings who can make significant moral choices, He has also committed Himself to at least the possibility of evil – evil that results from bad choices of creatures with free moral agency.

As one part of the sermon (which, the minister has informed us, is from the recent book The Reason for God) put it, if God’s wants creatures to have freedom of choice, He must also allow for evil. This is, for obvious reasons, often called “the freewill defense.”

This set me to thinking about how this playoff is handled by our society, especially by the “progressive” element that has been in control of our government for some time now. They seem to see the possibilities for society and the individuals who make it up in this same way: if there is freedom in society, there can be evils in society.

But UNLIKE God – and that does not surprise me – these progressive statists attempt to eliminate evils by eliminating freedom. God said, “Let there be freedom, although that might bring evil.” Progressives say, “Do away with freedom so we can eliminate evil.”

Now I realize this is over-simplified. Some of the “evils” progressives are after are simply matters of their own invention. (Things like “climate change” some to mind, but the list is a long one.) It is also the case that some evils (like physically coercing another human being) deserve punishment.

But consider something like “saving for a rainy day.” A person can create a very bad situation for himself if he always spends everything he makes and saves nothing for a rainy day – and some of those days come to most of us most of the time. This is a situation you might even call an “evil.”

Of course, the only way you can even attempt to preclude this situation is to eliminate freedom. You have to force people to save for a rainy day. And while it is rather stupid not to save for a rainy day, if you can be forced not to do stupid things, you are someone’s slave; you are not free.

So the statist progressives evented things like the so-called Social Security program. It attempts to prevent personal fiscal stupidity. It does it by eliminating freedom.

Thus do the statist progressives fancy themselves smarter than God.

Defund and Educrat Today!

2011-04-07T11:51:00.001-04:00

Judge: Anti-gay shirts worn by Neuqua Valley students OK

Apr 3, 2011 12:28AM

Neuqua Valley High School students would be allowed to wear “Be Happy, Not Gay” T-shirts under a ruling Tuesday by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The court had rejected Indian Prairie School District 204’s argument that school officials could prohibit students from wearing the shirts to prevent some students from having their feelings hurt.

In its opinion, the court said a “school that permits advocacy of the rights of homosexual students cannot be allowed to stifle criticism of homosexuality.”

“The school argued (and still argues) that banning ‘Be Happy, Not Gay’ was just a matter of protecting the ‘rights’ of the students against whom derogatory comments are directed,” the court said. “But people in our society do not have a legal right to prevent criticism of their beliefs or even their way of life.”

Nate Kellum, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, a legal alliance of Christian attorneys who represented the students in the suit, responded: “In an environment that freely allows speech that promotes homosexual behavior, the school simply cannot shut out the opposing viewpoint.”

Kent comments:

You don’t have to hate or even dislike those who practice homosexuality to hate this kind of thing. And this kind of thing has become nearly ubiquitous, especially in government school settings.

While schools are clearly not promoting free expression about this matter, they are certainly promoting one viewpoint, the ‘homosexual behavior is a good idea’ viewpoint. As the story goes on to explain, one young lady:

wore the T-shirt [in question] to school after the school permitted other students the previous day to wear shirts showing support for homosexuals as part of the “Day of Silence.” That event, promoted by the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network, intended to draw attention to harassment of homosexuals.

So the school permits an event “intended to draw attention to harassment of homosexuals” and then proceeds to officially harass a young lady with a dissenting opinion. If the “educrats” think harassment is bad, why are they doing it?

Here is something I do not understand: why do people continue to pay for, and put up with, the utter nonsense and malicious behavior of the government school establishment? Well-meaning people always think they can somehow reform it, re-make, or otherwise fix it. How much more of this kind of thing must we endue before people wake up and see the utter corruption of government-run schooling?

Non-Essential = Not Needed

2011-04-05T15:56:00.001-04:00

Unless Congress passes a continuing resolution for spending, the national government will “shut down” on Friday this week. But “shut down” is qualified. If you have been paying attention, what will “shut down” are non-essential government services.

Supposedly, everyone on Capital Hill is working feverishly to avoid this tragedy.

But here is a question: If the national treasury is trillions in arrears (and it is), and if something must be done to control our governments out-of-control spending (and it does), then why have we not shut down EVERYTHING that is non-essential years ago?

As I understand non-essential it means “not really needed.” If it is not really needed, why was the government ever doing it in the first place?

I noticed that even the Republican Speaker of the House has been saying recently that he doesn’t want such a shut-down to happen. I have to wonder what kind of fiscal conservative would be in favor of government doing non-essential things. (And there are many things that are not officially in the non-essential category that are far from necessary.)

Non-essential = not needed. They should have shut those down decades ago. That this is even a matter of debate shows you what kind of nitwits, for the most part, inhabit the halls of Congress.

That’s No Christian!

2011-04-04T19:50:00.001-04:00

Thanksgiving Question Nearly Deports Tortured Christian

An immigration judge was distressed that 'Li claimed that Thanksgiving was a Christian holiday.'

An immigration judge cannot quiz asylum seekers on religious doctrine to see if they are credible about their faith, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reiterated in a January ruling. . . The problem in the case of Chinese Christian Lei Li, the court said, was not only had he been tested on doctrine, but that his answers weren't wrong.

Li says he became a Christian while visiting Korea in December 1999 and hosted a house church when he returned to China. Authorities raided the church in 2001 and held Li for 19 days, repeatedly beating him. Li was fined about $900, lost his job because of the arrest, and left for the U.S. on a visitor visa. After he violated his visa by working, he applied for asylum.

Li's immigration judge said Li failed to prove that he was a Christian. He couldn't answer basic questions about Christianity, explained the immigration judge.

But in describing his faith, Li said he believed "Jesus came to save people from sin, that he willingly died on the cross, that he rose from the dead and … ascended into heaven," Judge Alfred Goodwin wrote for the Ninth Circuit that reversed the lower court's ruling.

Li also explained why he worshiped in a house church rather than an officially sanctioned Three-Self Patriotic Movement church. Those churches, he said, "have a different Lord than we do …. [Th]eir Lord is the government, not God."

But the immigration judge was distressed that "Li claimed that Thanksgiving was a Christian holiday" and "knew little about the differences between the Old and New Testaments"—though Li noted that the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek.

Kent comments:

I hate to say it, but Li knows more about Christianity that many people I have met at churches.

Then there is the matter of this “immigration judge.” You will notice that his name appears nowhere. Perhaps it was withheld to protect the guilty, the stupid, or some combination of both.

Did this immigration judge just not like the idea of another foreigner coming here to “take our jobs”? Does he think Christians deserve the wrath of a persecutorial Communist regime? Or is he just an idiot?

If, according to this so-called judge, Li’s answers do not reflect some understanding of the Christian faith, I would like to know what the judge thinks his answers should have been.

So Thanksgiving is not a Christian holiday? Well, not for the Chinese Communist leaders, I suppose. Perhaps not for immigration judges. I suppose you could say that Christmas and Easter are not Christian holidays, but they tend to show up on most church calendars.

Do you suppose this judge has been to church lately?

I wonder how much the immigration judge is paid each year. I hear the House of Representatives is looking to cut spending. I know it wouldn’t be much in the big scheme of things, but there is a clear waste of taxpayer’s money.

If not that, we should at least send the immigration judge on an all-expense paid vacation to China for 19 days of beating. I would be willing to pay a few extra tax dollars for that one.

Gone With the Musical Wind

2011-04-02T16:30:00.001-04:00

I am never up on ‘the latest’ books, but I recently ran across a gem of a book, published last (2010) year:

Why Johnny Can’t Sing Hymns: How Pop Culture Rewrote the Hymnal by T. David Gordon

The link in the title will take you to The Book Depository. I have no interest in that company, but I did notice that this is the lowest price I could find for a new copy, and shipping is free. (It is not extremely fast, but it is free, and my copy came in excellent condition.)

Gordon is a sharp cookie, so to speak. He is, in essence, pleading with the church not to jettison mindlessly our long, rich tradition of church music in favor of what is mistakenly (as he points out) called ‘contemporary’ music.

Like Gordon, I have been disturbed by this for a long time. I can still vividly remember, back in the 1990s, being called into a young (and I am sorry to say, somewhat stupid) minister’s office for a chat. He had not told me what the chat was to be about, so it was a bit awkward from the beginning. He eventually came around to the point, which was that he did not want our church to sing any more “old” songs.

I was confused, because the songs we were singing mostly were not all that old. In the course of the discussion he came around to the point: he wanted everything we sang to have ‘the sound.’ I had no clue what ‘the sound’ was, and he was not very helpful as I asked about it. Finally, he came up with this definition: “I want our music to sound like the latest ‘Maranatha’ CD.” That is, he wanted it to “sound contemporary.”

This struck me as bordering on idiotic. Why would any congregation want to limit singing to any one ‘sound’? How could the best music be only ‘contemporary’ – whatever that might mean?

Those were my initial impressions, but they were unstudied. So shortly after that I began a quest to know more about all this. What I did not realize was that I was observing in microcosm something that was burning its way through the ‘church world’ – and causing a lot of destruction in its path.

As my study of this matter continued, I realized that those who had succumbed to this fad had little good reason for what they were doing. It was mostly just a musical whim, or something they had seen somewhere else and assumed they should imitate. (This reminded me of that famous parental interrogation: If everyone else jumps off the bridge, will you jump off too?)

So I began to compile, write, and rewrite what has become a never-ending study of this whole matter. My thesis is that, for all sorts of very flimsy reasons, the church has generally adopted a “beauty is only in the eye of the beholder” attitude (aesthetic relativism). The more I studied, the more I realized that this approach flies in the face of the Christian faith in many ways which I point out in the study.

So when I recently came across this little book I found – to my astonishment – that this fellow T. David Gordon had come to many of the same conclusions I had, and for the same reasons. This surprised me because he seems to be an extensively educated (in the theological field) person, while I am whatever it is that I am – an amateur who likes to kick ideas around my mind.

If you think church music should be ‘contemporary’ (again, whatever that means), or if you have just never seriously considered this matter, I urge you to read Gordon’s little book. I read it with an eye to writing a review of it sometime. I began to mark what I thought were key passages. The only problem was that almost every page had marks!

