Fear and Trembling: Politics

Humanitarian aid and stability with no security?

Thu, 03 Apr 2008 00:54:40 GMT

Quote

Obama on how to get out of Iraq

Barack Obama told Chris Matthews this afternoon how he plans to end the war in Iraq. Here is the plan:

1. "Getting our combat troops out"

2. "No permanent bases"

3. "We should protect our embassy"

4. "Protect humanitarian forces"

5. "Up our commitment to humanitarian aid"

6. "Initiate...political settlement that includes all the factions inside of Iraq"

7. Then Barack can give scholarships to all the kids at West Chester University (OK, this is probably not part of the plan, just ole fashion' pandering)

The essence of Barack Obama's strategic vision for Iraq is too remove the military force that is providing any sense of security and stability and THEN when things have spiraled out of control and a full blown civil war has broken out, we send in more humanitarian aid and initiate political settlements. All the while, any troops that are left in Iraq are holed up in our embassy. Maybe, we will even get to replay the events of April 1975 and witness an evacuation from the embassy. I think trusting the good will of Islamic extremist in the middle east is an absolutely fantastic idea. I don't know why we have not tried this before. Islamic extremist are nothing if not magnanimous and reasonable. Maybe the Shiites, angry from years of oppression under Saddam Hussein, will get the same tingle up their leg that Chris Matthews gets when Obama speaks. "Ok suicide bombers, lets here ya.. YES WE CAN!"

Obama denies ever hearing "incendiary" comments

Mon, 17 Mar 2008 12:01:08 GMT

The video below scores some points in reference to my last posting. Obama did not back away from Rev. Wright entirely. I was glad to see that Rev. Wright is still part of his family despite disagreements that he has with him on the comments that he made. Obama also makes the same point that I made about Rev. Wright being from a different generation of black leadership (does Barack read Fear and Trembling?). I do, however, take to task Barack Obama's denial that he has never heard such incendiary comments either in the pew or in private conversations. I believe that this is just an out right lie on the part of Barack. This is how preachers work: When we get something on our mind that we want to preach, we talk about it with every one who will listen for weeks at a time. The topics that are burdening us are on our lips at the dinner table, in the pulpit, at the grocery store, in Sunday School, talking to our wife at night, seeing an old friend on the street, making a visit to our congregation members and even when tele-marketers call us selling long distance. Did Barack every hear incendiary comments? Of course he did. Do you believe that Rev. Wright screams out "God Damn America" and then called Barack to talk about the Cubs

The Difference between Clintonian Democrats and Republicans

Sat, 05 Jan 2008 02:44:13 GMT

Two separate occurrences over the last month illuminate the way that the Clintons view the world and how they see themselves in relation to the American people. In Hillary Clinton's attempt at a Christmas commercial she is shown wrapping gifts like universal health care and universal pre-K school to be given to the American people. Chris Matthews was quick to recognize that this was indicative of how Hillary views herself as the one who will be giving all of us little people these wonderful gifts. Is the President of the United States a servant of the people or a benevolent ruler doling out gifts to her subjects?! If there was universal health care it would be the American people, not Hillary Clinton who will be paying for it. One might think that this analysis is a bit of hyperbole, but take a look at Hillary Clinton's concession speech after the Iowa Caucus. In the speech, Clinton says, "I wrote a book some years ago called "It Takes a Village to Raise a Child" and in it I have a chapter that I titled "Every Child Needs a Champion." I think that the American people need a president who is their champion and that is what I intend to be." Are "We the People" a collective child to Hillary Clinton? I could not believe what I was hearing or that no one seemed to pick up on it.

Huckabee wins Iowa and makes some important statements to Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann

Fri, 04 Jan 2008 07:04:47 GMT

As expected, Mike Huckabee has won Iowa, but by a far greater margin than recent polls might have suggested. After he was declared winner and made his victory speech, Mike Huckabee spoke to Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann and made some statements that will clarify once and for all that I am not supporting Mike Huckabee because he is a former Baptist preacher, but rather because his message does, in fact, "resonate" with this particular voter. As a matter of fact, I am voting for him despite the fact that he is a preacher. If a reader carefully examines my blog over the last year they will see a pattern emerge of a conservative Christian who wants to apply biblical principles to a wider range of issues than have been traditionally been addressed by "the Christian right." The Democrats have high-jacked issues such as "hunger, poverty, disease and the environment" (A Huckabee quote from the link below) and the Republican party has failed to address them effectively. There are Republicans who are poor, who want to have a sensible energy policy, who struggle with health care, who are concerned with how our country is viewed abroad, and all the while, they are evangelical Christians who are unashamedly devoted to Christ.

