2005: It's Time

Conservatives High Water Mark or Beginning of the Flood?

2005-06-01T14:55:00.000-05:00

Christine Whitman, former governor of New Jersey and a former administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, agrees with me that the "moderate" Republicans who opposed their party's vast majority, and made the deal with Democrats regarding the President's judicial nominations, are "radical moderates." As my last post points out, we could also call them zealots or "extreme" something-or-other because they know what they believe and are willing to fight for it.

That is as far as I agree with Ms. Whitman. She predicts that the Schiavo case was the high water mark of the social conservative movement. She repeats the lie that most Americans disapproved of the President's and Congress' attempt to save Terri Schiavo. She states that the memorandum of agreement between the Republicans and Democrats is the beginning of a new and beneficial moderation in American politics that returns American politics to a "sensible center."

While I might agree that moderation in American politics might overall be a good thing, I will never agree that moderation on all issues is good. Moderation is simply another word for tolerance...which has become the greatest of all virtues in this America, and is the cause of some of its greatest sins. There are some things for which moderation must remain anathema. Moderation on abortion. Moderation on the value of human life. Moderation on homosexual normalization, alternate lifestyles, and non-traditional families. Moderation on rejection of Christianity in public and in government. Moderation in these issues is out of the question. Abortion, valuing death over life, homosexuality, alternate lifestyles, non-traditional families, rejection of Christianity: these things are not sensible.

Ms. Whitman may wish that the moderates have returned to power so that liberal social gains will become permanent. Wishful thinking Ms. Whitman. The power of the zealous moderates is temporary. The circumstances that brought them together will soon evaporate while the values that motivate the majority of the Republican party are eternal. This is the beginning of the counter-revolution of the social conservatives, not the end.

Zealots Will Survive

2005-05-29T11:16:00.000-05:00

Martin Nolan of the San Franciso Chronicle observes,

"The winners of the great filibuster battle of 2005 are not Democrats or Republicans, nor elected officials at all. Single-issue bloggers and Googlers produced, directed and wrote the deadlock drama, which, despite Monday's face-saving truce, will continue.

"Moderate coalitions are temporary. Zealots have permanent goals and methods."

First, from a personal viewpoint I instinctively dislike being called a "zealot." Yes, Nolan's decription applies to me, but am I a zealot because I have permanent goals or permanent methods? Does Nolan know the origin of the term "zealot?" Zealot was the name of a loose band of Jewish insurgents who fought the Roman occupation during Jesus' time. Judas was a Zealot. In those days calling someone a Zealot could be either an objective factual statement or a subjective accusation designed to place the target outside of Roman law, therefore making them into a criminal. With Roman law long gone, "zealot" has lost its objective uses. Today "zealot" retains its subjective use to negatively label a person who is commited to something with which the labeler does not agree. It is also used to describe people who are more commited to something than is the labeler. Calling someone a zealot simply describes the relationship between the labeler and the target from the viewpoint of the labeler. In other words, it always indicates where the "zealot" stands in relation to the labeler but it fails to place the "zealot" into any objective framework in relation to a larger context either subjectively or objectively. That being true, what is wrong with being a zealot in someone's eyes? If nobody disagrees with me--if I am not commited to anything more than someone else is--that means that I stand for nothing at all. I would be lukewarm about everything.

Second, a minor point, I agree with Nolan's observation that "moderate coalitions are temporary." This certainty provides this "zealot" with the comfort of knowing that the majority of the Republican party can still prevail.

While liberals have vilified people like me with other labels such as "extreme right" or "conservative evangelicals" (today's equivalent of "zealot" because it has both objective and subjective elements) or "extreme religious right," etc., it is interesting to note that only seven Republicans signed the agreement. This means that liberals might consider seven Senate Republicans to be "mainstream" and the other 48 to be "extreme." Kind of violates the definition of "extreme" doesn't it? In my view, those seven who defied their own party and forced their views upon the majority are "extreme moderates" or "zealous moderates." If we can call the majority "extreme," then anyone can be zealous for their own position...just as the seven Republicans must be who defied their own party.

I am forced to conclude that being a zealot is good. It means that you know what you believe in and you will fight for it. Jesus said, "I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth." (Revelations 3:15-16)

The Senate "Memorandum of Agreement on Judicial Nominations"

2005-05-25T09:03:00.000-05:00

It is now inevitable that Democrats will filibuster Myers and Saad and that the Republicans will not have the votes to change the filibuster rules to force a vote on them. You can see a copy of the signed agreement here.

The signatories...

--"will vote to invoke cloture" for Brown (D.C Circuit), Pryor (11th Circuit), and Owen (5th Circuit).

--"make no commitment to vote for or against cloture" on the nominations of William Myers (9th Circuit) and Henry Saad (6th Circuit)

--will exercise "good faith" in the future in performing the Constitutional responsibilities of advice and consent, and "use his or her own discretion and judgment" to decide if a filibuster is necessary due to "extraordinary circumstances."

--"commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress" regarding filibusters "that would force a vote on judicial nominations."

--"encourage the Executive Branch of government to consult with members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration."

The document is signed by fourteen Senators (I have included links to email forms so you can contact them and state your opinion of their action):

Republicans:

Sen. John McCain (Ariz.)
Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.)
Sen. Mike DeWine (Ohio)
Sen. John Warner (Va.)
Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R.I.)
Sen. Susan Collins (Maine)
Sen. Olympia Snowe (Maine)

Democrats:

Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.)
Sen. Robert Byrd (W.V.)
Sen. Mary Landrieu (La.)
Sen. Ken Salazar (Colo.)
Sen. Mark Pryor (Ark.)
Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.)
Sen. Daniel Inouye (Hawaii)

It is amazing to me that Republicans had to force these Democrats to sign a document promising to perform their Constitutional duty and promising to use good judgment and faith in the performance of that duty. I hope that the President refuses to allow the Democrats to screen his nominees before he even sends them to the Senate.

We the People are left with only one question. How long will it take the Democrats to fail to use good faith, good judgment, and proper discretion to indeed find "extraordinary circumstances" in a judicial nomination? My guess is, no longer than it takes Rehnquist to resign from the Supreme Court.

Why Did Republicans Cave In?

2005-05-24T15:25:00.000-05:00

Why didn't we change the filibuster rules this time? Democrats acted like the rules comprised an ancient and sacred ritual that must not be changed. Filibuster rules have been changed numerous times. Look up "cloture" on the web, and you find this:

The Senate put an end to unlimited debate in 1917 when it provided that two-thirds of those present may invoke the "rule of cloture" and set a time limit for discussion. In 1975, support necessary for cloture was changed to three fifths of the entire Senate; in 1979, a 100-hour cap on debate was imposed after cloture was invoked to limit the use of delaying amendments.

Why didn't Republicans stand firm? Because we are a reasonable party. We abhor being as unreasonable and irrational as the Democrats are. So we did the reasonable thing...which maintains Democrat ability to screen out any judges that are not acceptable to them...which is exactly where we are at today. As I said in an earlier post...it is too late to be reasonable. When reason fails, nations resort to war. Some Republican Senators just don't understand that we are in a Culture War that Democrats aim to win. We had better get serious about this.

To show how serious they are, here is a statement from Americans United for Separation of Church and State:

"The deal, however, did open the door to votes on two of the most extreme opponents of separation of church and state. California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown and former Alabama Attorney General William H. Pryor have on numerous occasions taken positions far outside the judicial mainstream on First Amendment rights, privacy rights and civil liberties.

"Brown has attacked the wall of separation between church and state as 'an uninformative metaphor.' Pryor has publicly questioned whether federal court precedent is always binding on the states. These two nominees have proven they are not fit for lifetime appointments on the federal bench.

"Americans United for Separation of Church and State will continue to urge the Senate to reject the nominations of Brown and Pryor because of their crabbed understanding of some of our nation's most cherished fundamental rights.

"We pledge to remain vigilant. If these nominees or others who hold similar views end up filling enough federal court vacancies, the United States could be saddled with a federal judiciary full of zealots issuing rulings based not on constitutional precepts but on the dictates of theocrats like James Dobson, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson."

It is comforting to know that Americans United is unhappy with the compromise. Also, it is humorous that they say, "the United States could be saddled with a federal judiciary full of zealots issuing rulings based not on constitutional precepts...." We already have a judiciary full of zealots issuing unconstitutional judgements. That is the problem. We want to return to a judiciary that actually makes judgements according to what is written in the Constitution and not according to international law, a concept of a living law, or any other arbitrary standard.

Dr. Dobson said,

"Extraordinary circumstances" is a particularly meaningless criterion, considering that Senate liberals thought qualified candidates like Brown and Owen were too extreme for the federal bench.

"This Senate agreement represents a complete bailout and betrayal by a cabal of Republicans and a great victory for united Democrats," Dobson said. "Only three of President Bush's nominees will be given the courtesy of an up-or-down vote, and it's business as usual for all the rest. The rules that blocked conservative nominees remain in effect, and nothing of significance has changed.

"Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Antonin Scalia, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist would never have served on the U. S. Supreme Court if this agreement had been in place during their confirmations. The unconstitutional filibuster survives in the arsenal of Senate liberals.

"We are grateful to Majority Leader Frist for courageously fighting to defend the vital principle of basic fairness," Dobson added. "That principle has now gone down to defeat. We share the disappointment, outrage and sense of abandonment felt by millions of conservative Americans who helped put Republicans in power last November. I am certain that these voters will remember both Democrats and Republicans who betrayed their trust."

Amen, Dr. Dobson.

Republicans Cave In

2005-05-23T23:26:00.000-05:00

I am disappointed to record that the Senate, within the past hour or so, has reached a compromise solution that ensures that Democrats can filibuster future judicial nominees in circumstances they view as "extraordinary." (No subjectivity THERE.) The only bright spot is that this agreement, and I do not have all the details yet, appears to ensure that President Bush will be able to place his nominees in the Supreme Court if vacancies occur while he is President and prompt confirmation is likely for three appellate court nominees -- Priscilla R. Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and William H. Pryor Jr.

I know this is a bad deal for Republicans because Senator Schumer, the Senator who is on record stating that religious people are disqualified from federal judgeships, said, "Armageddon has been avoided. Thank God." Interesting choice of words for a man so opposed to religion. According to one report, Democratic Whip Richard J. Durbin (Ill.) said on the Senate floor, "The nuclear option is off the table." If true, then Democrats can still filibuster whenever they want to, but Republicans cannot ever vote to end judicial filibusters??? At least some Republicans disagree and say that they can still end judicial filibusters if Democrats abuse this agreement.

Republicans had nothing to lose by ending judicial filibusters except the cooperation of the Democrats in the Senate. Oh, wait. We lost that a long time ago. Actually I can't think of anything worthwhile that we could have lost. Now, with this compromise, we have lost several of the President's nominees and gained nothing that we would not have had if we had stayed the course. Oh, I forgot that we have preserved the "comity" of the Senate. I don't ever want to hear that word again.

I can only hope that the details of this compromise will prove it to be a better deal than it seems right now, but I doubt it. All we have done, I think, is delayed the real fight:

"Leaders of both parties said the pact's greatest implications will surface when Bush fills a Supreme Court vacancy, which many expect this summer. Democrats, who hold 44 of the Senate's 100 seats, were eager to retain filibuster powers in hopes of dissuading Bush from nominating a staunch conservative."

Tell me one more time what the Republicans "gained" with this compromise...?

Questions About "The Passion"

2005-05-23T16:25:00.000-05:00

Andrew recently saw The Passion and has some questions about it. I will answer to the best of my ability. Mel Gibson's movie is best viewed with a good understanding of the Bible...not just of the story of Jesus' life and execution, but of Christian theology and the history of the Jews as told in the Old Testament. Without this understanding, The Passion's main impact is to create questions. Maybe that's what Mel wanted.

Andrew, my response is written after each of your questions:

1) Are the events portrayed in the movie historically accurate? Do both historians and the Bible agree on the events that Gibson portrayed?

ANSWER: Wow. Broad question. Generally, yes, however Mel took some creative liberty by adding a few "gap-filler" events. These events are not in the Bible or any other authoritative extra-Biblical source, but do NOT add or delete anything from the theology and meaning of the story. A couple of examples: (1) in Gethsemane, as Jesus prays before His arrest, He crushes the head of a snake that represents Satan. That is not specifically in the Bible, though it does represent what Jesus did by accepting His own execution. Had Jesus not accepted His own execution, Satan would have won that battle; (2) just after Jesus' arrest, as Jesus is being carried away, he is thrown over the bridge. That is not in the Bible. We don't know exactly what happened as He was led away. It is conceivable and consistent that His guards abused Him as they led Him to the high priests, but we don't know; (3) After Jesus' scourging, Mary cleans up His blood. That is not in the Bible. In the movie it serves to demonstrate her total devotion and love; it emphasizes, by contrast, the cruelty of Jesus' scourging; (4) as Jesus hangs on the cross, Satan walks through the crowd. That is not in the Bible, but serves to emphasize his evil influence at that event and his interest in seeing Jesus die. There are probably a few other examples. In my opinion, and in the opinion of the vast majority of Christians, the movie is true to the Bible. The additional scenes do not change the flow of events or their meaning.