The church has inherited a great treasure of music. It is a collection that has been reviewed and pruned untold numbers of times by untold numbers of people, so that the collection approaches only the most valuable pieces. For the most trivial of reasons, many want to cast this great collection aside in favor of a tiny, accidental collection that happens to be recent. Before you decide to do that – or be a part of doing that – you should read Gordon’s little book. It won’t take more that a couple of hours of your life, and they will be two hours well spent.

BioLogos Nonsense

2011-03-26T11:39:00.001-04:00

Recently my son and then some friends put me on to a great uproar over what Christianity Today called “Creation Museum Founder Disinvited from Homeschooling Conferences.” Ken Ham, founder and president of Answers in Genesis, was the “disinvited” one here. He lost the invitation because of his public attacks on Peter Enns, a senior fellow of biblical studies at the BioLogos Foundation.

I am not a “young earth” creationist in the sense that I am not convinced that we can be very sure about the age of the earth. But I can see why anyone who takes the Christian faith seriously would have problems with what comes out of the BioLogos Foundation.

Consider one example, an essay found there that attempts to explain “At what point in the evolutionary process did humans attain the ‘Image of God’?” of which Peter Enns is a “consulted expert.” Let’s peruse a few samples.

[T]he fundamental qualities of the image of God are characteristics of the mind and soul, however we understand those: the ability to love selflessly; engage in meaningful relationships; exercise rationality; maintain dominion over the Earth; and embrace moral responsibility.

From the BioLogos perspective, God planned for humans to evolve to the point of attaining these characteristics.

This implies, of course, that at some point “human beings” did not bear the image of God. This is exactly what the Biologos people think.

Humans did not have a fully formed moral consciousness prior to the time of Adam and Eve. However, general consciousness must have already evolved so that a moral consciousness and the associated responsibility were possible. When Adam and Eve received God’s image, they had evolved to where they could understand the difference between right and wrong.

When, then, did this happen?

We cannot know the exact time that humans attained God’s image. In fact, it may be that the image of God emerged gradually over a period of time.

According to Biologos, scripture even suggests this view.

Scriptural evidence supports the view that other humans existed during the time that God’s image was attained. Genesis makes this apparent when the writer makes reference to Cain’s fear of other people, when God cursed him. Likewise, Cain finds a wife among a nearby tribe (Genesis 4:13-17). In light of these references, it seems likely that Adam and Eve were not individual historical characters, but represented a larger population of first humans who bore the image of God.

Near the end of this essay, the authors wonder “What About the Soul?” and go on to at least hint that human beings may not have an identifiable non-physical component of their being.

You should browse the Biologos website to see more about the views of this group. They are clearly a group who begins with a complete acceptance of some version of Darwinism. They then attempt to stretch and re-shape the Christian faith in whatever ways are necessary to force it to fit over their Darwinism.

There is nothing wrong with a nuanced reading of Genesis. But when this reading is done through colored glasses that screen out key points of the historic Christian faith, it might be time to take off those glasses.

So again I say that I can see why anyone who takes the Christian faith at all seriously would find the alternative worldview of the Biologos Foundation to be not an “explanation” of that faith, but a threat to it. And it doesn’t require that you agree with the “young earthers” to share this concern.

Hard-Wired for Nonsense

2011-03-17T16:26:00.001-04:00

from:

Sin in the Double Helix

Reports linking moral behavior to genetic traits actually prove Scripture's claims, not undermine them.
Karen Swallow Prior | posted 3/17/2011 10:38AM [at Christianity Today]

[excerpts]

For, despite some thinking to the contrary, these genetic discoveries do not negate biblical teaching. Instead, they illuminate the truths of Scripture in a new and powerful way. . . this only confirms the truth of the psalmist's prayer: "You created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made" (Ps. 139:13-14).

And what of Paul's lament? "I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do, I do not do, but what I hate, I do. … As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me" (Rom. 7:15-17). Whether sin literally resides in the genes or not, Paul truthfully confesses that sin is living in him, as it is in all of us.

And in the middle of this passage from Romans are these words: "And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good." God's law is good, not only when we abide by it, but even when—especially when—we don't.

Are we predisposed to sin, genetically or otherwise? Absolutely. But God has determined a way to freedom, and that way originates not in the genes but in the Genesis.

Kent comments:

I don’t want to be too harsh, but Karen is an English professor. This might be what you get when English professors try to tell us about theology! (Just kidding, of course.)

But this “explanation” explains nothing, pious-sounding as it might seem to be.

If God “hard-wired” us to sin, we cannot be responsible for our sin. Even if God only hard-wired a predisposition to sin into the first human pair, then God is at least partially responsible for sin.

So what is Karen trying to say here: that being hard-wired for sin in some way illuminates the Psalmists description of our being “fearfully and wonderfully made”? That sounds just a bit like non-sense.

What could it possibly mean that “God has determined a way to freedom” even if we are genetically wired for sin? It seems to indicate that Karen the English Professor thinks that perhaps God hard-wired us for sin, and then, when we did what God hard-wired us to do, He “came to our rescue” by over-riding His original programming!

While it might sound very erudite to dismiss modern claims that our moral behavior stems from our genetic code, it is really more a display of air-headedness. I wonder if that is the product of genetics?

Try Not to Step Into It

2011-03-04T12:28:00.001-05:00

Lent Gets a 21st-Century Update

Jeffrey MacDonald

Religion News Service

March 2, 2011

(RNS) -- For Janis Galvin fasting for Lent has long meant saying no to candy for the 40 days before Easter. But when the season begins this year on March 9, it's apt to mean something more: walking when she'd rather drive, for instance, or turning the thermostat way down.

Galvin, an Episcopalian, will join with about 1,000 others who've signed up for the 2011 Ecumenical Lenten Carbon Fast, a daily regimen for reducing energy consumption and fighting global warming.

Lent is getting a makeover, especially in some Protestant traditions where it hasn't always drawn strong interest. The carbon fast is one of several initiatives aimed at reinvigorating Lent by linking themes of fasting and abstention to wider social causes. . . .

Fasting from anything is never an easy sell in a culture that values convenience, according to Jim Antal, who heads the Massachusetts Conference of the United Church of Christ.

But as a spiritual practice, he said, personal sacrifice can be a key driver in advancing larger movements.

"We're trying to deal with the mingling of individual Lenten disciplines with social change," said Antal, whose conference is spearheading the carbon fast. "And that is precisely what will save the Earth -- if individuals who begin to get it... begin to say, `Gosh, I need to change my life, and I need to become an activist."'

Kent comments:

This sort of thing come up every year lately. It is the moral equivalent of a pile of the stuff that periodically falls out of the east end of a horse going west.

Whatever you might think of the church tradition of Lent, this nonsense has nothing to do with it. It is, rather, simply a rather transparent way of co-opting ‘church’ things for the purposes of radical, leftist political causes.

Speaking in the very broadest use of the term, I am surprised intelligent people take the ‘church’ seriously anymore. Salvation to these kinds of people means nothing more than ‘saving’ the earth from a harmless substance that is an integral part of the life-cycle as designed by God.

But there I go, talking about God ‘designing’ something. We can’t have that, our course. Instead, we have some idiot Episcopalian ‘turning the thermostat way down’ to ‘save the earth’ as a supposed act of worship.

There is so much of this kind of material piled here and there today in the religious landscape that it can be very difficult – as with that stuff that falls our of the west-bound house - not to step into it.

Easier Than I Used to Think

2011-03-03T11:00:00.001-05:00

March 1, 2011

NEWS FEATURE

On evangelical campuses, rumblings of gay acceptance

By Cathleen Falsani

Some observers now wonder whether a major shift in opinions about homosexuality might be occurring among younger evangelicals.

The answer seems to be yes.

Last month, the student newspaper at Westmont College in California printed an open letter signed by 131 gay and gay-supportive alumni who said they had experienced “doubt, loneliness and fear due to the college’s stance on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender issues.”

Kent comments:

How can we determine if a moral position is correct? That, of course, is a big question that could take us into the areas of meta- and normative ethics. But now, with the help of some of the alumni of Westmont College in California, we at least know a sure way to determine if a moral position is wrong. If a moral stance makes anyone ‘experience’ doubt, loneliness, or fear, then it is clearly wrong.

For example, I experience all these feelings whenever I think about the ‘you-must-accept-our-sexual-attitudes-and-practices’ stance of some homosexual advocacy groups. So those stances must be wrong – which, presto! – makes me right!

Wasn’t that simple? Just to broaden the perspective a bit, I have all those feelings about the Obama administration’s policies. Thus –bingo! – Obama is wrong, and I am right!

The news article goes on to say:

A 2010 poll by the Public Religion Research Institute and Religion News Service found that a majority of young adults favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry and adopt children.

Well then, if a majority favor this, is must be right. Moral reasoning is so much easier than I used to think!

Not Christianity–Just Socialist Politics

2011-02-24T17:18:00.001-05:00

This is Not Fiscal Conservatism. It’s Just Politics.
by Jim Wallis 02-24-2011
The current budget and deficit debate in America is now dominating the daily headlines. There is even talk of shutting down the government if the budget-cutters don’t get their way. There is no doubt that excessive deficits are a moral issue and could leave our children and grandchildren with crushing debt. But what the politicians and pundits have yet to acknowledge is that how you reduce the deficit is also a moral issue. As Sojourners said in the last big budget debate in 2005, “A budget is a moral document.” For a family, church, city, state, or nation, a budget reveals what your fundamental priorities are: who is important and who is not; what is important and what is not. It’s time to bring that slogan back, and build a coalition and campaign around it.

Kent comments:

Note to Jim Wallace and his Sojourners:

What you advocate is not Christianity. It’s just socialist politics.

The key error of Jim Wallis’ attempt to merge Christianity and socialism is revealed here. Family, church, city, state, and nation are very different sorts of entities. Wallis’ attempt to lump them all together is also an attempt to hide something very significant here.

Family budgets are voluntary. Families can spend what they have, but as a family they cannot spend what other families have. (Unless, for example, your mother’s name is Bonnie and your father’s name is Clyde.)

Churches can spend what their members contribute. Churches, as such, cannot force their members to contribute nor can they (or at least should they) force others to give to them.

Governments (city, state, nation) are another matter. They spend what they take by force. The scope of governments must be very limited if there is to be any place for families or churches in society. In this they are very different from families and churches.

This being the case, I can agree with Wallis that how the over-spending of governments is reduced is a moral issue. The proper scope of government is a moral issue. Governments will always over-spend when they engage in matters that are outside their proper scope.

So when our government over-spends, we need to think carefully about the limited range of things government should be doing. We should then shrink government back to its proper role, and thus proper size, and therefore it proper budget.

It is not the proper role of government to make sure everyone tends toward economic equality. The only way a government can do this is to be like a massive, powerful Bonnie and Clyde. The problem is that this is evil.

Jim Wallis and his kin do not understand what governments are meant to do, and what they are NOT meant to do. This is a moral issue. And the Sojourner view of this issue is immoral.

It’s Mr. Jefferson, Again

2011-02-24T12:25:00.001-05:00

"If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy. ... I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious." --Thomas Jefferson

Kent comments:

I know that Mr. Jefferson and I would have had a never-ending debate about religion. Still, I often find myself in political agreement with the Sage of Monticello. I agree with what is stated above. It is amazingly current in its application.

And yet, I do not blame the ‘parasites’ entirely. All the unnecessary ‘machinery of government’ under which we now suffer came about because voters consented to it.

Were we lied to, tricked, and manipulated in the process? Of course. But part of the job of free citizens in a republic is to detect and overcome deception. When we allow structures to be created and propagated which squander the ‘labors of the people’ it should not surprise us when many of the people put themselves in a position to receive these plundered goods.

So don’t just blame the parasites. Most of us, in some way or other, ARE the parasites. And all the possibilities for plunder by government happened because we consented. Perhaps we will now withdraw that consent.

Respect for the Word of God

2011-02-23T12:38:00.001-05:00

Treating the Bible as Sacred

Does how I care for my holy book say anything about me?
Janice Sheridan

[This takes place as the author visits a church in Pakistan]

When our driver let us out in front of the church building, I hastily set my Bible on the van floor and stepped out. . . At that moment, I began to question if I had become too casual and overly complacent in my treatment of the Word of God. . . No tossing Bibles on the floor after Sunday school. That would be disrespectful.

Kent comments:

I appreciate the sentiment behind this. The author, while visiting a church in Pakistan, notices that the Christians there treat their Bibles with great respect, as Muslims do copies of the Koran.

The Word of God should be treated with great respect. But the Word of God is not identical with the printed letters on the page of a copy of the Bible. The Word of God is that collection of concepts formed by those words – and ‘words’ in this sense do not require printing to exist in the way that words exist. They only require minds – God’s and ours.

The “book” which records and conveys this to us is a piece of technology. Some think that the technology of the “codex” – pages bound on one edge which can be easily ‘turned’ – was the invention of, or at least first used extensively by, Christians. Whatever the case is in regard to origin, the modern book is a piece of information storing and retrieval technology.

Should we be careful just how we treat a piece of technology which conveys the Word of God to us? Perhaps, at least in some settings. But we cannot reasonably push this idea too far.

When some version of the Bible is loaded onto a Nook or Kindle, does that device suddenly become worthy of some special physical treatment? Does that change in some way when such device is no longer displaying a Bible version? What if the Bible version is not currently being displayed, but is stored on the device as a file? We could ask all the same questions about phones and PCs that can display the text of the Bible.

So I am not sure if placing a copy of the Bible on the floor of a van is a significant problem. Apparently Islam takes this kind of view of the Koran. But with all due respect, Islam holds many problematic views. It is probably not surprising that this approach has influenced Christians in predominantly Islamic countries. And I might respect such a view if I were visiting such a place.

But outside of cultures with somewhat weird views about such things, there is no good reason to think that placing any book on the floor is an insult to the Word of God. A book, just like a PC, digital phone, or e-text reader, is a piece of technology. None of these is “The Word of God.”

So how do we treat the Word of God with proper respect? By taking the time and effort to try to understand it correctly. By applying it correctly and trying to live in harmony with those applications. By paying careful attention when it is being read in public.

I have witnessed this scene in a church: people gather on Sunday for worship. As they do loud music is playing. Rather than listening, many of them shout to one another to be heard over the music. During all this someone is reading the Bible aloud. But few are paying attention, partly because it is difficult to hear what is being read.

It is this kind of thing that is disrespectful toward the Word God – not where you store your copy of the Bible.

This Time, Chuck Failed

2011-02-16T11:03:00.001-05:00

One Culture, Many Contributors
Why Multiculturalism Can't Work
By: Chuck Colson|Published: February 16, 2011 12:00 AM

Look at the United States. Our national motto is “e pluribus unum,” or “out of many, one.” Multiculturalism fails because it denies the need for the “one,” for unity, and in our case, for a shared commitment to the American creed: “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Kent comments:

Colson is often insightful. Sometimes, however, he gets a bit stupid, as we see here.

Our national motto has nothing whatsoever to do with so-called multiculturalism. The “one” and the “many” that are the subject of our motto is the separate states uniting in a confederated, and then federated, central government. It simply does not speak to the matter of “cultures.”

“Culture” is a very vague term and idea. But any “cultures” that can endorse the idea of ordered political liberty should be able to coexist and even flourish under a political economy dedicated to protecting the God-given rights of individuals to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In fact, given this protection of individual liberty, people might choose or even invent all sorts of “cultures” for themselves.

Colson is right to claim that some versions of ‘multiculturalism’ could threaten ordered liberty. If part of your ‘culture’ involves a denial of our God-given rights, that ‘culture’ could threaten our liberty. But that has nothing to do with our national motto.

This does bring up the interesting question which Colson does not explore in his article: if we are devoted to the individual liberties of the Declaration, what do we do when some come among us who are devoted to the destruction of those liberties? (What do you do when someone like that is elected President?)

In other words, how does a classically liberal society deal with those who come into its fold with illiberal ideas, especially when they attempt to put those ideas into practice? That seems to be a question to which we have not developed much of an answer.

Take Your Own Advice, Barack

2011-02-15T12:44:00.001-05:00

Obama calls for peaceful response in Middle East

By TOM RAUM

The Associated Press
Tuesday, February 15, 2011; 12:13 PM

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama on Tuesday slammed Iran for its harsh treatment of anti-government protesters and called on governments throughout the Middle East to avoid crackdowns on pro-democracy supporters.

"The world is changing," Obama said in a message he said was for "friend and foe alike" but which seemed directed to remaining autocratic leaders across the region. "You have a young, vibrant generation within the Middle East that is looking for greater opportunity, and that if you are governing these countries, you've got to get out ahead of change, you can't be behind the curve."

Kent comments:

Can anyone not guess what I am going to say here? People gather in Egypt and demand that the president step down. Obama says he should do so immediately.

So Barack, old buddy, old pal – every time there is a Tea Party meeting everyone present would like to see you step down, over, out – somewhere. Should you do so ‘immediately’?

“Autocratic leaders” – do they include those who impose unpopular policies on people, sometimes without as much as a vote by the legislature? Need I list examples from Obama here?

There are plenty of people in the United States looking for “greater opportunity” – much greater than we will get with Obama policies in place. Barack, maybe you should take your own advice. Don’t get “behind the curve.” Instead, “get out ahead of change.”

Resign today – preferably in the next five minutes. Make that two minutes.

It Struck Something or Other

2011-02-07T11:53:00.001-05:00

Why Christina Aguilera’s National Anthem Struck a Nerve

Aguilera issued a statement last night about her version saying “I got so caught up in the moment of the song that I lost my place. I can only hope that everyone could feel my love for this country and that the true spirit of its anthem still came through.”

Aguilera’s pop singing style has roots in soul, where the focus is sometimes less on words than on emotions. Sometimes lyrics get skipped or repeated in favor of finding the heart of whatever piece of music is being performed.

Of course there is such a thing as professionalism–and part of that is knowing the lyrics to the song you’ve been selected to perform. Aguilera has been caught between her desire to tap her passionate, creative soul–and the public’s expectation that artists respect certain boundaries when they offer up a song that represents American values.

Aguilera may be taking some flack now, but she has performed the National Anthem in the past, and will no doubt do so again.

“The Star-Spangled Banner” is a song that represents American freedom, so it makes sense that some musicians–like Aguilera–would take some liberties in performing it.

Kent comments:

It’s the Super Bowl, so who is really surprised? It’s the big show, so, of course, no one can just deliver the national anthem. (I have to pause to wonder why we feel compelled to have this performed at every sporting event.) The whole history of this song and this event is enough to make me musically sick.

I suppose that when you think you must contort your face, distort your voice and your whole demeanor, and generally project this whole image as ‘soulful performer’ that you could easily forget not just the lyrics of the song you are singing, but even things like who you are, where you are, or maybe even what you are.

I know this runs against the whole showbiz idea, but I can appreciate someone who simply stands and delivers a song in good voice quality, on-key, with understandable lyrics. But no one wants that, I know.

Unfortunately, this whole Super Bowl approach often shows up in church music these days. People don’t have a clue how to sing because they are often too busy trying to emulate pop singers like Aguilera. We are convinced, it seems, that good singing requires that you contort and distort your voice in hopes that you and your audience will be caught up in ‘emotions.’

A good song, delivered well in an appropriate setting can certainly evoke an emotional response. But all those ‘goods’ and ‘wells’ must come first. Last night at the Super Bowl, Christina struck, we might say, up against something. That something was good music.

The Flesh Is Present, But the Spirit Is Unwilling

2011-02-03T11:40:00.001-05:00

Kent comments:

Calvin reminds me here of something that I have seen often. I have even seen it in myself.

Many students today are shoved, kicking and screaming, in effect, into ‘education.’ My observations are mostly in regard to higher education. There is a significant number of students at most universities today who do not really want to be there. Like Calvin, they are physically present (well, most of the time, or some of the time, at least) but their minds and spirits are far from academia.

It was during my generation, it seems, that Big Brother got the idea that everyone should ‘go to college.’ You don’t have to be around campus very long these days to see that this was a very bad idea. There are many people at most colleges who should not be there. They are not interested. But they are funded by various governments and prodded by ‘educrats.’

I attended college one year when I was not really interested. The results were depressing. The next year my mind and spirit showed up, and the change could not have been more dramatic.

I taught college classes for several years. Each semester it quickly became clear who wanted to be there, and who did not. It wasn’t always just a matter of academic performance. Sometimes those whose minds were present and active simply did not have the mental ability of some others. But the effort was apparent.

Some people should not enroll in college immediately after high school because they are not yet mentally ready. A delay is appropriate for these.