2) Was Aramaic the language spoken in the film?

ANSWER: Since I don't speak Aramaic(!), I am taking Mel's word for it...but Yes it is supposed to be Aramaic, the common language of the Jews at that time.

3) The temple that was cracked - was that Solomon's Temple? And was it - historically speaking - cracked near the time of Jesus' death? Was it rebuilt? Who rebuilt it?

ANSWER: (1) No, it was not Solomon's Temple, but it was the Temple that existed at that time and it was built on the site of Solomon's Temple. Solomon's Temple was destroyed in 586 B.C. by Nebuzaradan and his men, who were soldiers in Nebuchadnezzar's army, when Babylon conquered Judah (Jeremiah 52:12-13). Jews rebuilt the Temple when they returned to Jerusalem following the 70 year exile to Babylon. (2) We do not have evidence that the Temple cracked when Jesus died, but that too is consistent with the Bible. Matthew 27:50-51 "But Jesus, again crying out loudly, breathed his last. At that moment, the Temple curtain was ripped in two, top to bottom. There was an earthquake, and rocks were split in pieces." So the rocks that split could have been part of the Temple. Extra-Biblical history written by Thallus states that there was an earthquake and eclipse when Jesus was executed. Note that there are no existing manuscripts of Thallus, so his words are known to us only by quotations in other writings. [also see Luke 23:44] (3) Jews continued to use that Temple until 70 A.D. when Romans completely destroyed it and all of Jersalem during the Jewish revolt. The Temple has never been rebuilt since then and is the subject of End Time prophecies. Since proper performance of Jewish worship and animal sacrifices could only be accomplished at the Temple, after Romans destroyed the Temple, the Jews were forced to change how they worshipped God. They have not performed animal sacrifice according to God's instructions in the Old Testament since 70 A.D. The Muslim shrine, "Dome of the Rock," now sits on the site of the Jewish Temple.

4) The younger dude who carried Mary around for the whole movie - was that assumed to be brother James?

ANSWER: I cannot remember for sure, but I think you are correct. I have seen the movie only once, on the day it was released. If it was not James, then it would have been John. John was the "disciple that Jesus loved." Of course Jesus loved all His disciples, but He was especially close to John, and John and mother Mary had an especially close relationship. John 19:25-27 "Jesus' mother, his aunt, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene stood at the foot of the cross. 26 Jesus saw his mother and the disciple he loved standing near her. He said to his mother, "Woman, here is your son." 27 Then to the disciple, "Here is your mother." From that moment the disciple accepted her as his own mother."

5) After the crucifiction, how long did it take Jesus to die?

ANSWER: Jesus was nailed to the cross about 9am (Mark 15:25). He died about 3pm (Mark 15:34-37). So He was on the cross about six hours. [To Jews, the "first" hour of the day was 6am. So references to "the third hour" mean 9am, and so on.] By the way, here is thorough discussion of the crucifixion from a scientific medical viewpoint (http://www.frugalsites.net/jesus/). Since I'm not a doctor I cannot vouch for its accuracy, but it is interesting.

6) Did the Roman guards actually repent in the final hours before his death?

ANSWER: My memory is that the movie did not bring this out very well. Three of the gospels are specific on this point:

Matthew 27:54 The captain of the guard and those with him, when they saw the earthquake and everything else that was happening, were scared to death. They said, "This has to be the Son of God!"

Mark 15:39 When the Roman captain standing guard in front of him saw that he had quit breathing, he said, "This has to be the Son of God!"

Luk 23:47 When the captain there saw what happened, he honored God: "This man was innocent! A good man, and innocent!" 48 All who had come around as spectators to watch the show, when they saw what actually happened, were overcome with grief and headed home.

7) Did the Jewish elders really sell him out like they did?

ANSWER: Yes, Jesus challenged their spiritual authority, their sincerity, their morality, and threatened to undermine their prestige in the eyes of the people. The Bible clearly describes the Jewish leaders plotting to kill Jesus several days before they actually accomplished the deed (see quotations below). Their plans were delayed because they were afraid to arrest Jesus in public because of His strong following, and they did not know where to find Him at night. Reading Pilate's thoughts and conversations in the Bible, we can see that he was under pressure from Caesar to maintain the peace. The last thing he needed was unrest among the Jews. Jewish leaders used that as leverage against him to force him to execute Jesus. As I said in my comments on your blog, Christians do not view Jews as responsible for Jesus' death. Only so-called Christians like the KKK and other hate groups use Jesus' death as an excuse to persecute Jews. People who call themselves "Christian" and then hate Jews only defile the name of Jesus Christ. As you may know, Christians are among those who support the close U.S. alliance with Israel.

Matthew 26:3 Then were gathered together the chief priests, and the elders of the people, unto the court of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas; 4 and they took counsel together that they might take Jesus by subtlety, and kill him. 5 But they said, Not during the feast, lest a tumult arise among people.

Mat 26:59 "The high priests, conspiring with the Jewish Council, tried to cook up charges against Jesus in order to sentence him to death."

After His arrest: Matthew 27:1 "In the first light of dawn, all the high priests and religious leaders met and put the finishing touches on their plot to kill Jesus."

With Judas' help, they were able to find and arrest Jesus at night on the Mount of Olives (in the garden of Gethsemane), where Jesus and His disciples spent their nights, away from the crowds of Jerusalem. Throughout the previous week, Jesus would teach in the Temple and retire to the Mount of Olives at night. John 18:2 "Now Judas also, who was betraying Him, knew the place, for Jesus had often met there with His disciples."

8) Did Judas hang himself?

Yes. Matthew 27:5 "Judas threw the silver coins into the Temple and left. Then he went out and hung himself." The scenes of demonic spirits in the form of children attacking Judas are not in the Bible but are intended to portray the fact that Judas was tormented by the results of his betrayal.

9) What chapters in the bible describe these events?

I've quoted the Bible in each answer. You can read the last three chapters of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and the last four chapters of John to find these events. Each gospel presents the events from viewpoint of the author and brings out different sets of facts. Luke, being a doctor, is precise in his observations.

10) What was your take on the movie?

ANSWER: I never realized, before the movie, that the scourging was the most painful and brutal part of his torture. The details of His scourging are not in the Bible, but we know from extra-Biblical sources how they were accomplished. Generically, the movie scene is historically accurate. The most impressive thing to me was the depiction of Jesus as fighting His way to the cross. Struggling to get there! Not struggling to avoid it. The Bible backs this up: in every scene beginning with the arrest, Jesus either allows the action to take place or commands it to take place; this entire process is at His will. At His arrest, the soldiers who arrested Him actually fell to the ground in front of Him (John 18:6). In the movie, Simon, the Cyrene who helped him carry the cross, saying to Him, "You're almost there!" as actual encouragement! If you watch, as Jesus is carrying His cross, soldiers never have to force Him to go forward. On Golgotha, Jesus is clawing His way onto the cross. No soldier is forcing Him onto it. I had never thought of Jesus' actions in that way before. Only by dying on the cross could Jesus fulfill all the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah and accomplish the will of His Father in Heaven. As I said earlier, the movie was too realistic for me to "enjoy" watching my Lord be brutalized, but it had Mel Gibson's desired affect of making me appreciate all the more what Jesus did for me. He took upon Himself my punishment for my sins so that I will not have to.

11) What was the general feeling from the Christian community on the flick?
Jeez, Vic, that's enough for now, I'd say.
Answer what you can, if you wouldn't mind.
Thanks!
Andrew | Homepage | 05.23.05 - 4:49 pm |

ANSWER: Finally! A quality movie that accurately shows Jesus' pain and suffering and the incredible sacrifice that Jesus made for all of us. Most Christians had a reaction similar to mine, I would say. We don't watch this movie every Sunday night. It is too painful. We watch it with reverance and probably with some of the same emotions that Mary, James, and John had when they watched it. The benefit we have, that they did not, is that we understand what is happening and why. Only later, after His Resurrection did the disciples begin to understand why Jesus died on the cross. I will watch it again, but I don't know when. On a side note, we also loved the fact that a big name in Hollywood would dare to make this movie...against the Hollywood culture. We loved it even more when the movie was such a smash hit. Hollywood normally follows the money.

Why The Fight Over Judicial Nominees??

2005-05-23T15:44:00.000-05:00

In case you have not heard, tomorrow will bring a moment when Democrat Senators have to decide whether to perform their advise and consent responsibility or to push for a filibuster of the nomination of Priscilla Owen. If they choose to filibuster, then Senator Frist will move for a vote to eliminate filibusters of judicial nominees. This scenario has caused a bitter battle among political activists of both sides. WHY?

Mike Parker, staff writer for The Free Press, stated it simply and clearly:

How can confirmation of men and women to the federal bench breed such a bitter fight? What is at stake that would have Democrats threatening further filibuster and Republicans threatening to invoke the "nuclear option"?

The plain fact is that everyone has come to understand the power of the courts, especially the federal courts. A federal judge is appointed for life, so anyone confirmed to the federal bench today will have the power to shape law for decades.

The power to shape law has been around since Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the majority opinion in Marbury vs. Madison in 1803. The most important effect of that decision was to establish the precedent for judicial review. Simply put, this decision said the Constitution means what the U.S. Supreme Court says it means.

If the Constitution means what the federal courts say it means, then those we put on the federal bench to decide those meanings become vitally important. For most of our history, judges felt bound in their rulings by legislative intent and by precedents.

In recent years, judges have taken a more activist role. Too many have worked to put their perceptions of fairness and equity above the plain text of law. Justices and judges no longer seem bound to the rule of law.

Because the federal judiciary has housed so many activist judges, our citizens have learned that if they want quick changes to public policy, they need to attack in the courts, rather that in the legislatures.

Policy decisions that could never survive public debate and become law in state legislatures and the U.S. Congress are now made law in just a few years through court decisions.

But should our courts "make law"?

Should any citizen or group really be able to bypass duly elected legislative bodies and have important issues ultimately decided by unelected judges, judges never accountable to the people?

If the current threat of Senate meltdown demonstrates anything, it shows how much power both Republicans and Democrats perceive federal judges to have.

Have we at last surrendered our Republic? Has it been replaced with a form of "oligarchy" - rule by the elite few?

If Democrats force Republicans to change the rules regarding filibusters, and if the Republican action destroys the "comity" of the Senate as the Democrats claim it will, they have only themselves to blame. Since Democrats have placed judicial activists into the federal courts, we have no choice but to try to win back the courts. In military terms, this is Total War. Winner takes all. Liberal judges are subverting the will of the people, subverting the morality of our nation, and turning our nation away from God. The comity of the Senate is of no consequence compared to what we risk with an arrogant national attitude toward God.

Jeremiah 48
42 Moab will be destroyed from being a people
Because he has become arrogant toward the LORD.

Jeremiah 13
15 Listen and give heed, do not be haughty,
For the LORD has spoken.
16 Give glory to the LORD your God,
Before He brings darkness
And before your feet stumble
On the dusky mountains,
And while you are hoping for light
He makes it into deep darkness,
And turns it into gloom.
17 But if you will not listen to it,
My soul will sob in secret for such pride;
And my eyes will bitterly weep
And flow down with tears,
Because the flock of the LORD has been taken captive.

Acceptable to Liberals = Unacceptable

2005-05-20T10:54:00.000-05:00

So called "Moderate" Republicans and Democrats are attempting to undermine the Republican Party's ability to seat judges who represent the values of the voting majority of Americans as expressed in the Presidential and State elections. The compromise resolution they are seeking to the current situation is another example of the minority imposing its will on the majority.

An LA Times article says, "The issue at the forefront of current negotiations is a proposal championed by Byrd and Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.) to create an independent, bipartisan commission — under the auspices of the Senate Judiciary Committee — that would pick a nonbinding pool of nominees to propose to the president to fill any Supreme Court vacancies."

This is not good. At this point in history, any deal that requires passing judicial nominees through a screen that produces judges acceptable to the Democrats is NOT acceptable.