Others should never enroll. It doesn’t mean they are deficient in any way. It just means they are not interested in academics.

Adjusting our ‘cultural thinking’ on this matter will lead to less frustration (on the part of both uninterested students and those attempting to teach them), less wasted resources, and less burden from payments on pointless student loans.

Hanlon’s Razor

2011-02-02T11:06:00.001-05:00

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Kent comments:

It is sometimes difficult to know how to apply this to politics. For example, consider all the continued hubbub about ‘carbon footprints’ and such matters. Certain categories of politicians have picked up on this as a supposed reason to force all sorts of irrational behavior, all of which will make life much more difficult than it need be.

Malice or stupidity? Tough call, isn’t it? Of course, this will vary from politician to politician. If it is stupidity, one shudders to think of what this implies for the condition of the republic. If it is malice, that’s even worse!

Of course, one good argument in favor of political liberty is that it limits the damage that can be done by either stupidity or malice. If you (stupidly) want to generate your power from highly inefficient sources like solar panels of wind turbines, you are free to do so. What you are not free to do is to force your stupid decision on others.

The need to consider malice is greatly diminished when there is liberty. While people can harbor malice, their power to act on it is severely reduced where liberty reigns.

The very fact that there is a ‘Hanlon’s Razor’ is a good reason for liberty.

Now, in another area (religion) it is likely that much of what goes on should be attributed to stupidity. But that’s another story.

Let All the Earth Keep Silence Before Him–at least sometime

2011-01-25T11:30:00.001-05:00

Kent comments:

This reminded me of a trend I have noticed at most (some? – at least the ones I observe) churches lately. This is the tendency to use never-ending audio-visual stimulation. In case you are not familiar, here is the typical scene: as people arrive at the church building, music is playing over the sound system. On the omnipresent large screen at the front of the auditorium, images are projected. This continues until ‘live’ music begins, with words and visual effects projected on the big screen. Many churches include a time when people greet one another with great commotion. During the sermon, someone is talking (of course) and usually images are being projected on that omnipresent screen. Even during the time of communion, music (live or canned) is played in the background. Even “silent prayer” seems to be rare these days.

It might sound a bit far-fetched now, but if artificial olfactory and tactile stimulation were affordable, I suppose some congregations would never turn those off. Wouldn’t it be better if every suggestion of smell during singing, preaching, or anything else were wafted across the auditorium of the church? Wouldn’t it be exciting if the seats vibrated when images of motion were suggested by anything being said?

There is nothing inherently wrong with any of this. But it does reflect our culture’s dread of silence. Perhaps this an area where the church should intentionally go against the grain of our culture. While not to be pushed to any extreme, perhaps there is a place to practice a bit of Hab. 2:20 when the church meets – at least a little bit, some of the time. (And should the time ever come, this would include the artificial smells and shaking seats, too!)

I have heard preachers talk about the need to “turn off all your digital devices” and focus your attention on God. But why would anyone do this at home when church leaders never turn off the digital devices when the church meets?

One of the practical problems with the never-ending-audio/visual-stimulation approach is that, in the presence of unending noise and images, people very naturally begin to tune them out. In the end, our imagined need never to shut off our technological toys means that many people just stop paying attention.

Also, feeding our culturally-created desire for constant audio-visual stimulation is something like supplying an addict more dope. Again, I am not suggesting that we never use media in church meetings. I am strongly suggesting that we need to very carefully measure our use of media, and think about why we use it when we do, and to what end. The mere fact that we have an expensive projection system in place is no reason never to turn it off.

It is amazing how quickly and how easily the church is sucked into the vortex of culture. We never seem to stop and make ourselves aware. Of course, how could we? The screen is always on, and the amplified sounds never end.

Not All That Difficult to Understand

2011-01-24T16:44:00.001-05:00

Here you have the problem of run-away government spending in one,easy lesson!

What the Governor Said

2011-01-20T10:20:00.001-05:00

The Governor of Alabama is trouble for saying, while speaking at his church:

"Anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their (sic) savior, I'm telling you, you're not my brother and you're not my sister, and I want to be your brother."

This has created a firestorm of criticism from many quarters. Biblically speaking (which is, of course, always the best way to speak) the thought expressed by the Governor is accurate. Anyone who understands the historic Christian faith would not be shocked by this in the least. Those who are “in Christ” share a spiritual, familial relationship that is not even possible with those outside the body of Christ.

This has never meant that those in Christ had some kind of low view of those outside Christ. Notice how the Governor even expresses his desire for all to come to Christ, and become, in this unique sense, his “brother.” There is nothing shocking here, at least for those who have even a clue about the Christian faith.

But we need to remember that the modern version of Christianity, which is the version most people in our society come into contact with, has a very different approach to this matter. In the early twentieth century this was expressed as “the Fatherhood of God, and the brotherhood of man.” (As you can clearly see, they were still sexists back then.)

Notice where the “brotherhood” is located in this view: all of human kind. (See how inclusive I can be?) Of course, there followed a string of stupid comments from various “religious” people about what the Governor said. For example:

The president of the national Interfaith Alliance, the Rev. Welton Gaddy, said Bentley "went too far."

"I thought that with his statement he created two classes of citizens in Alabama, those that were his brothers and sisters in Christ and everyone else. As an elected official, he has the responsibility to serve all the people and treat all the people equally," Gaddy said.

So, according to the Rev. Welton Gaddy (that name has an amusing ring for reasons I cannot specify, though that is not relevant here), a Governor cannot speak at his church in language that accurately reflects his faith. He was clearly not speaking about “classes of citizens in Alabama” but rather, classes of human beings in the spiritual categories of God.

What about being a spiritual “brother” only to others who are in Christ has any implication for how you will act as Governor? Doesn’t Welton Gaddy realize that being elected Governor of Alabama does not change the teaching of the Christian faith? Where did Welton Gaddy get his “Rev.” license, anyway?

The Governor offered a somewhat unfortunate apology for his statement:

"If anyone from other religions felt disenfranchised by the language, I want to say I am sorry. I am sorry if I offended anyone in any way," he told reporters Wednesday after meeting with leaders of other faiths in his new office.

So the Governor thinks people from other religions might “feel” that they have lost the right to vote (disenfranchised) by this statement? Surely the Governor meant something other than what this word denotes!

The Governor should not have apologized. He said nothing wrong. It is high time for our weenified, politically correct, please-don’t-hurt-my-feelings” society that claims to be tolerant and inclusive make at least a little room for people – even people elected to office – who openly state their Christian faith.

Never Works As Advertised

2011-01-12T11:59:00.001-05:00

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." --Cesare Beccaria, On Crimes and Punishment, quoted by Thomas Jefferson in Commonplace Book

Kent comments:

In light of all the hubbub regarding the recent shootings in Arizona, we do well to remind ourselves of Mr. Jefferson’s sentiments. What Beccaria says, and Jefferson repeats, is not just abstract theory. As portrayed in the sign above, weapons are prohibited at most universities. Yet, this does not stop shootings at schools – witness the tragedy at Virginia Tech in 2007 and Columbine High School massacre in 1999.

Statists constantly repeat the idea that gun control will prevent gun crimes – in the face of reason and evidence – as though repeating something often enough will make it true. This reminds me of many non-Christian religions and the “vain repetition” (as Jesus said) of certain words and phrases as though they are magic.

If you want to prohibit guns by law, all reason and evidence prove that your motive cannot honestly be safety and security. You have other motives and goals, even if unspoken.

How Queer of Them

2011-01-07T14:43:00.001-05:00

As the new semester begins:

NKY Equality Now and Staff, Administration and Faculty for Equality training session Jan. 24
NKY Equality Now and Staff, Administration & Faculty for Equality will offer a training program for staff, administration, faculty and student leaders who would like to be a part of a public support system for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer students at NKU on Monday, Jan. 24, at 12:30 p.m. in Student Union 108.

Kent comments:

Perhaps you thought “queer” was a slur. Now you know better. It apparently now is part of the official, politically correct nomenclature at universities.

But why do all these very ‘interesting’ categories of people need special ‘public support’? What about the heterosexuals obsessed with sex? What about those who simply are not all that interested with sex? What about those who practice polygamy? Don’t they get any ‘public support’?

What about those who practice bestiality? Now there is a group that is truly misunderstood. Many people, maybe even some of those who receive ‘public support’ from a ‘system’ at universities, probably think that those who practice bestiality are weird, immoral, and generally disgusting.

But that’s what prejudice and sexual phobias can do to people.

Undo What You Have Done

2011-01-04T11:41:00.001-05:00

This week the Senate will take up the matter of changing its rules to eliminate the ‘filibuster.’ Much will be said about the details of this, so we will not review all that here.

At the ‘talking head’ level of politics, there is often a cry for government to be ‘more efficient’ and ‘more like a business.’ People, it is said, want government to be able to ‘get things done.’ Filibusters, it is said, inhibit the ability of government to get things done.

But the great problem with modern government is that it does far too much. It is therefore rather idiotic to want it to “get things done” unless you are an enemy of liberty.

There is, perhaps, one category of things we should want government to ‘get done’ and that is the repeal of laws, most of which are crippling obstacles to liberty. But this is much more accurately seen, not as ‘doing’, but as ‘undoing.’

We don’t need more government doing – we need much more undoing. Filibusters – and any other mechanism that inhibits the ‘doing’ of government – should be welcomed by those who love liberty.

Mister, We Could Use a Man Like Calvin Coolidge Again!

2011-01-03T10:43:00.001-05:00

In a recent piece from the Mises Institute I was reminded of something once said by one of my favorite presidents, Calvin Coolidge:

"If the federal government were to go out of existence the common run of people would not detect the difference."

BTW, if you want to see “silent Cal” giving a little speech, check this out. How ‘unslick’ Coolidge seems. But slickness is entirely beside the point when, like Coolidge, you are not even attempting to ‘transform society’ with half-truths, as is so often the case today.

But back to the words from Coolidge above. He was quite right in the context of the 1920s. But as the article points out, Coolidge came close on the heals of the first Roosevelt and Wilson, both of whom were bent on making the ‘federal government’ very much a part of the lives of ‘the common run of people.’ After Coolidge, the second Roosevelt was handed a ‘crisis’ that was used to slip the long arm of the feds even further into everyday life. That trend has had little letup since then.

So today, for most people, a situation described by ‘silent Cal’ seems almost unimaginable. That, of course, was exactly what the Roosevelts, Wilson, and their followers were trying to do. You must give them credit, they did it quite well.

If you think the government of Silent Cal is at all desirable, you have to imagine, and help others imagine, what life could be like without the central government directing almost every aspect of the lives of us ‘common run of people.’ If you watch Coolidge’s little speech linked above and you can listen past his Barney Fife-like delivery, he will help you think about what it was like when the ‘feds’ did almost nothing directly to ‘the common run of people.’

As he says there, ‘economy of government’ (which means government spends less because it does less) means people do not have to pay as much for government. This in turn means that they can keep more of what they earn, to make their lives more of what they want them (as opposed to what government wants them) to be.

And this, Silent Cal says, is the essence of freedom. Apparently, Coolidge was the last President to write most of his own speeches. He wasn’t much for delivery, but what he said was golden.

Of Decades, Centuries, and Millennia

2010-12-31T16:53:00.001-05:00

Tomorrow begins a new decade. This means that the new century and millennium began on January 1, 2001.

Folklore has it that it began on January 1, 2000. Folklore is very stubborn.

Since there was no year “0” the first year of the first A.D. millennium (only known looking back, of course – but as far as dates are concerned) was A.D. 1. The first decade of the first millennium was thus A.D. 1 – A.D. 10 inclusive.

From that you can figure out the rest.

The wikepidea comment that “The 2000s was the previous decade that started on January 1, 2000 and ended on December 31, 2009” is wrong. If that were the case, then the very first decade of the first A.D. millennium would have had only nine years.

Thus, tomorrow, a new decade begins. In the grand scheme of things this probably doesn’t matter much. But I thought something trivial might be good on the last day of the first decade of the first century of the third A.D. millennium.

Happy New Year!

Should We Execute Michael Vick?

2010-12-30T17:06:00.001-05:00

from: The Daily Caller

Tucker Carlson, editor in chief of The Daily Caller, is making headlines after offering his opinion Tuesday night that Michael Vick should have been executed after being convicted of torturing and killing dogs.

Carlson made the comments while hosting Hannity on the FOX News Channel. “Michael Vick killed dogs, and he did in a heartless and cruel way, and I think personally he should have been executed for that.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/12/29/thedc-on-tv-tucker-carlson-discusses-michael-vicks-punishment/#ixzz19dOGiWV0

Kent comments:

It is wonderful to love your pets. It is also wrong to torture animals. But Tucker Carlson must be crazy.

Many, many people in the world today, especially Christians (and I think Carlson claims to be one) often need to take a deep breath and repeat to themselves, “Animals are animals, and people are people.” While that bit of truism is almost unworthy of statement, many people need it just for emphasis.

Animals do not bear the image of God. So even if someone killed all the dogs in the world, he would not be worthy of death, to use a Biblical phrase. It would be a tragedy, but it would not be murder. It could not, in terms of Christian theology, be murder.

Again, just because so many seem so easily to forget: animals are not people. Write that down and post it on your refrigerator. Contemplate the ramifications of that statement as you reach for some leftover pot roast.

All I Want for Christmas is Liberty

2010-12-23T12:00:00.001-05:00

“No man’s life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session. “ –Judge Gideon Tucker, 1866

Kent comments:

One does not have to be an anarchist to think this is generally the case. This is especially so in our time and place. There is so much ‘law’ that applies to us that it is impossible to begin to know it, let alone follow it – even if we so desired. So when more law is made, it simply aggravates the now unavoidable problem of our necessary disregard for the law. The mere practical problem of its sheer quantity makes this the case.

There is a principle of diminishing returns for law-making if the goal of law-making is the creation and maintenance of ordered liberty. As the quantity of laws increase, the effect of law very quickly and necessarily moves from the protection of individual liberty to the destruction of individual liberty. So when laws are being made, liberty is being decreased.

Unfortunately, the decrease of liberty is the stated goal of many today. For these people, legislatures making laws is the best means to their ends.

Before he became somewhat nutty, Barry Goldwater said something about this that bears repeating:

I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' "interests," I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.

The Conscience of A Conservative (1960), p. 1

Here’s what I’m wishing for this Christmas season: more people who, loving liberty, think like this.

Pro Jennifer

2010-12-18T12:27:00.001-05:00

December 3, 2010

A Hard Case---Are FIRE and NAS Wrong about Jennifer Keeton?

By KC Johnson

Hard cases make bad law. Nowhere is that legal maxim clearer than the case of former Augusta State counseling student Jennifer Keeton, who was removed from the counseling program because of her rather extreme anti-gay views. A lower-court judge upheld the university's actions.FIRE and NAS have filed a powerful amicus brief, penned by Eugene Volokh, spelling out the potentially damaging---extremely damaging---effects if this decision is upheld. At the same time, however, the evidence presented in the case strongly suggests that Keeton doesn't belong as a counselor.

Kent comments:

This article comes from Minding the Campus. I highly recommend this group for those who want to keep up with the campus climate around our country. FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) is a group that is often desperately needed on campuses around the country. So much for introductions.

If you continue reading the article (well worth your time) you will see that KC Johnson generally supports what FIRE is doing in this case, but hopes that the student in question, Jennifer Keeton, never becomes a counselor. The heart of why Johnson thinks Keeton should never be a counselor is this:

Keeton . . . stated that she would put her religious beliefs ahead of her clients' well-being. She told one student that in any counseling session with a gay or lesbian client, she would tell her client that "their behavior is morally wrong, and then help the client 'change' that behavior." If the prospective client didn't go along, Keeton said she would recommend "conversion" therapy.

I fail to see why this should be considered a banishable offense, assuming ‘conversion therapy’ does not involve electric shock or its equivalent. Just why is it that a homosexual client should be shielded from the very relevant moral information that homosexual behavior is wrong? My best guess is that this is because so many people are now unwilling to admit that it is wrong. But it is wrong, and it is not unreasonable to think that anyone who makes a habit of practicing a serious moral evil might not suffer from that practice. And it is not unreasonable even to expect a good counselor to point that out somewhere along the way.

Jennifer Keeton’s religious beliefs are in fact not something that could be ‘put ahead’ of the well-being of her homosexual clients. Her religious beliefs, when applied to her clients, would be in the best interests of her clients!

I an thankful that people like Jennifer Keeton are willing to become counselors. I am thankful that groups like FIRE are around to help people like Jennifer. But knowing what I do about universities, I am not surprised that Jennifer is being, in essence, persecuted by a university. It just what they now, regretfully, do. (Read more about Keeton’s case here.)

What the Rabbi Said

2010-12-16T17:51:00.001-05:00

What Christmas Can Teach Us about Being Jewish

Rabbi Chaim Steinmetz
Thursday, December 16, 2010

Jews don’t celebrate Christmas, but it feels like everyone else does. And this “December Dilemma” forces us, as Jews living in a Christian country, to confront some difficult questions.

Kent comments:

This article is not long – you should have a look. It is filled with interesting things. I am going to quote some of these and comment.

“I can remember my own children at a young age asking me, in their own words, ‘why did the Jews reject Christianity?’”

The rabbi’s only answer to this intriguing question is that, while at one time “many rabbinic thinkers considered the Christian Trinity to be idol worship” during the middle ages Jewish teachers “eventually accepted Christianity as a monotheistic religion.”

I wish the rabbi had said more about this. Jesus was, after all, Jewish. I think that, in the end, the answer why the Jews rejected Christianity is that they rejected Jesus’ claims to be the Messiah, the Son of God. But the children’s question is a bit loaded. Not all of “the Jews” rejected Christianity, just some. The gospels make this very clear. I’m very thankful that some of the Jews – for example, the Apostles – did NOT reject Christianity.

“December Dilemma is not just about theology. Jews at Christmas feel like an uninvited guest at a party, the man stuck outside in the cold pressing his face against the window.”

In fact, rabbi, you are very much invited to Christmas in its very best sense. We would all love for you to come into the Christ house. It’s what He wanted and wants. You are “stuck” outside only in the sense that you refuse to come in. Are you just a bit embarrassed to admit that you have been invited to this party for many years, but have always refused to show up? If you decide to come in, you are most welcome. Feel free to bring Hanukkah with you, if you wish. It sounds like fun.

“This is what Christmas can teach us about being Jewish. During the holiday season, Jews can dedicate themselves to helping others . . .”

In the end, it is amazing how much this sounds like what a lot of Christian preachers say. Does it seem like no one is listening to you? Then go do some good deeds.

Good deeds are, by definition, good. But they will never solve what are basically theological issues. Good deeds are to be done precisely because theological issues have been settled.

“How will Jews maintain their identity in the face of a seductive and embracing culture? Ironically, a religious tradition that has heroically triumphed over persecution and oppression is finding it ever more difficult to overcome acceptance and tolerance.”

Is it not intriguing that the rabbi sees our culture as “seducing” Jews with Christianity? Is he really talking about our culture?!?

After my initial shock at that idea, on further reflection I will admit that he could have a point. Yes, our culture and its version of Christmas the cultural holiday is diluted by many to the point of being barely Christian at all. But it is also the case that the culture in which we live bears the after-shocks, faint as they have perhaps now become, of that earth-quaking event that was the birth of Jesus the Christ. I suppose one could be influenced by such an event and its consequences, no matter how distant they have become.

Digital Damnation?

2010-12-13T12:30:00.001-05:00

from The New York Times

November 21, 2010

Growing Up Digital, Wired for Distraction

By MATT RICHTEL

REDWOOD CITY, Calif. — On the eve of a pivotal academic year in Vishal Singh’s life, he faces a stark choice on his bedroom desk: book or computer?

By all rights, Vishal, a bright 17-year-old, should already have finished the book, Kurt Vonnegut’s “Cat’s Cradle,” his summer reading assignment. But he has managed 43 pages in two months.

He typically favors Facebook, YouTube and making digital videos. That is the case this August afternoon. Bypassing Vonnegut, he clicks over to YouTube, meaning that tomorrow he will enter his senior year of high school hoping to see an improvement in his grades, but without having completed his only summer homework.

On YouTube, “you can get a whole story in six minutes,” he explains. “A book takes so long. I prefer the immediate gratification.”

Students have always faced distractions and time-wasters. But computers and cellphones, and the constant stream of stimuli they offer, pose a profound new challenge to focusing and learning.