Liberal Paper Supports "The Nuke"

2005-05-20T07:30:00.000-05:00

The LA Times supports ridding the Senate of the filibuster. While they take a swipe at conservatives in their opinion piece, they do support what Senator Frist is doing.

Lesson on the History of the Senate Filibuster

2005-05-20T07:22:00.000-05:00

Quoting from the article:

Let's return to the question of the filibuster. As you indicated, filibusters of judicial nominations were unheard of until 2003. What about the filibuster itself—how long has that been in existence.

That's an interesting question. The filibuster of legislation, from my research, appears to go back to the 1830s. It was first invoked by Southern senators attempting to defend slavery. Interestingly, there was no filibuster when the country was founded. It was not discussed in the Constitution, it was not discussed in the Federalist Papers, and it was not allowed under Senate rules until 1806, and it wasn't even practiced until the 1830s. The filibuster has been cut back several times. After World War I, it was cut back to allow cloture to be invoked by a two-thirds vote. Interestingly, Senate Democrats made a big, successful push in the 1970s to get cloture cut back, so that you could shut off a filibuster with fewer votes—60 votes instead of 67.

Basically, the filibuster has a very sorry and sad history. It has mostly been used in opposing equal civil rights for African Americans. It's hard to think of a really good and noble use of the filibuster, where a Senate filibuster prevented from passage some bill that everyone later concluded was terrible. But the filibuster of legislation is very well established, unlike the filibuster of judges.

The filibuster of legislation is not provided for in the Constitution, but it does have a very long tradition. The filibuster of judges is something wholly new and different from that.

You said earlier there was one exception when the filibuster had been used against a judicial candidate. Was that the Abe Fortas situation?

That was in 1968. Justice Fortas had been nominated by Lyndon Johnson to be chief justice. And serious ethical issues arose during his confirmation hearings, and Senate Republicans filibustered the Fortas nomination on one test vote. The nomination received less than 50 votes on the Senate floor, so Fortas was not like President Bush's current appointees, all of whom are supported by the majority of the Senate. Ultimately, the allegations of misconduct around Justice Fortas proved to be so serious that he was forced to not only withdraw as a nominee for Chief Justice, but to resign as a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

So the Fortas situation was dramatically different from the filibusters that Senate Democrats have been waging against President Bush's nominees.

And as you pointed out, the filibuster wasn't at all about his ideology, or political philosophy—or how he might rule. It was solely about whether he was fit for the office?

That is absolutely true. There was only one cloture vote taken and he didn't even get 50 votes, so even Democrats didn't really support him, which makes it very different from the cloture votes that have been taken on Bush nominees, where in some cases there have been more than five attempts to secure cloture, and more than 50 senators voted for cloture, but a willful minority keeps preventing an up-or-down vote from being had on the nominee.

In terms of some of the judicial nominations that have been filibustered by Senate Democrats—and I'm thinking especially of William Pryor's appeals court nomination —do you think a religious test for office is now in effect? That Senate Democrats feel they can pass judgment on people of faith?

Well, that's a hard question to answer. I think many of the questions which were posed to Bill Pryor when he was nominated were questions that bore on his faith—and what his faith was. It did seem at the time that some Senate Democrats were attempting to say that a devout Catholic who followed the teachings of the late Pope John Paul II was unqualified for office, unless he said he wouldn't be influenced by those religious teachings.

I think the treatment of Judge Pryor was extremely unfair. The only issue with Judge Pryor is would he follow the law even if he disagreed with it, and I think there is ample evidence that he would follow the law, even if he disagreed with it.

Senate Democrats have been very coy about whether or not they are imposing a religious test for office, but I think they have verged too close to that line, and they ought to be more respectful of people of faith who are nominated to be judges.

Is the constitutional option an anomaly—as some in the media have portrayed it?

The Senate changes its rules all the time. I think rules changes are quite common, including rules changes with respect to the filibuster. It was only in the 1970s that Senate Democrats made it harder to filibuster by lowering the number of votes from 67 down to 60, but Senate Democrats have made other changes providing that certain bills not be filibusterable. So the Senate certainly changes its rules from time to time.

The key thing here is that the Republicans are actually proposing a solution which actually restores us to the practice that we had from 1789 to 2003. So, in a sense, the people who are really trying to change the rules are Senate Democrats who are trying to filibuster judges. It's Senate Republicans who are trying to put things back to where they have been for most of our history.

"The Gospel of Billy Graham: Inclusion"

2005-05-16T23:03:00.000-05:00

USA TODAY has published another article, this one about Billy Graham, that is very good. It has only one negative aspect...that it takes a swipe at religious conservatives who join the democratic process. The not so hidden message here is, "See, the best example of a Christian man in America, the one who has saved the most souls, does not get involved in politics. Neither should you." The other not so hidden message is that it is wrong to exclude denominations that you do not agree with because Billy Graham is "inclusive."

This article inspires great respect for Billy Graham and makes me nostalgic for the era in which he grew up and came to prominence. In that time, our society accepted Christian values. Christian religions were Christian in the fundamental sense: they accepted the Bible's gospel account of Jesus as truth. In that time, Billy Graham was right to be "inclusive." He was right to focus purely on the gospel of Jesus Christ as the One who has come to be our Lord and Savior, to reunite mankind with God. Billy Graham is right now to maintain that course. Others though, must now point out the sin that is forcing its way into our laws via the secular religion of activist liberal judges. Others must now point out that "progressive" Christian churches are not Christian at all and have fallen into profound apostasy and idolatry.

The message of love and inclusion is still there. Jesus still wants everyone to come to His truth. Jesus still accepts everyone who accepts Him. Those who want to redefine Him, though, are not accepting Him. Progressive churches have simply found a sophisticated way to reject Him while still calling out, "Lord, Lord."

Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by thy name, and by thy name cast out demons, and by thy name do many mighty works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Qualified Conservatives or Judicial Fanatics?

2005-05-16T18:08:00.000-05:00

OR "Too Late to be Reasonable"
OR "Accepting Defeat By The Old Double-Standard"
OR "Near Victory is NOT the Time to Compromise"

USA TODAY has published an opinion of the judicial nomination "mess" that we find our nation in today. The magazine suggests a very reasonable solution...one that all reasonable politicians and citizens should applaud. Except for one problem. Democratic members of the Senate have never operated in this reasonable way and have created a situation in which the reasonable way for the Republican majority to respond is with force in order to rectify the imbalance the Democrats have created. To follow the "reasonable" course suggested by USA TODAY would be to allow a double-standard to set the terms of Republican behavior and thereby accept defeat in this judicial nomination fight.

If the following paragraphs I will quote the article and follow-up with a short observation on each point.

Qualified conservatives or judicial fanatics?
May 15, 2005 in USA TODAY

To their supporters, they are a group of all-American success stories: a sharecropper's daughter, a senator's son, a brilliant female law student — able lawyers and jurists who teach Sunday school, clean up national parks and do other good works in their spare time. To their critics, they are seven judicial fanatics, a gang that threatens to rewrite established law on everything from abortion to the environment to gay rights.

President Bush's controversial nominees to the federal appeals courts are the focus of a bitter partisan fight likely to come to a head in Washington this week.

I am always suspicious of the word "partisan," but okay. So far the article is basically balanced.

Republicans, led by Majority Leader Bill Frist and pressured by religious conservatives, are threatening to blow up the Senate's rules to break a Democratic filibuster of the disputed seven. Democrats say they'd respond to this "nuclear option" by throwing roadblocks in front of other Senate business.

Senator Frist is not being "pressured" by religious conservatives! He is being supported and cheered on. Big difference. Frist is running and all we are trying to do is block for him. "Blow up?" How about an accurate word that is not so emotionally charged and does not overstate the case, such as "alter." This amounts to USA TODAY urging the gullible and the liberals to fight. After all, no reasonable person wants to "blow up" the Senate rules!

Amid all the wrangling, little attention has been given to the nominees themselves, who deserve to be treated and evaluated as individuals, not as partisan caricatures in a dress rehearsal for the fight over the next Supreme Court nominee.

Good statement. Only omits two words: "by liberals." The correct statement would read, "...little attention has been given BY LIBERALS to the nominees themselves...."

The seven:

• Janice Rogers Brown. An Alabama sharecropper's daughter, she became the first black woman on the California Supreme Court. Critics view her as a conservative activist who ignores established law in favor of her political views. She has supported limits on abortion rights and corporate liability, opposed affirmative action and attacked the propriety of taxing the affluent to provide benefits for the poor.

Here begins the double-standard. It is not okay for conservatives to ignore "established law," but it is okay for liberal activist judges to avoid established law. Only by avoiding established law did we end up with Roe v. Wade.

The courts are now building a precedent for using all kinds of non-established laws to interpret the U. S. Constitution. Gary Bauer writes, "In the recent Supreme Court decision to overturn laws permitting the executions of 16- and 17-year-old killers, Justice Anthony Kennedy signaled clearly that the court would increasingly look abroad for guidance in interpreting our Constitution.

"He points out that the court is building a tradition of referring "to the laws of other countries and to international authorities as instructive for its interpretation" of the Constitution. In fact, five justices spent five pages referencing international law in their opinion.

"Unfortunately, this isn't just one renegade case:

• In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the majority opinion was guided by the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights. In fact, Kennedy said that overturning a prior decision upholding sodomy laws was necessary because it was devoid of any reliance on the views of a "wider civilization."

• In their decision to uphold affirmative action at the University of Michigan Law School, Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg prominently cited a United Nations' treaty — the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women — even though for more than 20 years, the U.S. Senate has refused to ratify the treaty.

"In fact, in many of its highest-profile cases, the court has cited rulings from nations and international institutions as diverse as the U.N., India, Jamaica, and even that model of justice, Zimbabwe."

• Priscilla Owen. She was first in her law school class and achieved the highest score on the Texas bar exam. Critics call her an out-of-bounds ultraconservative, pointing to her rulings against consumers, working people and minors who want abortions. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, then a fellow member of the Texas Supreme Court, said one opinion she joined amounted to "an unconscionable act of judicial activism."

Double standard. Conservative judges cannot commit "judicial activism," but liberal judges can. Conservative judges cannot act on their beliefs, but liberal judges can. Why are conservative judges considered to be "out-of-bounds?" Guess who set the boundaries?

• William Pryor. A former Alabama attorney general, Pryor is already an appeals court judge by temporary appointment. Critics have objected to his earlier comments and writings on abortion, separation of church and state, the voting-rights law and gays. He called the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade abortion decision an abomination and attacked a 2003 gay-rights decision as giving the green light to bestiality, incest and pedophilia. Defenders note he defied right-wing pressure and upheld the law in cases involving the Ten Commandments and Terri Schiavo's feeding tube.

How much more even-handed can a judge be? He makes everyone mad!

• William Myers. A successful Washington lawyer, he's never been a judge and has little courtroom experience. But critics' primary concern is his record as a lobbyist for grazing and mining interests. They see him as hostile to environmental protections, health and safety regulations and the legal doctrine of privacy, cornerstone for protection of abortion rights. The American Bar Association gave him its lowest passing rating.

If Mr. Myers doesn't know the law, I might be against him too. However, note that his lack of legal experience isn't the liberals' main objection!

• Richard Griffin, David McKeague and Henry Saad. The three lower-court judges are pawns in a fight over federal judgeships from Michigan that goes back to the Clinton administration. All have clearly conservative records, but none has provoked the level of concern voiced about the others.

No comment.

So who should be confirmed? The Constitution gives the Senate joint responsibility, with the president, for the selection of judges. The standard should be whether a nominee's legal philosophy is within the broad mainstream of established law. Even Democratic leaders concede that at least two of the disputed seven (Griffin and McKeague) meet that minimal test. The records of some of the others, notably Brown and Owen, are more problematic, particularly in their willingness to challenge settled law.

Wait a minute! Who establishes the definition of "main stream?" And who established the main stream itself? This is NOT a reasonable test. It is also a double-standard. Roe v. Wade was not mainstream nor was the 2003 gay rights decision referenced above in the Pryor discussion.

Republicans are insisting on the right to confirm judges by a bare majority, 51 votes. To do that, they propose to outlaw use of the filibuster, under which 60 votes are required to end debate and force a decision.

Wrong again. This one almost sounded reasonable to me. Republicans are insisting on the right to vote for the nominees. Nothing more. We are NOT insisting on a right to confirm the nominees. That would be ridiculous.

In our view, a qualified nominee within the judicial mainstream ought to be able to attract at least a handful of Democratic or independent votes, in addition to the 55 Republican votes. That is not an unreasonable standard for lifetime appointees whose rulings often establish important precedents.

Way too late to be reasonable. And I don't buy the "mainstream" standard at all.

Ramming nominations through the Senate on party-line votes would worsen Congress' image and the poisonous atmosphere in Washington. Worse, it would undermine confidence in the independence of the courts — particularly if judges were seen as imposing their religious or political beliefs on others.

Taking there sentences one by one: (1) Liberals have already poisoned the atmosphere. We are just breathing it. (2) Conservative confidence in the courts could not be lower. (3) Judges are already imposing their religious and political beliefs on others.

In the name of the public interest, the Senate should find a compromise. That begins with Democrats accepting qualified conservative nominees. But it also includes Republicans not sticking doggedly by all nominees, regardless of concerns they may raise.

In whose interest, did you say? The public's? That is almost funny. You know that if the liberal media is recommending a compromise, it is because they know the Republicans have the upper hand. It would be foolish for Republicans to compromise at this point. Republicans must be dogged because that has been the attitude of the liberal activist judges and their supporters. Now that we are about to win a big round, the liberals implore us to be reasonable. They play for keeps when they are in power, and so must we.

Standing Firm Against the Filibuster

2005-05-14T14:47:00.000-05:00

I am gratified that Senator Frist is standing firm against pressure to allow the Democrats to block the President's judicial nominees. I look forward to seeing the Senate vote up or down on all the President's nominees...and I think we may see that day soon. Here is the text of an announcement by Senator Frist:

STATEMENT FROM THE OFFICE OF THE SENATE MAJORITY LEADER
US Senator William H. Frist, M.D.

May 13th, 2005 - Upon completion of action on the pending highway bill, the Senate will begin debate on fair up or down votes on judicial nominations. As is the regular order, the Leader will move to act on judge nominations sent to the full Senate by the Judiciary Committee in the past several weeks. Priscilla Owen, to serve as a judge for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, and Janice Rogers Brown, to serve as a judge for the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, will be the nominees of focus.

The Majority Leader will continue to discuss an appropriate resolution of the need for fair up or down votes with the Minority Leader. If they can not find a way for the Senate to decide on fair up or down votes on judicial nominations, the Majority Leader will seek a ruling from the Presiding Officer regarding the appropriate length of time for debate on such nominees. After the ruling, he will ensure that every Senator has the opportunity to decide whether to restore the 214-year practice of fair up or down votes on judicial nominees; or, to enshrine a new veto by filibuster that both denies all Senators the opportunity to advise and consent and fundamentally disturbs the separation of powers between the branches.

There will be a full and vigorous Senate floor debate that is too important for parliamentary tactics to speed it up or slow it down until all members who wish have had their say. All members are encouraged to ensure that rhetoric in this debate follows the rules, and best traditions, of the Senate.

It is time for 100 Senators to decide the issue of fair up or down votes for judicial nominees after over two years of unprecedented obstructionism. The Minority has made public threats that much of the Senate’s work will be shut down. Such threats are unfortunate.

The Majority Leader has proposed his Fairness Rule: up to 100 hours of debate, and then an up or down vote on circuit and Supreme Court nominations. Further, the Fairness Rule would eliminate the opportunity for blockade of such nominees at the Judiciary Committee. And finally, it will make no changes to the legislative filibuster.

If Senators believe a nominee is qualified, they should have the opportunity to vote for her. If they believe she is unqualified, they should have the opportunity to vote against her.

Members must decide if their legacy to the Senate is to eliminate the filibuster’s barrier to the Constitutional responsibility of all Senators to advise and consent with fair, up or down votes.

American Liberal Family?

2005-05-12T00:18:00.000-05:00

No, just North Korean children at play.

Open Letter to Senator Lott

2005-05-11T22:45:00.000-05:00

STOP the compromise !!!
NO Judicial FILIBUSTERS!
DO take the Constitutional Option.
We want a vote on ALL nominees, NOT SOME.

UPDATE: Nevermind. I called Senator Lott's office today. The nice young intern stated that Sen. Lott has NOT negotiated a compromise nor is he trying to do so. The intern said that Sen. Lott is frustrated because he cannot seem to get anyone to listen to his rebuttal. So, I don't know where Dr. Dobson and others got their information, but it appears to be wrong. GOOD!

On the downside, I called the other Republican senators who are waffling, and all but one are FIRMLY waffling. Senator McCain firmly supports the filibuster because "when Republicans are again in the minority we will need the filibuster." I don't know if that is taking the long view or is short-sighted. My point is that if we let the liberals control the courts, it WON'T MATTER that the Republicans are in the majority!! Activist judges will continue to dictate their will to the people regardless of what the Constitution says and regardless of what the people want.

Open Letter to Secretary Rumsfeld

2005-05-11T09:20:00.000-05:00

Dear Secretary Rumsfeld,

Americans United for Separation of Church and State, possibly enabled by some mistakes by Air Force Academy officials, are attempting to remove the right of Christians at the Air Force Academy to tell their classmates about their religion and the freedom of military chaplains to teach their congregations that Jesus commanded His followers to spread His Gospel. If they are successful the precedent will be established to attack the Naval Academy, the U.S. Military Academy, and the entire Armed Forces. Please ensure that the DoD task force that is investigating the "religious climate" at the Academy includes evangelical Christians and that the task force does not limit the freedom of Christians at the Academy to practice their religion. You must act now because, as you know, the task force will produce a report by May 23, 2005. For anyone in your staff who is not familiar with the details, below are articles that tell who is in charge of the task force.

1. Air Force article giving names of who leads the task force and its mission: http://www.usafa.org/cgi-any/newspages.dll/pages?record=239&pagegroup=news&htmlfile=newspages3_news.htm

2. Article by Americans United for Separation of Church and State that tells how they started this investigation: http://au.convio.net/site/News2?JServSessionIdr003=q0hqlmcvb1.app5b&abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=7341&security=
1002&news_iv_ctrl=1241

3. Here is the URL to the 14 page report by Americans United on the climate at the academy. Most alarming is their implication that a chaplain cannot exhort Christians in a church service to tell their others about Jesus! If the report is accurate, it appears that Academy officials may have made some mistakes, but Americans United is going to try to limit the freedom of Christians to tell others about their religion and the right of chaplains to teach that Christ commanded His followers to tell others about Him. http://www.au.org/pdf/050428AirForceReport.pdf

Please ensure that the task force is balanced and includes evangelical Christian representatives from organizations like Focus on the Family and Family Research Counsel.

Thank You.

Violating the Culture War's Code of Conduct

2005-05-09T19:12:00.000-05:00

IF the reports are accurate, then Pastor Chan Chandler of East Waynesville Baptist Church in Waynesville, NC, has committed a violation of the "Culture War's Code of Conduct." Oh, if only we actually had one...that is a Code of Conduct for the Culture War...an equivalent to the Geneva Code. It would be refreshing to have a fair and decent debate guided by a set of rules to which both sides agreed. We could stop shooting the wounded and quit using chemical weapons on each other. If I could help write such a Code, it would include a statement that both sides of the debate are free to follow their consciences and to practice their values or religion.

If Pastor Chandler really did what he is accused of, he has violated that code because he has forgotten what his religion, Christianity, is about. Fundamentally (no pun intended), Christianity is the worship of Jesus Christ as one's personal Lord and Savior and requires obedience to Jesus' commands as taught by Himself and His apostles as recorded in the Holy Bible. A Christian pastor should teach and preach from scripture regarding the issues that are at the center of the Culture War: the value of life, the value of marriage between one man and one woman, about idolatry, about living out our faith in Christ, about telling others about Jesus in obedience to His Great Commission, and about anything else that the scriptures teach us. Under the "Code" he would not be allowed to claim that he is practicing Christianity by telling his congregation how to vote. He might claim from the beginning that his interpretation of scripture does require or allow this approach to the worship of Jesus Christ. While I would vigorously disagree with his interpretation of scripture, at least his congregation would know before they joined his church (or before they called him to their church) that they are joining the "Christian Church of Conservative Politics," but he must not claim to be a Baptist.

I do not care that advocating and supporting a specific political party or specific politician may violate the Internal Revenue Code [Section 26 U.S.C. 501 (c) (3)] which states:

Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.

What is important to me is that this pastor has done damage to the body of Christ by bringing politics into his church. He may end up apologizing and recanting. His church may kick him out and call a new pastor. The damage has already been done and it is a sad thing to see. As in real war, some soldiers go too far and damage the war effort by abusing prisoners or committing other atrocities. If the reports are accurate, Pastor Chandler has gone beyond the proper worship of Christ. Also as in real war, I am sure that Pastor Chandler will pay the price.

This is not to say that Christians should stay out of politics or that Christians may not create organizations with political purposes! Far from it. Christians MUST engage in the democratic process to the fullest extent. We must be soldiers in the Culture War. However, we must also keep politics out of God's house.

Myth-Fact: Judicial Filibusters

2005-04-30T17:51:00.000-05:00

In some ways, the Democratic attempt to stop President Bush's judicial nominees from being appointed is understandable. It is the job of a political party to try to win their way. In this case, though, the Democrats have been voted out of power by the citizens of our nation and they cannot win their way with legitimate means. They are apparently willing to stoop so low as to effectively put the Senate on strike.

Interestingly, when the Democrats were in power in 1995 they also wanted to eliminate the filibuster as a tool in judicial nominations:

It seems Democrats have changed their tune on giving all judicial nominees a fair up-or-down vote. They now claim the filibuster is a sacred tool of the Senate. But in 1995, Democrats, including nine who still serve, voted to rid the Senate of this tool.

That's right, nine current Democratic Senators voted to get rid of the filibuster. Now that it suits their needs, they praise it. What's worse than this hypocrisy is these same Senators now lead the obstruction and threaten to shut down the Senate. Their claims of loyalty to, and reverence for, Senate traditions are just another sham designed to hide their hypocrisy.Read the entire article here.

Nine of the Democrats who voted to end filibusters in 1995 are still serving: Lieberman, Bingaman, Boxer, Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, Sarbanes.

So far, Republicans under the leadership of Senator Frist are holding firm against allowing filibusters to stop the voting on President Bush's nominees. Let us pray that Republican leadership remains strong.

In the ongoing political fight Democrats have propagated numerous myths. Here are a few of main ones and the facts behind the myths.

Myth #1: Senate Republicans are attempting to abolish all filibusters.
Fact: Republicans are seeking to reestablish the Senate's traditional role in the judicial nomination process, not eliminate all filibusters, an initiative some Democrats have supported in the past. Read the details.

Myth #2: filibusters of judicial nominations are part of Senate tradition.
Fact: having to overcome a filibuster (or obtaining 60 votes) on judicial nominations is unprecedented and has never been the confirmation test for a nominee -- and in the past, even Democrats have called for up or down votes. Read the details.

Myth #3: Democrats want to continue debating these nominations so they can reach a compromise with the Republican majority.
Fact: the Democrats have threatened to shut down the Senate rather than carry out their constitutional obligation to provide an up or down vote on judicial nominees. Read the details.

Myth #4: Democrats treatment of Bush's nominees is analogous to Republicans treatment of Clinton's nominees.
Fact: President Clinton's judicial nominees were not filibustered and never before has a judicial nominee with clear majority support been denied an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor by a filibuster. Read the details.

Myth #5: the Constitutional Option is unprecedented.
Fact: Senate Democrats have used the Constitutional Option in the past. Read the details.

Andrew and Vic...Continued

2005-04-29T21:25:00.000-05:00

On April 15th I started a post entitled, "Andrew's Views --OR-- Liberal Prejudice." Andrew did not care for that title, and I don't blame him, however he did not explain how prejudice is not present in his view that Christians are disqualified from being judges. Andrew stated that maybe it is prejudice, or maybe not, and reiterated that "having a man legislate, pass rulings, from a position of extreme christianity is...in violation of the concept of separation of church and state." Interesting. "Extreme Christianity"...maybe that will be a new olympic sport! One must presume that weak Christianity would not disqualify a person from being a judge...only from obeying our Lord.

That post now contains eleven comments that I thought should be pulled out from under the hyperlink and placed into light. So here they are. Read along as Vic and Andrew investigate each others views on the rights of religious people.
--------------------------------

Comments from Andrew:
Vic,

I don't have the time to give you full response (and perhaps I don't have the inclination, either), but two things:

1) Don't paint me with your "liberal prejudice" brush. I understand it's convenient for you and it places me into a box which you have carefully constructed. I don't identify with a liberal or conservative point of view, thanks.