Researchers say the lure of these technologies, while it affects adults too, is particularly powerful for young people. The risk, they say, is that developing brains can become more easily habituated than adult brains to constantly switching tasks — and less able to sustain attention.

“Their brains are rewarded not for staying on task but for jumping to the next thing,” said Michael Rich, an associate professor at Harvard Medical School and executive director of the Center on Media and Child Health in Boston. And the effects could linger: “The worry is we’re raising a generation of kids in front of screens whose brains are going to be wired differently.”

Kent comments:

This article goes on to detail the problems created by immersion in the world of digital devices. I am not stupid enough to think that we can somehow retreat from the digital world – especially as I sit here composing this at my computer keyboard, preparing to publish it on my blog, Facebook, and Twitter! But Christians need to give some serious thought to this, both as individuals who might be raising families we hope will influence Children toward the Christian faith, and as congregations of believers who gather together to teach and admonish one another in the Christian faith.

First, consider how much less likely one is to understand the Christian faith if one develops a ‘digital attention span.’ Christianity is not simple, as much as pop theology likes to say it is. It is very deep. It involves concepts, and disciplines, that require careful, sustained attention. If your attention span is only 3-5 minutes, while I won’t say you will never be a Christian, it is almost certain that you will never understand the Christian faith at a meaningful level. Those who never swim deeply in the faith are very likely to be left ‘high and dry’ at some point in their lives. If the digital world tends to wire brains in a way that inhibits the understanding of the Christian faith (and many other important things, for that matter) then we Christians had better be wary of its unbridled use.

Next, consider how the church has often approached technology – like the school principle mentioned later in the article referred to above, we pander to it. We think we can get people’s attention by immersing the church (no pun intended) in the digital world. The problem is that the digital world tends to destroy people’s attention.

I one time attended a small, new, thought-they-were-hip church with about 25 people in attendance. Before the sermon, the (very young) minister announced that if you had questions about the sermon, you should text those questions to his number (which he announced) and after the sermon he would spend some time in response. I kept wondering why he couldn’t just allow the people in that very small group to ask the questions aloud! We are all here, face-to-face, but we can’t just talk? (‘Hip’ sometimes seems to mean ‘just stupid.’)

We – meaning most church people – tend to assume that it is always better to project everything during our church meetings. Why is it better? Do we think it makes church things easier? Why do we think such things should be easy?

We project the words to the songs we sing, but never the musical score. Do we lose anything important when people at churches never see musical notation? Do we even think about things like that, or do we simply allow technology to dictate what we do at church?

Can you really ‘tweet’ the gospel? Should we want to, even if we could?

There is probably no end to these kinds of questions, but I think we should at least be asking some of them, some of the time. We should not just assume digital is better, just because it is hot and hip – or so our culture tells us.

This doesn’t mean we should never use technology. But it appears that technology is not ‘neutral’ in regard to what it does to messages we convey with it. So perhaps it is like this: automobiles are wonderful things, but that does not mean we should never walk anywhere, even places to which we could drive. Sometimes the walk can be good for us.

Rational Expectations

2010-12-09T15:44:00.001-05:00

Yes, it’s Christmas time once again. It’s the time when we turn our attention to . . . this year, government spending and tax rates. (Bah, Humbug!)

Apart from all the political deal-making over all this, there are some are a few things everyone involved, and even those just thinking about it, should think about. These are simple, unavoidable facts of the human condition.

First, if you want more of something, offer people money to do it or to keep doing it. For example, if you want people to become or remain unemployed, pay them to do so. If you do this, you can be sure to increase unemployment. No matter how nice you think it is for the government to help people in this way, only the irrational (and I know there are plenty of those) will deny this.

For another example, if people agree to give the government more money, you must expect to get more government. Perhaps you think that is a good thing, perhaps you think it is a bad thing, but don’t be so silly to expect otherwise. As an aside, since government works by coercion, expect more coercion when you agree to give more money for government.

Here is another general principle in this regard: if you want less of something, tax it. (That is, penalize it fiscally.) If you want less business, tax it more. If you want more business, tax it less. Whichever way you go, remember that business (in its most general sense) is the main place you get jobs. So if you decide to tax business more, expect fewer employment opportunities for people.

Another example of this: if you want people to have more income, tax income less. If you want people to have less income, tax income more. Obviously, if you take taxes out of income, it will be less by that amount. But that is not what I am talking about here. Far beyond that, if you tax income more, people will generally put out less effort to create income for themselves. If you tax income less, people will be more fiscally motivated to create (in all sorts of ways) more income for themselves.

Now, this might seem obvious to most people, and it should be. But keep this in mind when you hear politicians and pundits talking about government taxing and spending. Don’t allow political talking heads to get away with (at least in your mind) statements like this: “I am concerned about the rising unemployment rate, so I favor extending unemployment benefits.” That is irrational. If you truly favored less unemployment, you would not favor paying people to be unemployed.

Here is another “don’t let them get away with it” example: “I am very concerned about our declining economy. The government needs more money to deal with all the problems of a declining economy, so we need to tax businesses more to get that money.” That, too, is irrational. If you tax business activity more, expect less of it.

May all your expectations be rational!

Christmas Contentions

2010-12-01T22:20:00.001-05:00

In one of the more annoying articles I have seen lately at Christianity Today, Ted Olson complains about the people he has seen insisting that everyone say, “Merry Christmas” rather than “Happy Holidays.” Ted is upset by those who are on the defensive in the “war on Christmas.”

If you think about the origin of the word, the secularists should object to “Happy Holidays” too, since a “holiday” was once a “holy day.” But perhaps sometimes what you don’t know can’t bother you quite as much.

Ted refers to a bumper sticker which reads “Merry Christmas! An American Tradition” and remarks snidely, “I don't remember the American part of the Christmas story, but I haven't re-read Luke 2 yet this year.” I suppose there are those who get a bit too feisty about this Christmas business. But there is something American about Christmas, or better, something Christmas about America. The first immigration group to these shores was mostly Protestant, and the second was Roman Catholic. When Christmas first started becoming the big deal it is today, it is easy to see why a country populated by these two groups might have a natural affinity for such a “holy day” – yes, even if none of this is mentioned in Luke 2, Ted.

But Ted tries to get his main anti-Christmas warrior punch from a couple of Bible-related points. The first is that Hanukkah celebrates the Jews fighting off the attempts of Antiochus IV to force Greek culture on the Jews.

The second in that Jesus, in an incident near “Hanukkah time” in His day, had a dispute with the Jews, but then “escaped” (really?) rather than “forcing the issue.” This is supposed to teach us that “To insist that non-Christians say ‘Merry Christmas’ instead of ‘Happy Holidays’ runs against the lessons of both Hanukkah stories.”

Even if some of the “Christmas warriors” are a bit over-zealous, they sometimes make a good point. That point is not to force anyone not so inclined to say “Merry Christmas.” It is, rather, to remind those that make a point of avoiding the Christ of Christmas that, without Him, there is no background or reason to have a “holy day” or in modern terms, a holiday.

That is, of course, unless you are Jewish and you are celebrating Hanukkah. But even that is still “religious” and it should still bother the secularists.

If nothing else, Christmas might just remind even the most hardened secularist that long ago, something very significant happened, the echoes of which cause people to celebrate. Even when that cause is vague or distorted in some people’s minds, it is present. Even through much distortion, it retains the power to delight or annoy based on who and what you are. It is this power, I think, which can make this seem like a war.

Which is it?

2010-11-15T11:42:00.001-05:00

find this comic strip here

Kent asks: “Aliens, or environmentalists?

Ancient Jewish Rabbis

2010-11-15T11:23:00.001-05:00

A Christian liberal scholar with some big (conventional) ideas

Scholar lecturing Sunday on early church

November 14, 2010 6:11 AM

MARK BARNA

The Gazette

The Rev. Robin Meyers yearns for a return to early Christianity and predicts a revival of the faith. . . Meyers, senior pastor of Mayflower Congregation in Oklahoma City will be at First Congregational Church downtown today to give a free lecture during services and lead a workshop. The lecture is titled “Jesus: Galilean Sage or Supernatural Savior?” It’s the “or,” rather than an “and,” that causes some fuss.

Most Christians believe Jesus was both human and divine. But Meyers told me, “We have to demote Jesus, strip away the supernatural that got layered on by the church and culminated in the creeds.” Meyers, 58, is a professor of philosophy at Oklahoma City University, and author of six books, most recently “Saving Jesus from the Church: How to Stop Worshiping Christ and Start Following Jesus.”

Since the 19th century, scholars have discovered that other gospels existed in first-century Palestine besides the canonized books Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Meyers says that era was a combustible time in which competing groups formed allegiances around their favorite gospel.

But Meyers goes further than most scholars by drawing similarities between then and now. The period of the “early church was just as fragmented and contentious as today,” Meyers said. “Our theological debates haven’t brought the kingdom any closer.”

But there is a silver lining. The early Christians overcame their divisions to embrace what they held in common, such as love of Jesus and helping the poor, Meyers said. “They had not commonality of beliefs but commonality of spirit.” He says this is what Christianity can become.

Kent comments:

Nothing here is truly newsworthy. The classical Liberal version of (something like) Christianity is on display here in microcosm, and it has been around a long time. Jesus was just a man. The church of the second century or later dreamed up ‘the Christ’ idea and imposed it on the simple, primitive Christian faith. And if we would just stop debating theology, we could all be united, just ‘love Jesus’ and help the poor.

We could probably also sing that old Coke jingle, “I’d like to teach the world to sing, in perfect harmony . . .” while holding hands on some hilltop.

What I have always wondered about this classical Liberal version of (something like) Christianity is this: what about some merely human Jewish guy from the first century is supposed to make me want to be a mellow fellow who helps the poor? So some fellow named Joshua (or Jesus, pick you favorite) thought people should help the poor. It would not be surprising that many first-century Jewish males were named Joshua, or that one of them liked the idea of helping the poor – so what?

And since, according to this kind of Liberalism, there were many competing and conflicting ‘gospels’, why should we think that the ‘help the poor’ parts are any more likely to be accurate than the other parts that Liberals always want to disregard?

What is a bit alarming is that it has become increasingly common among Christians and churches who do not overtly profess this versions of ‘Christianity’ to hear statements like this: “Let’s not debate theology. Let’s just love Jesus and help the poor. Then we will all be united and all will be right with the world.”