2) Have I ever studied geo-politics? I teach it (grade 12 geography: world issues) at a school wth 50% muslim population. I'd guess I have seen more people of other ethnicities than you ever will in your life. Don't insult me by assuming that I didn't know about the oil factor in Iraq. Officially, your government declared war in Iraw over weapons and potential terrorist threats against the US. Since those claims have been proven false, I figure I'm as entitled as anyone to draw conclusions about the real motives for Iraq. The way I see it, part of it is cultural. How many times have we heard about "liberating" people in Iraq and Afghanistan? What does liberty mean to you? What does it mean to people in the middle east?

3) as far as I'm concerned, the validity of the James Ossuary is still up in the air. No one, however, is arguing about all of the fossils of ancient man that have been discovered. Not one of them, by the way, were Adam and Eve.

That's three things for the price of two.

PS - Your recent post on gallup results and homosexuality. I am assuming you oppose same-sex unions and perhaps homosexuality in general. Remember, a huge portion of people in your country (historicall) opposed equal rights for blacks and for women. So it might take time, but I'm sure you'll come around. 100 years from now we'll think back to this time and wonder how we could have been so hateful.

PSS - why all the fuss about legislating against gay marriage, anyway? Last I checked, it wasn't even one of your top ten - ten commandments, that is. Heck, these are the ten big rules handed down to you folks by god, and no one seems to be getting up in arms about swearing or adultery - those are still legal things to do. Let's make those illegal before we start into the whole gay marriage thing. Jeez, you think god would have included that one in the top 11.

(Oops, 5 for the price of 2)
# posted by Andrew : 11:25 AM
--------------------------------
Comments from Vic:

Andrew, I know from experience that we will probably not ever agree on most of these issues, but can you not see that saying a Christian is disqualified from any office by reason of their beliefs is prejudice? Would you not call it prejudice, or a similar word, if I said an atheist is disqualified from an office because of their beliefs?
# posted by Vic3 : 5:56 PM
--------------------------------
Comments from Andrew:

Whether it's prejudiced that this man was disqualified or not is not my concern. Maybe it was, and maybe it wasn't. All I know is that having a man legislate, pass rulings, from a position of extreme christianity is a) in violation of the concept of separation of church and state and b) discriminatory to those people over whom he presides who are not christian.

Hey, I can't teach at a catholic school because I'm not catholic. Does this make sense? Is this prejudiced? Maybe, and maybe not. But when you take a strong moral stance, you've got to realize that it disqualifies you from some jobs.

Anyway, one of my friends started up a blog of his own, and since you're not catholic, it's OK for you to have a chuckle or two at his most recent post.

http://marks-soapbox.blogspot.com/

PS - not sure that I like what you've done with your layout. Also, gotta pick a name and stick with it.
# posted by Andrew : 9:34 AM
--------------------------------
Comments from Vic:

Andrew, you too hold strong moral views. If you were a judge and passed rulings over Christians, would it be discriminatory to them?

What happens to "diversity" if you begin to exclude specific religions from public sector jobs? By your logic, if you must exclude one religion, you must exclude them all, right?

Don't you think that all citizens of our nation should participate in the market place of ideas, and let the best idea win? And if so, isn't religious belief part of that?...which means that we should debate which judges get nominated and let the public dialogue do its job...right?

Please do not let the following distract you from the issues above, but regarding your earlier comment on geo-politics and ethnicities...understanding ethnicities and cultures is not the same as understanding geopolitics. By the way, I lived in Korea for three years among their Christians, Buddhists, and Confucianists, in Turkey for one year among the Sunni, in Europe for six years among the atheists, spent time in South America, and worked among Muslims and Greek Orthodox of southeast Europe for a six month period. With the Inupiat and Yupik I have eaten frozen whale, bear, and grayling dipped in warm seal fat. I was a minority in my high school in Hawaii where I was in the 10% of students who were white, the other 90% being asian, polynesian, and black. In the United States I have lived in the southeast, northeast, southwest, and central states (never in the northwest of the lower 48 though). Finally, I grew up in a non-Christian home. So I have more than average exposure to multiple cultures and religions...and none of that experience by itself means that I understand anything about geopolitics. Even so, you are certainly free to guess at the motives of the war in Iraq. It is better, though, to read what the authors of that war intended from the beginning. It is guaranteed to make you angry, but it's real, and explains the geopolitics and military factors that motivated everything we did before and after 911. Pages 14 and 15 discuss Iraq, but the entire document is informative.
# posted by Vic3 : 3:33 PM
Oh, forgot to add...I agree with you on something!...that I need to pick a name and stick with it and that I'm not sure I like the new layout. My blog hasn't found itself yet.
# posted by Vic3 : 3:41 PM
--------------------------------
Comments from Andrew:

Vic, I was a judge, the only grounds I would use for a ruling are those written as law (and not my personal beliefs). In the event of some monumental case where I actually set precendent, then perhaps I would then consider the moral implications. It seems to me that this guy was disqualified because he would allow his personal beliefs to get in the way of his lawful rulings.

In Canada, we have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (a legacy of Trudeau). One of the things it states for us is that we are free to practice our religions how we see fit, but that our religions will never influence our government and vice-versa. It's kinda nice. I like it.

You never commented on whether I should be allowed to teach in a catholic school. Should I?

I haven't read that document yet, but a) I read the chart on page 15 and got chills down my spine. Why are you folks so set on global domination? and b) who are the "authors" of this study?

Finally, this should get your blood boiling... read the one called "Z / Me"

http://quotidianmeander.blogspot.com/
# posted by Andrew : 7:13 AM
Andrew,
--------------------------------
Comments from Vic:

Short answer...NO, you should not be allowed to teach in a Catholic school for the same reasons that you would not want a U.S. Army Airborne Ranger teaching your children (I am assuming here...).

So, yes, you judging Christians would be to submit them to beliefs that they disagree with (which is your idea of discrimination from your post before last).

It may sound trite, but many of the Nazis who killed Jews did it out of a stern sense of duty without regard to their own sense of right and wrong. At Nurnberg it was frequently noted how "dispassionately" they discharged their duty. When you prohibit morality from government, you will have an immoral state. There is no such thing as an "amoral" person or an "amoral" government. All persons have morals of some kind just as do their governments. The only question is, "Whose morals will we follow?" In our republic, it is each citizen's job to try to get the government to follow the morals that they think are correct. That is all I am doing. It is my right and my duty as a voter.

I read "Z / Me." Boring speculation from someone who either never read the Bible or ignored it. Happens all the time.
# posted by Vic3 : 12:00 AM
--------------------------------
Comments from Andrew:

So then Vic, is it alright for a teacher who is Catholic to teach in a public, non-denominational school? (Be honest, here).
# posted by Andrew : 6:44 AM
--------------------------------
Comments from Vic:

You and the Catholic both pay taxes. You and the Catholic both have beliefs and morals; you bring them to work with you and everywhere else you go. It is just as right for a Catholic to work and teach in a public non-denominational school system with their beliefs as it is for you to teach in a public non-denominational school. The same logic applies to judges and any other public or commercial sector job.
# posted by Vic3 : 1:32 PM
--------------------------------
Comments from Andrew:

Vic, you seem to be losing your sense of humour (and if christians lose their sense of humour, what have they got left?), so I think I'll leave you alone for now.

I won't even wade back into the fray of the wrongness you wrote about 1) who can hold what kinds of jobs 2) the article by Mike Johnston at quotidianmeander.

But if you're just doing your "job to try to get the government to follow the morals that (you) think are correct," aren't these "liberals" doing the same thing?
# posted by Andrew : 6:59 AM
--------------------------------
Comments from Vic:

The only thing that makes me lose my humor is having to defend my rights.

If anyone ever proposes laws that would require The Atheist College of Frozen Nunavut to employ religious people, I will loudly oppose those laws. I will oppose laws that prohibit atheists from public jobs. I will oppose laws that require non-profit private atheist organizations to hire religious people.

I expect liberals to fight for their values just as I fight for mine. I TOTALLY lose my sense of humor when liberals try to say that I cannot rightly fight for my viewpoints and when they lie about my viewpoints. The liberal cry against "Justice Sunday" is an example. Read The Nation. Conservative Christians "cross a line" when they band together to fight for their rights. In addition to being disqualified to be judges, now we do not have the right to assembly. Wonder what other rights the liberal left would like to deny us in order to muzzle us? It says that we are attacking "checks and balances." Untrue. It's closing sentences all but state that evangelical Christians and Republicans are not "people of good faith" and that we endanger democracy. Yes. That makes me lose my sense of humor. I guess conservative Christians are to let their voices be heard only within their churches. Sorry. That would disobey our Lord.
# posted by Vic3 : 9:21 PM

Sometimes God Goes to War

2005-04-18T22:52:00.000-05:00

It is simply amazing that any church leader who had ever read the Bible could say that war in general is against the will of God...unless they were stating personal opinions based on something other than Scripture. Through Jeremiah, as one example, God showed how we are not to be impressed by priests and prophets who counsel and predict only peace:

Jer 14:13 But, "Ah, Lord GOD!" I said, "Look, the prophets are telling them, 'You will not see the sword nor will you have famine, but I will give you lasting peace in this place.'"

Jer 14:14 Then the LORD said to me, "The prophets are prophesying falsehood in My name. I have neither sent them nor commanded them nor spoken to them; they are prophesying to you a false vision, divination, futility and the deception of their own minds."

Just as going to war is not always right, neither is keeping a peace always God's will.

Why am reminding you that God is not against all wars? Because I just came across this pastoral letter issued by the National Council of Churches on May 11, 2004. Predictably, it follows the path of least resistance and opposes the war in Iraq. More disturbingly, it attributes to God attributes that clearly contradict what is revealed about Him in scripture. The letter states,

"But Christians should never identify violence against others with the will of God and should always work to prevent and end it."

Well, yes. When President Bush sent our troops into Iraq he did so to prevent and end Saddam's torture of his own people and to prevent Saddam from continuing to make war against his neighbors. But of course that is not what the ecumenical group of 36 "faith groups" had in mind. They meant that Christians should always work to prevent and end war that is in the interest of the United States. In spite of the humanitarian objects of the war, it is definitely in the interests of the U.S. to stabilize the Middle East...so I guess that a war that helps that cause is one that the National Council of Churches opposes.

The pastoral letter also quotes a letter by the World Council of Churches:

"Two central claims of the Christian faith are crucial in our thinking: that every person, as a child of God, is of infinite worth; and that all persons, as participants in God’s one creation, are related in their humanity and vulnerability. This is why the World Council of Churches has asserted that 'war is contrary to the will of God' - because it destroys that which God has made sacred."

That sounds nice, but it ignores what God has revealed in Scripture: God has used war to destroy what He made sacred. Jeremiah decribes how God used Babylon's army to destroy the Temple. NOTHING was more sacred than the Temple. Last, why didn't the World Council of Churches care when Saddam tortured and murdered his own people and his neighbors? Why was it wrong for the United States to prevent that from continuing?

Following my Theory of Everything Liberal, since Saddam devalued his people, he must be defended or at least ignored. When the United States removes the murderer and returns to the land to its people, and raises the value of all Iraqis, President Bush must be attacked.

But I digress. MY REAL POINT IS THAT it is simply amazing that any church leader who had ever read the Bible could say that war in general is against the will of God...unless they were stating personal opinions based on something other than Scripture. But if that were the case, why put personal opinions in a pastoral letter and claim these opinions as "God's will?"

Bob Edgar and the leaders of these churches are courageous in the same way that the leaders of Jerusalem during Jeremiah's time showed courage: they are willing to test God's patience and mercy. In 2 Peter 2, Peter discusses false teachers:

1 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them–bringing swift destruction on themselves. 2 Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. 3 In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.

Deuteronomy has a warning for false prophets:

20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death." 21 You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD ?" 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.

Please do not misunderstand: I am not implying that these leaders should die. I am stating that they are testing God's patience and mercy by proclaiming falsehoods in His name.

--------------
Biblical note: In the case quoted above in Jeremiah, Judah had been committing idolatry inspite of repeated and patient warnings to repent. So God decided to use the army of Babylon, under King Nebuchadnezzar, to destroy Jerusalem and to crush Judah and place the captive Israelites under the power of Babylon for a period of 70 years. Before Judah's fall, however, the priests and prophets continued to tell the people what they wanted to hear, not what God was trying to tell them through His prophets. See Jeremiah Chapters 21 through 28.

Why Doesn't Gallup Ever Call Me?

2005-04-16T14:48:00.000-05:00

A new Gallup poll appears to show that as the media and the courts push the homosexual agenda more forcefully, Americans push back. It is interesting to observe the different ways each side evaluates the same results. Here are some samples:

Actual results: You should review the actual results before you read the comments...then you can decide which comments are most accurate.

Pro homosexual
I can't find a website that advances the homosexual agenda that even mentions the recent Gallop poll. The Gay and Lesbian Task Force, GLAAD, and the ACLU site on Gay & Lesbian Rights do not mention it. Hmm. Just an oversight, I'm sure. Check here, maybe you can find a pro-homosexual site that has a comment on it. I could'nt.

Pro Heterosexual

Nearly one year after same-sex "marriage" was legalized in Massachusetts, support for a marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution appears to be at an all-time high, according to a new Gallup poll.

The poll found that by a margin of 57-37 percent, adults favor amending the Constitution to protect the traditional definition of marriage, thus banning "gay marriage." It is a significant increase from last July, when only 48 percent said they favored a marriage amendment.

Conservative Media:

Public opposition to "marriages" between homosexuals is at an all-time high, according to a poll released yesterday.

When asked whether they thought same-sex "marriages" should be recognized by the law as valid and come with the same rights as traditional marriages, 68 percent of the respondents in the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll said they should not.

Liberal Media
ABC News online has no coverage. CNN has no coverage. Maybe you can find a liberal media source with an article on this poll. In the time I have to look for it, I could not.

Gallup statement:

About 6 in 10 Americans oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage, but less than half support the idea of a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as only between a man and a woman. Republicans are more likely than independents or Democrats to favor such an amendment. At this point in time, same-sex marriage is not high on the list of issues voters will use to make up their minds when choosing a presidential candidate, although Republicans are more concerned about it than independents or Democrats are.

In my opinion Gallup carefully chose their words to be accurate and deceptive at the same time. But that is just me. You decide.

Andrew's Views --OR-- Liberal Prejudice

2005-04-15T20:00:00.000-05:00

Andrew and I have been having an interesting dialogue, so I've started this post as place to collect both our comments.

Andrew kicked off this dialogue with this:

Read this post about a big fluffy rabbit and I thought of you.
http://quotidianmeander.blogspot.com/2005_03_01_quotidianmeander_archive.html.

To which I responded:

Hi, Andrew. Thanks for thinking of me. ;-) Yeah, I do mean that because it's kind of a compliment, and because I enjoy the debate.

The easter bunny blog was amusing, but unhappily, not a very good analogy because there is no reliable documentation for the existence of the Easter Bunny. The story was pretty good until it said, "Oh, and I should mention--there is not actually any giant rabbit."

If you review the documentation and apply scholarly standards to its evaluation, it is convincing beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Bible more than surpasses the three tests of authenticity and reliability that scholars apply to all ancient writings (bibliographical, internal evidence, and external evidence).

There are 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. There are over 10,000 Latin Vulgate, at least 9,300 other early versions, and more than 24,000 copies of portions of the New Testament. No other document of antiquity begins to approach such numbers. Homer's Iliad, for instance, survived with only 643 manuscripts--the first complete version of the Iliad is dated in the 13th century.

The earliest copy of the New Testament dates to 125 A.D., approximately 25 years after the final book of the New Testament was actually written. No other ancient manuscript comes close to such a short time span. The time gap between original writing and earliest existing manuscript for the Iliad is 500 years, for the writings of Sophocles it is 1400 years, for the writings of Aristotle--1,400 years, for Plato--1,200 years, for Caesar himself--1,000 years. I could go on, but suffice it to say that serious scholars do not question whether we have the original words of the writers of the New Testament. This means that we are reading the eye-witness accounts of the apostles--those who saw Christ perform miracles and who heard his teachings.

Scholars acknowledge that there are 400 words, or about 40 lines, in the New Testament that may be different from the apostles' original letters. Among these about 87% are trivial mechanical matters such as spellings or differences in style. Among the remaining 50 words, none alter any article of faith and all matters addressed by these 50 words are abundantly supported by many other undoubted passages.

To summarize, a huge body of scientific evidence, archaeology continues to verify the accuracy of the Bible--no archaeological find has ever contradicted the Bible.

The other problem I had with the bunny story was this statement: "...if you are frank about your doubts, you will be criticized, disapproved of, ostracized, perhaps even oppressed for your views..."

It is Christians that are being criticized, ostracized, and oppressed. On May 1, 2004, in a Senate Judiciary Committee session, Senator Charles Schumer of New York said that J. Leon Holmes was disqualified as a candidate for a federal judge appointment because of his "deeply held conservative religious views."

Hm. Interesting. I wonder...when will we start putting Christians in concentration camps?

Make no mistake: we are fighting back.

Andrew then said:

You've got to be careful with saying things like "no archaeological find has ever contradicted the Bible."

Two years ago, I visited the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto, where the featured display was the James Ossuary. You may have heard of this box? On it was inscribed "James, brother of Jesus, son of Joseph." It is seen in archaeological circles as proof that Jesus had a brother. Scientists carbon dated it to within 2 years of when a possible brother of Jesus would have died. Ossuaries were only used as a burial custom for about 30 years, as well, so carbon dating wasn't even necessary. Further, mathematicians ran the probabilities that there would be another man named James with a brother Jesus and a father Joseph living at that time. Given that two of the three names were relatively uncommon then, the math guys concluded with 98% certainty that this was Jesus' brother's burial box.

Now, apparently the bible references Jesus' brothers and sisters, and that religious groups and historians have interpreted this to mean that he had cousins or close friends that he considered siblings. Others thought think that this was literal. This is all besides the point - the point is that Mary was a virgin, wasn't she? Then how did Jesus get a brother? Why would the bible say that Mary was a virgin and that Jesus had siblings?

And thus we see not only how archaeological findings have contradicted the bible, but also how the bible contradicts itself.

So you've got to be careful with what you write.

Now, to address your other points, in no particular order and with no particular research, but just thoughts off the top of my head:

- You can't use science to defend the vailidity of the bible without also remembering all the science that the church has been wrong about all these years (this is the same church that even today is preaching to you your values and morals, so science could and will prove this embodiment of the church wrong, as well): Galileo and the sun, evolution (and the discoveries of "Lucy," Homo Erectus, etc, which are more of those archaeologocical finds that disagrees with the bible).

- It was funny that you mentioned homer.... do you believe he was seduced by sirens, or slayed a cyclops? Or had his friends turned into animals? Those stories just might be allegories or symbolic of a harsh journey. Since the old testament far pre-dates homer, I consider it more than possible that the stories of Noah and all those other clowns are allegories, as well.

- Regarding who is being ostracized for their beliefs: well, that's just a matter of perspective, isn't it? There's a ideological war (no, don't sell me the "war on terror" lie) taking place in Iraq right now. Whose ideologies are at war? Ours and theirs. What is our ideology? It's mostly based in Christian doctrine.

- Finally, I'm glad that this Holmes fellow was disqualified from the running of becoming a federal judge due to his "deeply held" religious views. Why? Because one of the tenets on which your country was founded was that of a separation of church and state. If you've got a judge out there making legal decisions for the state based religious views, well then that's simply not a separation of church and state.

That's all. You take care of yourself, and don't forget to get educated today.

...and I replied:

The fact that the "James" ossuary was discredited says nothing about the truth of history in the Bible, only about science's initially poor evaluation of that ossuary.

Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born. Mary had more kids after that, or the "brothers" were brothers in how close they were to Jesus...so Mary might have remained a virgin. What contradiction? I am not a Catholic, so I see no problem with Mary losing her virginity after Jesus was born. But either way, there is no contradiction.

I can't see the logic behind doubting scientific support for the Bible because Christian people have been wrong in the past about some scientific issues. (!) [Referring to your statement that, "You can't use science to defend the vailidity of the bible without also remembering all the science that the church has been wrong about all these years...."]

Do you really think we went to war in Iraq because of Christian doctrine? Have you ever studied foreign affairs, economics, or geo-political dynamics? At least you have heard that there is oil in the mid-East and that for many reasons we have national interests in seeing a stable Middle East.

Okay, so we put judgeships off-limits to Christians. What else are Christians not qualified to do? I would like to know. I will start a post called "Andrew's Views" so you can respond there. See you there. ;-)

So now we have the dialogue collected in one place and shall continue in the Comments if Andrew comes back again.

Liberals Attack Christianity Via Judgeships

2005-04-13T19:42:00.000-05:00

Well this says about all I need to know about the attitudes of liberals and judges toward the Constitution and Christians.

“The Constitution Is What The Judges Say It Is.” – Former Supreme Court Chief Justice Charles E. Hughes

“Candidates With Deeply Held Christian Beliefs Are Unfit and Disqualified From Serving As A Federal Judge.” - New York Senator Charles Schumer

On May 1, in a Senate Judiciary Committee session, Senator Charles Schumer of New York said that J. Leon Holmes was disqualified as a candidate for a federal judge appointment because of his “deeply held conservative religious views.” Holmes is a Catholic.

On June 11, speaking of Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor, a nominee for the appellate court, Schumer said Pryor’s beliefs “are so well known, so deeply held that it’s hard to believe that they’re not going to influence” his decisions. Attorney General Pryor is a Catholic. Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California also opposed Pryor because of his “deeply held religious beliefs.”

Since liberals have lost the Executive and Legislature, they are fighting to retain the Judiciary, which they currently own.

We WILL fight back.

Foreign Policy Perspectives: Neocon Quiz

2005-04-09T11:20:00.000-05:00

Take a 15 minute quiz to see an evaluation of your world view. It is called the Neocon Quiz. My results said I am a Realist:

Realists…

--Are guided more by practical considerations than ideological vision
--Believe US power is crucial to successful diplomacy - and vice versa
--Don't want US policy options unduly limited by world opinion or ethical considerations
--Believe strong alliances are important to US interests
--Weigh the political costs of foreign action
--Believe foreign intervention must be dictated by compelling national interest

Historical realist: President Dwight D. Eisenhower
Modern realist: Secretary of State Colin Powell

Fairly accurate description of me, I think, with one exception: I do believe that ethical and moral considerations are important. I believe that everything our nation does, it should do out of self-interest. It is always in our self-interest in the long run to do the morally and ethically right thing. Deciding what is "right" is the where liberals and conservatives disagree; they will continue to disagree as long as liberals deny God as the authority who defines right and wrong.

Voting Americans Wanted Terri to Live

2005-04-06T10:46:00.000-05:00

An unbiased poll by Zogby on the killing of Terri Schiavo shows that voting Americans DID support Congress's action, did NOT support pulling her feeding tube to starve and dehydrate her to death, and DID support passing her guardianship to her parents. Here is a quotation from a secondary source (I am looking for the poll itself, and will post the actual questions when I find them).

It seems like all of the polls leading up to the forced starvation to death of Terri Schiavo made it appear Americans had formed a consensus in favor of ending her life. In report after report after report, the mainstream media hammered into our heads that "a majority of Americans think Terri Schiavo's feeding tube should remain out so she can be starved to death," and "by a 25-point margin opposes a law mandating federal review of her case."

The media is STILL using those numbers to attack conservatives and Republicans in Congress who led the fight to save Terri's life.

But guess what? It turns out those poll questions were BIASED against Terri. Big surprise, right? The questions posed by the ABC News poll, for example, portrayed her as having "no consciousness" and being on "life support," rather than an awake, responsive patient with a feeding tube -- which she was.

"Schiavo suffered brain damage and has been on life support for 15 years," the poll informed respondents. "Doctors say she has no consciousness and her condition is irreversible." WHAT? That's what this whole dispute was about -- the disagreements among EXPERTS over her condition. Not to mention, she was NOT on "life support," and her family gave evidence of her "consciousness" over and over again!

And now, Steven Ertelt at LifeNews.com reports that a new Zogby poll with fairer questions shows the nation clearly supporting Terri and her parents and wanting to protect the lives of other disabled patients. For example, the Zogby poll found that, if a person becomes incapacitated and has not expressed their preference for medical treatment, as in Terri's case, 43% say "the law presume that the person wants to live, even if the person is receiving food and water through a tube" while just 30% disagree.

The poll asked another question: "If a disabled person is not terminally ill, not in a coma, and not being kept alive on life support, and they have no written directive, should or should they not be denied food and water?" A whopping 79% said the patient should not have food and water taken away while just 9% said yes.

In addition, the poll also lent support to members of Congress who passed legislation seeking to prevent Terri's starvation to death and help her parents take their lawsuit to federal courts.

Respondents were asked, "When there is conflicting evidence on whether or not a patient would want to be on a feeding tube, should elected officials order that a feeding tube be removed or should they order that it remain in place?" In response, 42% said it should be ordered to remain in place and only 18% said the feeding tube should be removed.

And finally, when asked directly about Terri's case and told the her estranged husband Michael "has had a girlfriend for 10 years and has two children with her," 56% of Americans believed guardianship should have been turned over to Terri's parents while only 37% disagreed.