Those who think Jesus was just a witty first century Jewish rabbi have no good reason to follow him. There were other witty Jewish rabbis. And as one of them said, “If the dead are not raised, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die." (1 Corinthians 15:32)

If the dead are not raised, then stop wasting your time talking about Christianity. Go do something – anything – you want to do, and let ancient dead Jewish rabbis quietly inhabit the dustbin of history.

Just Another ‘Dummy’

2010-11-11T15:44:00.001-05:00

Bill Gates: Capitalism Has 'Systemic' Problems Government Should Address

Bill Gates says that the federal government’s job is to address the “systemic” problems of capitalism.

Wednesday, November 10, 2010
By Nicholas Ballasy

(CNSNews.com) - The CEO and Chairman of Microsoft Bill Gates said that capitalism’s “systemic" problems are not doing enough for research and “the needs of the poorest.”

“In general, the world underfunds research because the person who takes the risk of doing the research doesn’t capture the full benefit of having done it; and so you know, capitalism does amazing things but it has one systemic problem in terms of research -- that it won’t do enough,” Gates said at the mHealth summit in Washington on Tuesday.

Capitalism "has another systemic problem in that the needs of the poorest will not be prioritized the way they would if you put a more human-values-driven system in. Now, of course we have government that comes in and does its best to take, you know, the beauties of capitalism, which work for so many things and is so fantastic and whenever it can be used, it is better than government.”

Kent comments:

Whether you love, hate, or are indifferent to Microsoft products, you have to admire Bill Gates as an inventor, developer, and businessman. But his great success in these areas does not prove his competence anywhere else, as evidenced by his comments above.

I am going to talk about ‘the market’ here. There is, among those who care, a substantial debate about the appropriateness of thinking of ‘the market’ as capitalism. After all, ‘capitalism’ was the derisive name Marx applied to the free market.

There is also the problem of just how appropriate, and helpful for understanding, it is to think of ‘the free market’ as some kind of independent entity. When I talk about ‘the free market’ I am talking about what happens when individuals are generally unhindered by outside forces (like governments, or other thugs) in their economic exchanges. If you are clear on how I am using the terms, let’s consider what Mr. Gates says about capitalism.

‘The world’ does not ‘underfund’ anything, because ‘the world’ cannot fund anything. Individuals with funds do all the funding in the world. Now if people are free to use their funds as they desire (and this is a theological point because of the Eighth Commandment), then they will fund research just as much as they wish. So when Mr. Gates says capitalism “won’t do enough” research, what he is really saying is that free people won’t do as much research as he thinks should be done. But when he tries to make what he wants normative for everyone else, he reveals something of a tyrannical tendency.

Bill can fund just as much research as his billions will fund. But he has no business, and certainly no moral right, to tell the rest of us how much research we should fund. In fact, his whole comment here is just a bit idiotic.

Mr. Gates’ second comment seems to deteriorate into some kind of babble, but I think I can detect what he is trying – without much eloquence – to say. “The needs of the poorest will not be prioritized the way they would” in a “more human-values-driven system.” Mr. Gates is thinking in terms of ‘systems.’ Perhaps we should expect this from a computer guy. But free people acting as they will economically is not a ‘system’ in this sense.

All the individuals in the world who work, buy, build, trade, and so forth are human beings. One of the things they can and do decide to do is give of their resources to help the needy. Since they are human beings, what they do is – of course – driven by ‘human values.’ Some value charity more than others. But in a free market it has little to do with any ‘system’ .

A free market is free just because no economic values are imposed on anyone. This is not a ‘system’ – it is an anti-system. If Mr. Gates does not agree with the human values of the human beings who interact in the market, he would be free in a free market to try to convince people to adopt different, more charity-oriented values.

He could start by giving away more of his billions to the needy. His foundation does some of this sort of thing. Unfortunately, his foundation also gives grants to groups to help them get government funding. This kind of funding necessarily comes at the expense of the market and at the expense of freedom.

Bill Gates might know a lot about operating systems for computers. But when it comes to freedom, ‘capitalism’ and the market, he really needs to read one of those “For Dummies” books.

Failed!

2010-11-06T12:43:00.001-04:00

News Edmonton

Thieves steal $3,600 from single mom, toddler
By KRISTY BROWNLEE, QMI AGENCY

Last Updated: October 5, 2010 6:20pm

All it took was a few seconds for thieves to swipe a single mother's wallet from her Edmonton workplace and a few hours to empty her bank accounts. "It feels violating. It really is scary," said Randi Pliska on Tuesday, a 28-year-old salesperson.

On Monday afternoon, Pliska said she was working at The Brick mattress shop downtown when two women came into the store. One distracted her, while the other swiped her wallet from behind the counter.

Two hours later, the thieves phoned, posing as bank officials, to notify her of "suspicious activity," she said. They requested banking details, including her pin number, and her address. She unknowingly provided the information. In half an hour, the culprits drained about $3,600 from her accounts, including a few hundred dollars from her toddler's savings account.

"They sounded legit. I wasn't thinking about it at all," said the Fort Saskatchewan resident. Pliska said she was saving cash for her son's first car and college. "They stole from my three-year-old son. How sad is that?" she said.

Pliska said she reported the incident to police and the banks. She said the bank may not return the stolen cash because she provided her pin number to the crooks.

Kent comments:

There is both good news and bad news here. First the bad news: this poor lady can vote (and a host of other things only responsible adults should be allowed to do).

The good news: she lives in Canada (which is only good news if you don’t live in Canada).

Moral to the story: PIN numbers are supposed to be kept secret. If you receive a random call from someone asking for yours, it would probably be better not to reveal them. In fact, the very definition of “suspicious activity” is someone calling you to ask for your PIN number.

The story says Randi “unknowingly” provided the information. There’s an understatement. What Randi seems not to have known is that you should not broadcast your banking information!

Or, you could just post all your PIN numbers, and account numbers, on the internet.

Note to Randi: someday, when your son is older and wonders what happened to his car money, please don’t tell him. It might be embarrassing!

Phony ‘Pro-Lifers’ Punished

2010-11-04T11:46:00.001-04:00

from Christianity Today

Pro-Life Democrats Ousted as Election Centers on the Economy
Anti-abortion groups spent millions against supporters of healthcare reform bill.

Paige Winfield Cunningham in Washington, D.C. | posted 11/03/2010 11:54AM

Abortion issues seemed left in the dust as economic concerns drove this year's election, but on Tuesday voters ousted several pro-life Democrats and ushered in fiscal conservatives who tend to oppose abortion.

As the names of defeated pro-life Democrats flashed across the screen Tuesday night, triumphant cheers erupted at Morton's Steakhouse, where staff and supporters of the Susan B. Anthony List (SBAL) had gathered to watch election returns.

SBAL, which works to elect pro-life women to office, typically supports pro-life members of both parties. But that largely changed this year after most pro-life Democrats voted for the federal healthcare bill that many abortion opponents say allows for federal funding of abortion.

Three of the four Democrats most heavily targeted by SBAL lost their seats, including Reps. Steve Driehaus (Ohio) and Kathy Dahlkemper (Penn.). Overall, 10 of 17 pro-life Democrats who voted for the healthcare bill were defeated on Tuesday, according to SBAL.

Kent comments:

The very premise of this report is faulty. The “pro-life” Democrats who were “ousted” were not pro-life. When push came to shove – which in this case means when pro-life came up against doing what the Obama political machine wanted – pro-life took a back seat. (Personal note: I was more than pleased to see my neighbors across the river dump that dupe of Obamaism, Steve Driehaus.)

It is too bad that Paige Cunningham, who wrote the article above, shirked reporting responsibility and hid in the phrase “the federal healthcare bill that many abortion opponents say allows for federal funding of abortion.” Abortion opponents are not the only ones who think that. In fact, it is already being done:

Maryland will join Pennsylvania as the second state to use federal tax dollars to pay for abortions under the new health care law signed by President Barack Obama in March, according to information released by Maryland’s State Health Insurance Plan. (see the whole report here)

Some reporters bothered to look into the healthcare bill to see just how this could take place. (Reporting that goes only to the level of what some group of person thinks or says is very shallow, and far too common today. What some official says about some matter if fine as an introduction. But real reporting would explore not just what someone thinks or says, but whether or not the thing said is true! Is this kind of reporting a tacit bow to the idea that truth, even if it exists, is unknowable?)

So, if you were a pro-life voter, you naturally wanted to see these “sort-of-prolife-except-when-my-party-pushes-me” Democrats booted from Congress.

It would be wonderful if there were a significant contingent of pro-life-no-matter-what Democrats at the national level. Unfortunately, it appears to be the case that the leadership of the Democrats does not truly welcome pro-life people. It also appears that Democrat candidates at the national level are often pro-life, not from core principles, but because they are from constituencies where life is a significant concern.

As in the case of Driehaus of Ohio, the vote on Obamacare simply pointed out the real loyalty of some of these (former) members of Congress – and it was not with the protection of innocent life.

Tired of this Claptrap

2010-10-28T12:21:00.001-04:00

Christians Belong Outside the Tea Party
The tea party movement opens a discussion worth having, but Christians are called to care for the underprivileged.
David P. Gushee | posted 10/27/2010 10:36AM

But the tea party movement also has ugly weaknesses. I saw a new bumper sticker this week. It said, "Take Our Country Back: November 2010." It's hard to deny the evidence available from tea party events that much of the passion driving the movement flows from visceral opposition to President Obama.

"Birthers" (disproportionately represented among tea partiers), the nearly universal tea partier belief that Obama is a socialist and/or communist, and, yes, the occasional racially tinged incidents and comments, all signal disbelief that this country ever could have elected Obama.

President Obama is the Other. The symbolism of "Don't Tread on Me," the emphasis on gun rights, and the tea party's links to America's revolutionary days lend a frightening undertone to the movement, at least on its fringes.

To the extent that the tea party movement is simply a contemporary expression of low taxes, small government, and leave-me-alone libertarianism, it carries all the weaknesses of that libertarianism in terms of Christian social ethics. We Christians are called to care for the underprivileged, not leave them to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

Kent comments:

The article above is from Christianity Today – I have posted only the conclusion. Use the link to read it all.

My point here is not to attack or defend the “Tea Party” – which I have to keep reminding people is not a political party, even though the name makes you think it is. My point is to comment on the claptrap that this Gushee fellow puts out in the name of Christianity.

First, why is opposition to President Obama necessarily a bad thing for a Christian. In fact, what consistent Christian could endorse ten percent of what Obama has both done, and tried to do for (to) this nation so far? What about the government owning General Motors – done under Obama – is not socialist? It is this sort of thing that makes many wonder how this country could have elected Obama. A black socialist is no better than a white socialist – both are equally deplorable. (How’s that for “racial equality”?)

Second, as a political principle of sorts, what is wrong with “Don’t Tread on Me.” Does Gushee not realize that, even in its original context it was calling people to defense, not aggression? What is “frightening” about that, especially now when it is clearly being used by most Tea Party people in a political context. What they are “threatening” to do is vote people out of office. What about that necessarily conflicts with the Christian faith?

Third, let’s consider an “emphasis on guns rights.” What about the Christian faith is in any way in conflict with the Second Amendment? The Second Amendment simply describes a right (more accurately, two rights – one collective, and another individual) that shall not be infringed. It does not require that anyone exercise this right. It only requires that no one infringe upon this right. What about that could possibly conflict with the Christian faith?

Finally, and this is probably the most important point here, when will these nitwit “spokesmen” for the Christian faith ever figure out the proper relationship between charity and government? “Leave-me-alone libertarianism” is not a complete ethical system. It is a view of what is appropriate for government. One of the things people are left alone to do under this approach to government is to help those in need.

It approaches idiocy for Christians to say, as they so often do, that if you do not want government to “care for the poor” then you don’t want anyone to care for the poor.

Clearly, this Gushee fellow thinks that government, and only government, can “care for the underprivileged.” But this is much more than just a debate about political systems. It is theological to the core.

If you think only government can care for the “underprivileged” then you have a theologically dangerous view of the place of government. You have put government in the place of God.

I think that is a form of idolatry.

Will Environmentalists Ever Become Extinct?

2010-10-27T12:26:00.002-04:00

Global extinction crisis looms, new study says
Threatened species, but there's still hope
New scientific evidence suggests that a growing number of creatures could disappear from the earth. One-fifth of the vertebrates and as many as a third of all sharks and rays are now threatened with extinction.

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 27, 2010; 12:28 AM
A growing number of creatures could disappear from the earth, with one-fifth of all vertebrates and as many as a third of all sharks and rays now facing the threat of extinction, according to a new survey assessing nearly 26,000 species across the globe.

Kent comments:
The big, news-worthy reason why human beings cannot be allowed to thrive continues to morph. First it was because we were causing global cooling. Then came global warming. With a lot of questionable science by questionable scientists, that one seemed to slip from the limelight a bit too much to suit the environmentalists. So recently the reason-of-the-month was shifted to “climate change.” It was a good way to hedge the environmentalist bet – any change could be pointed to with screams of “disaster – repent now!”
But it appears that a new contender for the reason-of-the-month as to why human beings cannot be allowed to thrive has hit the scene: GLOBAL SPECIES EXTINCTION!
Peruse this Washington Post article, and you will find this general theme: not enough of the earth’s environment is “protected” and therefore species will become extinct. You might be wondering why this is such a big deal. Haven’t there been untold species in the history of the earth that have become extinct? Well, of course – but their extinction was not caused by HUMAN ACTIVITY! – which is, of course, evil.
So we need more of the earth to be protected. Protected from what? Human presence and activity, of course. What kinds of human activity? According to all the environmentalist human beings cited in the article, the worst things humans do are 1) Exist: we live and take up space where all these “endangered” species could be living, and 2) Farming: Human beings use too much of the earth to grow food.
Thus, according to the environmentalists, we apparently need to stop existing and thus growing food for ourselves. According to this article:

Environmental groups are pushing for a goal of protecting 25 percent of all land on earth and 15 percent of the sea by 2020.

Allow me to translate: environmentalists want 1/4 of the land of the earth off-limits to YOU. (They would undoubtedly like much more than that off-limits to you, but they are willing to go slowly. They would also like for you to keep away from some of the oceans.)
I think we should give environmentalists their own planet and let them “take care of it” in those ways they love so much. Perhaps Mars would be a good choice.
But wait, by sending environmentalists there, we would violate one of their own key principles: human beings must stay out! So I’m not sure what to do with environmentalists.
Maybe we can hope they soon become extinct so human beings can go on “filling the earth” (I borrowed that phrase from God) without constant nagging from environmentalists.

Forgiveness

2010-10-25T19:44:00.001-04:00

If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him, and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, saying, 'I repent,' you must forgive him." (Luke 17:3-4)

Kent comments:

There is – or so it seems to me – a long sermonic tradition about forgiveness. This tradition goes something like this: you must be forgiving, without condition, no matter what the circumstances. In this tradition, forgiveness is entirely at the initiative of the one who is wronged, that is, the one who might be doing the forgiving.

If you have been around churches very much, you have surely heard such a sermon. These sermons always raise questions that no one ever seems to answer. For example, does the offender need to desire forgiveness?

It is a very noble-sounding tradition. No matter how horrible the offense or how complete the un-repentance of the offender, God calls us to forgive. The offended should simply do it, without regard to the offender.

As noble-sounding as this is, it does not appear to be Biblical. The passage quoted above paints a somewhat different picture for the received sermonic tradition. Jesus does lay down a requirement of forgiveness. But notice that it is conditional: if the offender repents. Notice also that Jesus assumes that a “rebuke” might be required to trigger this repentance.

This does not mean that forgiveness is not important, or is easily accomplished. But it is a very different picture of this matter than what is often presented in churches about it.

I know I am not the first to notice this. But as much as it has been noticed, another notice does not seem out of order. Perhaps with enough notices, we can change this sermonic tradition.

An Absent Congress Is the Best Congress

2010-10-25T15:41:00.001-04:00

from Louis Navellier:

The Wall Street and Politics Link Extends

For more proof that the market and politics have a strong connection, here is an interesting statistic that shows how the performance of the stock market is affected by Congressional sessions. As the chart below shows, if over the last 100 years you had invested $1 every time Congress started a session and took your money out every time it recessed, you would have doubled your investment to $2. If you had done the opposite and invested $1 every time Congress recessed and sold when it reconvened, your $1 would have turned into $216!

Kent comments:

Why, oh why, do you suppose that this is the case? Why would people who invest in businesses be more likely to do so when Congress is not in session? We must ask ourselves: why?

Can we conceive of anything that Congress would do that might look good to those who invest in business via the stock market? Of course we can. Congress could cut taxes. Right now, Congress taxes corporations at a rate much higher than most of the rest of the world. A moment’s reflection tells us that when Congress taxes a corporation, it is, in effect, taxing the shareholders of that corporation twice - Congress takes some of the profits that might have gone to shareholders via that corporate tax, and then a second cut is taken when the shareholders receive a dividend.

So Congress could stop doing that, and things like that, by passing a law to that effect when it is in session (assuming the executive cooperates or his veto can be overridden).

Congress could also decrease the regulation of business. It is very difficult to pursue some kinds of business in the U. S., and almost impossible to pursue others, just because of regulation. The cost of complying with regulations drains potential profits from business. Congress could decrease this dramatically, and this would make people much more willing to invest in businesses.

The problem is that Congress almost never does such things. Taxes and regulations almost always increase. Rare decreases are usually temporary – witness the so-call Bush tax cuts. The trend of taxes and regulation on businesses has been generally upward for many decades now, and this makes people – quite rationally – less willing to invest in business.

Why does Congress do those things it does in this regard? Here is a simple, partial answer: because most people we elect to Congress do not see themselves as guardians of liberty. They instead usually see themselves as collectors of power. They see the state as the ultimate institution to provide for people, and to control people. They seem to forget that any resources the state has it must take from those who produce things. They forget that the more they control people, the less people will produce. And the less people produce, the less government will have available to confiscate.

The members of Congress tends to forget that they ought to be guardians of liberty, including the liberty of people to work, plan, produce, buy, sell, and invest without fear of inhibiting taxation or regulation. So they need to be reminded of this. And when they ignore our reminders, they need to be sent home.

Many of them need to be sent home. Don’t forget to tell them this next Tuesday, November 2nd.

Freedom and Happiness

2010-10-21T12:10:00.001-04:00

[Facebook readers will read this more easily at: http://www.kentsclubhouse.blogspot.com/]

"The freedom and happiness of man...[are] the sole objects of all legitimate government."

--Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1810

Kent comments:

I must disagree somewhat with Mr. Jefferson on this point - as though I have any kind of status to disagree with Jefferson! But since he is not around to put me in my place, I will venture this anyway.

I understand that my theological perspective was not shared by Mr. Jefferson, and this is probably the root of our somewhat different conclusions here. But it is very clear that the “sole object” of legitimate government according to the Bible is the execution of retributive justice. That is, it is the purpose of legitimate government to punish those who do evil, especially those evils that are done to other human beings.

To put this another way, it is the object of legitimate government to make sure that “crime doesn’t pay” – or to be more precise, to make sure that those who commit crimes do pay for them. This must, of course, be done justly. That is, we must be careful that only those deserve to pay are forced to do so, and that they are forced to pay only in appropriate ways.

We have been prone recently to fail to require the appropriate payment for murder, which is the life of the murderer. We have been committed for far too long to locking up those who commit property crimes rather than making them repay the victims via restitution.

We are also very prone of late to making crimes of peaceful human behavior that is not worthy of punishment. In fact, we now have so much law, much of it created by bureaucrats rather than legislators, that it is impossible for a reasonably informed person to know if and when he is breaking the law. Those caught in the web of unknowable law are not really criminals – they are victims. (See a perfect example of this here.)

But the proper “sole object” of legitimate government is to punish only those who deserve it, and in ways in keeping with the goal of retribution. When a government does this and only this, interesting and useful by-products will result. For example, Mr. Jefferson’s “freedom and happiness” will tend to blossom and grow.

Freedom and happiness result from these two general conditions: peaceful people know that those who attack them or rob them will be punished quickly and appropriately, AND, peaceful people are confident that government will not punish their peaceful pursuit of happiness. But these are the by-products, not the object, of legitimate government. It is possible that Mr. Jefferson and I differ only in the way we would state this – I’m not sure.

What I am sure of is that our current governments are doing only a hit-and-miss job of retributive justice, and have completely failed at the job of leaving people unmolested in their pursuit of peaceful happiness. And if Mr. Jefferson were here, I am quite certain he would agree.