So, are we now hearing apologies from the mainstream media for reporting biased polling results? Are we seeing the REAL poll results from the UNBIASED polling that shows how the majority of Americans REALLY felt on this issue? [source]

"The Rule of Law" or Self-Licking Ice Cream Cone?

2005-03-31T22:06:00.000-05:00

What is "the Rule of Law?" An official government website called USINFO.STATE.GOV has a short description of the U.S. Legal System. Let's take each paragraph one at a time and review it. First:

The legal system of the United States reflects the fundamental principle that the law is the creation of the people and designed to shield citizens from both tyranny and lawlessness, to protect freedom, and to enable society to conduct its affairs for the welfare of all. The legal system rests, first and foremost, on the Constitution of the United States as the supreme law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is a single document, but it is also the basis for a vast body of law, precedent, and practice that makes up the American legal system.

The Constitution is the same document today that it was the day it was signed. It is the same document that carried the United States through many difficult days. Like the Bible, it's interpretation is best when accomplished according to the intentions of the writers. Maintaining fidelity to the writers' intent requires an Using the Constitution as the primary law that provides the basis for all other laws provides a single and consistent start point for U.S. law. So far so good.

The problem is that our judges do not start with the Constitution when they consider a case. They rely on the "vast body of law, precedent, and practice that makes up the American legal system." The Constitution is now so buried by that vast body of law, precedent, and practice that the original meaning and intention is twisted, smothered, and obscured. "Finding" the original meaning of the Constitution is like an archaeological dig in which the archaeologist must dig through centuries of broken pots and other discarded refuse of daily life (vast body...etc.) to find the origin of the ancient settlement by the river. The Constitution is at the bottom layer... its original meaning forgotten. Just one example: "Congress shall make no law respecting religion." This is a beautifully simple statement. It means what it says. Nothing more and nothing less. Yet we now have MANY laws respecting religion. (Note that "respecting" means "regarding".)

Second paragraph:

A chief purpose of government, enshrined in the Bill of Rights and other amendments to the Constitution, is the protection of rights and freedoms of individuals. Among them: freedom of speech and of the press; freedom of religion; freedom of association; right to equal protection of the law; and right to due process and a fair trial.

Regardless of what part of the political spectrum you occupy, you probably agree that many of these rights are under attack by our Judicial system. At the very least they are not consistently protected. This is due, again, to that vast body of refuse...I mean laws, precedent, and practice, that has piled up on top of the Constitution. Using the vast body of precedent, judges are now free to rule any way they desire. While they profess loyalty to the Constitution, they are, in reality, free to rule in any manner they choose. They do not have to respect freedom of religion; they violate that everyday. They do not extend equal protection of the law; that is for sale to the rich who buy the best lawyers. They do not provide due process or fair trials. When Congress attempted to make a fair trial available to Terri Schiavo, judges in in Florida and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to review the evidence, choosing instead to focus on reviewing procedures.

For the moment, assume that this second paragraph accurately summarizes the Constitution and its amendments. Note that this paragraph says nothing about the responsibilities of individuals! Why? Going back to understanding the writers' values, environment, and motivations, the framers lived in a time when people took their responsibilities and religion seriously...one could say that they took them for granted. There was no need to specify that individuals have responsibilities and live by religious values. Of course they do! That is why some of the Founding Fathers are quoted as saying that our government requires a moral and educated people in order to function properly.

Last paragraph:

The rule of law in the United States is founded on these principles which are enshrined in the Constitution, implemented by the laws of Congress and interpreted by the rulings of judges.

As already discussed, judges can no longer be counted on to do the right thing. They may do the legal thing, but when the law is no longer moral, judges who dispassionately discharge duty cannot do the right thing. When law ceases to be moral, it is time to REPEAL it. It is time for REFORM.

When judges routinely overturn laws passed by the legislature then the checks and balances are out of balance. Legislatures represent the will of the people, not the judges. The rule of law is no longer implemented by the laws of Congress. It is implemented by the rulings of activist judges. The rule of law in the United States has become a self-licking ice cream cone: the law is made and implemented by judges.

D3: "Dispassionate Discharge of Duty"

2005-03-30T17:13:00.000-05:00

Yes, "D3." That is the demand from Judge Stanley F. Birch Jr., 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In the future, when the judiciary determines it must kill an innocent person, "D3" will be stamped at the top of the D3 authorization and the judge will sign it at the bottom. This way, the policeman will know this is a certified case of D3 as they stand outside the hospice to ensure the death of the condemned human being inside. The doctors and nurses that pull the feeding tube and deny food and water will know they are performing an authorized D3 as they watch the human being die who is under their care. Since there will be some who feel uncomfortable about performing D3, a specific D3 authorization will be necessary for the proper and consistent accomplishment of D3 throughout our society and across many different cases that will require D3.

Lessons from World War II clearly show that people must indeed be dispassionate when discharging duties required by immoral laws and orders. Just google "dispassionate nazi." Following are a couple of good hits on that search.

But first, for comparison, read the words of Judge Birch, from an AP article:

"Any further action by our court or the district court would be improper," wrote Judge Stanley F. Birch Jr., who was appointed by former President Bush. "While the members of her family and the members of Congress have acted in a way that is both fervent and sincere, the time has come for dispassionate discharge of duty."

Birch went on to scold President Bush and Congress for their attempts to intervene in the judicial process, by saying: "In resolving the Schiavo controversy, it is my judgment that, despite sincere and altruistic motivation, the legislative and executive branches of our government have acted in a manner demonstrably at odds with our Founding Fathers' blueprint for the governance of a free people — our Constitution." (full article)

So much for a judge's judgement. Here are two hits from googling "dispassionate nazi."

The second document is what has come to be known as the Wannsee Protocol,the minutes of the infamous meeting of January 20, 1942 at Wannsee Haus, an elegant private home then being used as an SS guest house in a beautiful lakeside district of Berlin. The meeting, called by Heydrich and organized by Eichmann, brought together 15 high-ranking Nazi officials for a "discussion to be followed by a buffet lunch." Originally scheduled for December 9, 1941, the meeting was postponed due to the bombing of Pearl Harbor on December 7th and America's entry into the war.

Two agendas were behind Heydrich's matter-of-fact invitation. Between the July order from Göring and Wannsee, the machinery for mass murder - the gas chambers - had been developed and tested. The major extermination camps were under construction. During the 90-minute meeting at Wannsee, Heydrich mobilized the administrative apparatus of the Third Reich to implement the escalation of Hitler's genocidal "Final Solution." Heydrich also made it clear that the SS - not the Nazi party or any of the government ministries represented at the meeting - would be calling the shots.

What helped make this meeting extraordinary is that the minutes survived: Eichmann sent out 30 copies that were to have been destroyed after reading, but one copy was found in the files of the German Foreign Office in 1947. Even more extraordinary is how the minutes record in the most ordinary way a dispassionate discussion of the potential slaughter of what Eichmann estimated to be 11 million Jews throughout Europe - including England and other not-yet conquered territories. (website)

And one more excellent description of Nazi D3:

To be sure, we gain some valuable descriptive information from Suchomel about a death camp that no longer exists. But apparently human beings like himself were transformed into mere cogs in what he calls “the efficient production line of death” at Treblinka. No shred of introspective self-analysis, of what it means to have been a living and active participant in the destruction of European Jewry, emerges from his testimony. The human value of his words is diluted, virtually extinguished, by the ease with which he adopts a self-exonerating attitude. He simply does not see himself as a villain.

How else are we to explain the insistence of so many Nazi functionaries after the war, including Eichmann himself, that they never hated Jews? By dispensing an image of Jewish inferiority as if they were selling the idea for a new product, the Nazis predisposed an entire population, as well as the much smaller band of perpetrators, to an attitude toward the potential victims that was divorced from the usual emotional sources of virulent hatred. Paradoxical as it may sound, they dispensed what we may call a dispassionate antisemitism which enabled the individual to achieve a divorce between demeaning hatred and sheer political hygiene, the practical reality that if a nation were to be pure, it must be purged of its “diseased” elements.

Dispassionate antisemitism encouraged a healthy schizophrenia, which allowed men like Suchomel and Eichmann to distinguish untraumatically between their own human selves and their less-than-human victims. Therefore, when they comment on their roles during the war, they do not speak of a collapse of their private moral systems. (website)

Yep, to do this right, we are going to have to dig out those Nurnberg trial documents and compile some good lessons learned. With a little time and energy we can probably do this as well or better than the Nazis...but only if we remain dispassionate.

A Theory of Everything Liberal

2005-03-29T22:33:00.000-05:00

I Finally Get It. For years I have been looking for the Rosetta Stone of the Liberal Left, the Theory of Everything Liberal...that is, how do they determine the difference between right and wrong? The answer has been in front of me the entire time. When Steven Hawking finally cracks the code of the universe and identifies the Theory of Everything, he too will find that it was in front of him the whole time.

Most conservatives I have met either follow Judeo-Christian values, are Christians, or are observant Orthodox Jews, so I could understand their value system. (I am sure there are other religious people who are also morally and politically conservative.) I knew that Liberal Leftists do not accept Judeo-Christian values, but I did not know what they DO accept. I could not figure it out. I have engaged many Liberal Leftists in dialogue and debate and have asked, "How do you determine the difference between right and wrong?" One person responded with the most honest answer I ever received. He said, "Your attempt to identify right and wrong disagrees with me. I want what I want."

Wow. Yet I still did not get it because other Liberal Leftists responded with lists of seemingly ethical values...which only served to obscure their one common factor.

Today, watching a report on the ACLU's support for Michael Schiavo, I believe I have it. It is so simple, as I knew it would be.

The Liberal Leftist goal is to devalue human beings. The end.

Their method is to remove all constraints on individual human behavior and to make all other factors in any situation more important than the humans that are affected. They may or may not be consciously aware that devaluing humans places them exactly opposite of the Judeo-Christian God, Jehovah, who encourages people to attain holiness.

Devaluing human beings is at the core of all their values, issues, and positions. It reconciles the seemingly contradictory stance they have on supporting abortion (killing human babies is okay), euthanasia (killing useless people is okay), and killing Terri Schiavo (killing helpless people is okay), versus their opposition to hunting baby seals (killing animal babies is not okay), or endangering the snail darter (killing useless non-human life is not okay), or using small rodents for lab tests (killing helpless animals is not okay). [Okay, fine. Someday we will find out that snail darters contain the cure for all human cancer and their DNA code in mathematical form states the Theory of Everything. On that day I will take it all back. All of it. Phew...good thing the Tellico Dam did not kill all the snail darters like it was supposed to.]

Devaluing human beings is behind the "green" movement: everything in nature is more important than mankind. They see Nature and Mankind in a zero-sum game. If Man wins, Nature loses, therefore Man must lose since they must devalue people.

Devaluing human beings is behind socialism, communism, and big government in general. People must not be expected to take care of themselves, "so we who are the intellectual elite will take that responsibility (and, BTW, their hard earned money) from them." My labor is only as valuable as big government allows it to be. I am devalued.

PETA, Sierra Club, NARAL, NOW, Planned Parenthood, ACLU, Green Party, Democratic National Committee, ...all have one thing in common. In the name of civil liberties or personal freedom or "privacy" (hrmmph!), or nature, or "humanity,"or free speech, or any other cause they choose to use as a front, they release individuals from accountability for their actions and from constraints on personal behavior. They raise the value of nature beyond what God intended. They pervert the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and hijack the Founders' intentions until our laws are so twisted that any human behavior can be protected if not justified. We must not execute proven murderers but we must presume that death by dehydration and starvation is acceptable even when Terri leaves no Living Will.

The net result is always to devalue human beings.

Simple Goodness

2005-03-27T00:40:00.000-05:00

Pray for our nation. Our government and national values have become complex and distorted to the point that we have forgotten the simplicity of goodness and the goodness of simplicity. When we can justify killing Terri Schiavo, an innocent girl who is sick, helpless, of no economic value to society, and whose parents desperately want to take care of her, then we have lost what makes us human.

Job 12:17 He makes counselors walk barefoot And makes fools of judges.

1Timothy 2:1 First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, 2 for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.

1Timothy 2:3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.

"Judicial Homicide"

2005-03-26T01:58:00.000-05:00

"This is judicial homicide," said Bob Schindler of the impending death of his daughter. The phrase, meaning that judges can commit murder legally, seems accurate to me. The rest of us must still do it illegally, so anyone who tries the old "eye for an eye" routine will, justly, find themselves in trouble. Reuters reported tonight the first attempt at killing some of those involved with killing Terri Schiavo. For the record, I do not approve of this man's actions. Even though our judges can commit judicial homicide, there are two reasons why the rest of us should not emulate them. First, we aren't judges and cannot interpret the law any way that we want to. Second, as of this writing, murder is--in most cases anyway--still illegal, and--more importantly--wrong in all cases.

Reuters stated:

The FBI arrested a North Carolina man for sending an e-mail offering a bounty of $250,000 dollars to anyone who would kill Michael Schiavo and $50,000 for killing a judge who has ruled in favor of the husband in the case.

The man, Richard Alan Meywes of Fairview, North Carolina, was charged with solicitation of murder and sending threatening communications and could face up to 15 years in prison, said the U.S. Attorney's office in Tampa, Florida. (full article)

Mr. Meywes is lucky he's not helplessly sick, or the judge could sentence him to die by dehydration and starvation.

Watching Terri Die

2005-03-24T21:27:00.000-05:00

The problem is that we are not allowed to actually watch Terri die. If we were, I doubt that her deliberate killing would be allowed to happen. The reality of our decision to kill her might hit home. In place of that vivid spectacle, here is one description of intentional death by dehydration and starving. It comes from an excellent article by Diane Alden, published Oct. 17, 2003.

Another description of this particular American way of dying is described by Justice Lynch of the Massachusetts Supreme Court in the case of firefighter Paul Brophy, who lapsed into coma after surgery. Removal of his G-tube led to his death eight days later, thanks in no small part to the efforts of (bioethicist) death squad professional Dr. Ronald Cranford.

In his dissent from the court majority approval of Brophy's death in this manner, Justice Lynch states: "the [likely] various effects from the lack of hydration and nutrition" as follows:

"Brophy's mouth would dry out and become caked or coated with thick material. His lips would become parched and cracked. His tongue would swell, and might crack. His eyes would recede back into their orbits and his cheeks would become hollow. The lining of his nose might crack and cause his nose to bleed. His skin would hang loose on his body and become dry and scaly. His urine would become highly concentrated, leading to burning of the bladder. The lining of his stomach would dry out and he would experience dry heaves and vomiting. His body temperature would become very high. His brain cells would dry out, and the thick secretions that would result could plug his lungs and cause death. At some point within five days to three weeks his major organs, including his lungs, heart, and brain, would give out and he would die." (Brophy v. New England Sinai Hospital, No. 85E0009-G1,10/21/85:28-2]

May God comfort Terri and her family who are trying to save her.

Republican "Hypocrisy"

2005-03-23T21:34:00.000-05:00

Following is my comment to Armchair Generalist in response to his post on Culture Wars and the Schiavo case.
------------

Let me briefly reconcile for you what you see as conflicts in the Republican positions on life, marriage, and government intrusion into privacy.

1. Life: few things take precedence over Life on this earth, when it comes to involuntarily giving it up. Not states' rights, not marriage, not privacy, not anything I can think of right now. [Go ahead, ask me about capital punishment.]

2. Marriage: Michael Schiavo is either a liar or a negligent guardian and husband. If Terri wanted to die, he is negligent in waiting until 2000 to say so. If she did not want to die, he is a liar. He has not divorced Terri but is living with another woman and her children. Michael has lost all credibility as her guardian. Republicans have not devalued the sanctity of marriage, Michael Schiavo has. If Terri had a written Living Will, Republicans would be totally silent throughout this affair. Without documentation of Terri's wishes, Life takes priority, not the discredited word of a negligent guardian.

3. Government and Privacy: NO, there is no absolute right to privacy (that is the law, by the way). Privacy must be balanced with other imperatives, such as Life. Life takes priority...see item 1.

It is not a complicated case. Without documentation of Terri's wishes, and in the presence of a negligent guardian (assuming that he not simply a liar), Life should win over all other considerations.

Mainstream Media: Asleep Again, or See No Evil?

2005-03-22T18:57:00.000-05:00

WHY isn't the mainstream media asking questions about Michael Schiavo's credibility and performance as Terri's guardian??

--He waited ten years before going to court to terminate her life because she would not have wanted to live in a vegetative state. Michael Schiavo is either a liar or he is negligent. Which is it?

--While he waited to remember what Terri's wishes were, he won a $1 million law suit over her case. How much of that did he spend on Terri's care? How did he spend the money?

--Why did he not divorce his wife? He is living with another woman and her two children. Did he stand to gain financially or legally from remaining married to her?

WHY?

The mainstream media is normally good at asking that question...except when it comes to defending LIFE.

Open Letter to Mr. Lloyd Axworthy

2005-03-22T14:02:00.000-05:00

With great interest I read your open letter to Secretary Rice. For a man of your accomplishments and position, your letter is surprising to me.

Your underlying purpose seems to be to counter what you may perceive as arrogance on the part of the United States in its foreign policies. Your tone and words imply that the United States has ignored the desires of its allies; that somehow we are wrong to build a missile defense to protect our nation (continent?) from north Korean nuclear missiles.

Just to be helpful, it seems to me that arrogance and sarcasm are not the best weapon against arrogance. A few examples from your letter to Secretary Rice:

--"...your divinely guided master in the White House..." A reader might see in your words not only disdain for President Bush but also for Christians and Christianity in general.

--"...the gargantuan, multi-billion-dollar deficits that your government blithely runs up fighting a "liberation war" in Iraq...." Well, yes, the deficits are a fact, unfortunately. It is the word "blithely" that is uncalled for, and also the quotations you placed around "liberation." Your students at UW might not understand that you really do value freedom and think that the election that took place in Iraq was a good thing. (Please excuse my own sarcasm...it IS difficult to avoid isn't it?)

--"...the virtual one-party state ...." Please, Mr. Axworthy! Are you upset that the American people have voted for the representatives that are in Washington, D.C.? Or do you have so little respect for the citizens of the United States that you discount their votes? Maybe you really do not value elections...?

Mr. Axworthy, you just don't sound reasonable when your prose drips with sarcasm and your own arrogance. You come off as just one more Bush-hater.

Would YOU Want Michael as Your Guardian?

2005-03-22T09:18:00.000-05:00

Let's get this straight: Terri collapses Feb 90. Two years later her husband wins a $1M law suit. If Terri did not want to live in a vegetative state, why didn't he pull the feeding tubes by 1992? NO, but he then waited another EIGHT YEARS before remembering that she wanted to die.

Oh, and meanwhile he "moves on," (I guess "moves on" means "forgets the difference between right and wrong and decides to enjoy his $1 million) and had two children by another woman whom he still lives with...but has never divorced Terri. I don't get it. THIS is the man who has the right to decide that Terri should die? He has proven negligent as a guardian and has no credibility.

The courts are lost. And so, in my opinion, are the majority of Americans who don't agree with Congress's and the President's action that allowed Terri's parents to appeal to a federal judge.

Here is the timeline from an AP article.

Feb. 25, 1990: Terri Schiavo collapses in her home from possible potassium imbalance, temporarily stopping her heart and cutting off oxygen to her brain.

November 1992: Schiavo's husband, Michael, wins more than $1 million in malpractice suit.

July 29, 1993: Upset over Terri Schiavo's care and the lawsuit money, her parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, try to have Michael removed as Terri's guardian. The case is later dismissed.

Feb. 11, 2000: Circuit Judge George W. Greer approves Michael Schiavo's request to have Terri's feeding tube removed.

April 2001: State and U.S. supreme courts refuse to intervene, and Terri Schiavo's tube is removed, but another judge orders it reinserted two days later.

Feb. 13, 2002: Mediation attempts fail, and Michael Schiavo again seeks permission to remove feeding tube.

Nov. 22: After hearing medical testimony, Judge Greer finds no evidence that Terri Schiavo has any hope of recovery and again orders tube removed.

Oct. 15, 2003: Tube removed for second time.

Oct. 21: Gov. Jeb Bush signs hastily passed bill allowing him to intervene, then orders tube reinserted.

Dec. 2: Independent guardian finds "no reasonable medical hope" that Schiavo will improve.

Sept. 23, 2004: Florida Supreme Court (news - web sites) strikes down "Terri's Law" as unconstitutional.

Feb. 25, 2005: After declining to give the Schindlers more time to pursue other legal and medical options, Judge Greer gives permission for tube removal at 1 p.m. March 18.

March 16: U.S. House passes a bill aimed at keeping Terri alive.

March 17: Florida House passes a bill intended to keep Terri alive; U.S. Senate passes bill different from U.S. House version.

March 18: Feeding tube removed. Greer rules against congressional Republicans who had tried to put off tube removal by seeking her appearance at hearings.

March 19: Congressional leaders from both parties agree on a bill that would allow the tube to be reconnected while a federal court reviews the case. The White House said President Bush (news - web sites) would sign the bill when it is passed.

March 20: The Senate passes the bill, but Democrats in the House delay passage of the measure, which could be voted on early the next day.

March 22: Federal judge refuses to order Terri's feeding tube be replaced.

Give Terri Shiavo Her Life

2005-03-21T17:28:00.000-05:00

Terri's husband and lawyer accuse the Congress and Christian groups of "using" Terri for political purposes. States rights are being trampled. Government is going to run our personal lives. Terri's last wishes are not being respected. Terri's husband and parents are fighting each other.

Everyone take a deep breath and listen to the wind in the trees for a moment.

This is not that hard. Begin with the simple things.

--Is Terri's body alive? Yes.
--Is Terri's mind alive? Some say no, some say yes.
--Have people in vegetative states ever recovered? Yes. Here is one report.
--Is anyone willing to care for Terri in her current condition? Yes, her parents.
--If Terri's mind is not dead, and she has some knowledge of what is going on around her, would we be wrong to allow her to die? Yes!
--If Terri's mind is actually dead, and she has no cognitive ability nor ever will, is she suffering by keeping her body alive? No, of course not!
--Is there any proof that shows that Terri wanted to be allowed to die? No.

So Terri has no living will or other documentation; her parents want to care for her; if the doctor's are right and she is not aware of her surroundings, then she is not suffering.

The right thing to do is let her parents care for her. Though I understand that some people are wrapped around the "bigger" issues, I do not think there is a bigger issue than life itself. Are we going to maintain a culture that values life, or create one that devalues life for "pragmatic" reasons?

Why Is "Right" Right?

2004-12-11T11:15:00.000-05:00

You have a personal concept of morality; a definition of what is right and what is wrong. On what is your definition based? For most people there are two sources: You or GOD in the person of Jesus Christ. You might believe that you get your sense of morality from your parents, from your group of friends, or from "public opinion" if you like to follow the consensus. These and other sources like these are really just You choosing what You want to believe is right and wrong.

For most people the other source of right and wrong is GOD. If you are thinking, you will ask, "Which god?" That is a valid question. By mistaking our own desires for a "higher calling," some people get their priorities out of order and end up worshipping their spouse, their children, the company or a career, the good of mankind, or the natural environment. Others who are more honestly selfish worship money and the things that money can buy. "Right" to these people are those values and actions by themselves and others that increase their material wealth. "Wrong" to these people are those values and actions that decrease their material wealth. Note that there is nothing inherently wrong with valuing your spouse, family, a cause, or money...as long as you keep them in the right priority. When you put them first above all else, you have placed them where GOD should sit. Do not replace the Creator with His creation.

There is a third and rare possibility. You might intentionally choose to worship GOD's enemy, Satan, or possibly one of the lesser demons that people have worshipped throughout history under many names. While intentionally exalting Satan is rare, it is also unnecessary. Satan is just as happy to have you worshipping the smaller, more normal, and therefore more deceptive false gods...they will all lead you to the same place.

The true source of morality is the one true GOD. He has many names; YAHWEH and Jehovah are two of the most well known of His names. "Right" are values and actions within GOD's will and "wrong" are values and actions that are outside GOD's will. How do I know that this is true? The Holy Scriptures say so, and my personal experience has proven it to me.

What is the source of your morality? If it is GOD, do you live like He is your GOD?

By the way, if you have integrity, the source of your morality will drive your politics. By "integrity" I mean that your words and actions match your beliefs.

Presidential Election

2004-11-11T22:21:00.000-05:00

How did you respond to the results?

a. Glad so many Americans turned out to vote?
b. Gratified that American democratic processes work, even in emotionally charged elections?
c. Upset that the majority of voters want something you don't want?
d. Happy that the majority of voters agree with you?
e. Can't believe there are so many DUMB voters?
f. Damning those Christians?
g. Laughing at those immoral liberals?

You may select two responses.
How you respond now, and what you do over the next four years, tells a lot about you.

I recommend a thoughtful approach. Not glee. Not anger. The issues are too important to react emotionally. Republicans are going the way the country wants them to. Democrats are not. Question is, what will each party do now?