The old guard of Christian right leadership is out of touch with my generation of Christians. This is clearly indicated by the endorsement of Guiliani by Pat Robertson. Rather than hammering on the same hot button issues (like taking Under God out of the pledge) it is time to present a broader spectrum of Christian thought to the political realm. The old guard of Christian leaders have marginalized themselves in the national debate by staying in lockstep with the Republican party on health care, poverty, the environment and foreign policy. To be a Christian is not necessarily to be a Republican (although this is the party that, I believe, still best represents my views as a Christian) the Biblical view of the world cuts across party lines. The Biblical world-view also cuts across racial lines and in the same way that Christians are called to take the Gospel to "all nations" so too the Christian politician needs to take their message to a wide range ethnic groups and not just the same group of middle-class white Americans that have traditionally been the backbone of the Christian right. This country is in desperate need of some unity, but this unity does not have to come at the expense of our faith, but rather it comes by the authentic living of that faith.

I believe that Mike Huckabee shows the greatest potential to be the kind of Republican who can cut across party lines to address the issues that have been traditionally championed by the Democrats. All of the "he is a liberal" attacks that have been levied against Huckabee by Romney have failed because there are many of us recognize that the liberal charges are actually Huckabee's willingness to buck the party line for the sake of finding political solutions to some of the problems that faced the State of Arkansas. Pay careful attention to Huckabee's appeal to voters who disagree with him. I see Huckabee trying to be a person that can be reasoned with by a wide range of people regardless of political persuasions. Romney is trying to re-invent himself as a right winger when what we need is a true centrist candidate. Huckabee is a centrist and there is also similar movement on the Democrat side of things with Barack Obama. The similarities between the two campaigns was not lost on Mike Huckabee according to his statements in the video link below. Huckabee's and Obama's victories tonight send a message that the red state/blue state divisions are finally being challenged and we need a more nuanced approach to public policy instead of a party-line rhetoric that has dominated politics since 1992.

Take a look at this nine minute video clip and tell me what you think...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/22497190#22497190

I am taking the next step for Mike Huckabee

Thu, 06 Dec 2007 14:23:10 GMT

I have decided that in addition to contributing, I am going to get involved in the campaign of Mike Huckabee. It has been a long time since there was a candidate that I have felt strongly about and even longer since I felt optimistic about politics. In my early twenties I went through a liberal phase in which I questioned everything that I believed to be true. This phase was just before my conversion and during this time I bought my first pair of Birkenstocks, chased after little hippie chicks, and voted for Bill Clinton! (SEE THIS POST FOR THE FULL STORY). I regretted that 1992 Presidential vote (my first time voting in a Presidential election) and became pessimistic about politics in general. Needless to say, I came back around to conservative views that are now founded on a much more solid foundations and even though I firmly believe that salvation is not found in the political activities of mankind, I see a need for a government that governs wisely and justly without the constant stream backroom deals coming to light (both parties!)

Is Mike Huckabee that candidate to reverse this pessimism that is shared by much of America? I do not see Mike Huckabee connected to a large political machine like the Clinton's or Karl Rove's and at this point he seems like the true grass roots candidate that represents good governance, not just good politics. Perhaps Mike Huckabee will be the Next Jimmy Carter and will suffer for not being as connected as previous Presidents, but maybe he is the next Ronald Regan who can communicate to a large swath of Americans and bring some civility to our ever more divisive political debate. Maybe Mike Huckabee is the kind of President who can govern people from all walks of life. I want a President that can draw support on important issues from people who disagree with him but can trust that he has a basic respect for all people. I believe that his response to the Log Cabin Republicans is an example of this type of leadership. In the last debate, Huckabee clearly said to this Gay and Lesbian Republican group that he does not support gay marriage and other gay issues, but he was asking for their support anyway.

For all of you that read this blog, I am posting a link to help you contribute to this campaign financially. Mitt and Rudy have giant bank accounts, trust funds and political war chest to run their campaign, but Mike Huckabee has taken first place in the national polls on nothing but his message and his labor.

First NameLast NameAmount$20.08$50$75$100$250$500$1500$2300

An addendum to my Mitt Romney post

Tue, 04 Dec 2007 13:57:48 GMT

I want to clarify that Romney's Mormonism is not the only factor in my decision to support Huckabee. Of even more importance is Mitt Romney's questionable stance on social issues that are important to me and a general inability to relate to me as a voter. I do not believe in religious test, in general, for candidates for President and have been annoyed by many of the questions posed to the Republican candidates. (like, do you believe that every word of the Bible is true). My concerns about Romney is not about any sort of direct action on the part of Romney in advancing the LDS church, it is the overall legitimacy that his Presidency would bring to a religious group that I believe to be dangerous and heretical.

As far as the relational part of my opposition goes, it is the fact that Romney is a child of privilege that bothers me versus Huckabee who is from blue collar roots like my own. There is something about an underdog that appeals to most Americans (disclaimer: I am a cub fan too) and to date Romney has spent over 7 million dollars in the Iowa campaign compared to the meager 400,000 that Huckabee has spent. Can a private school kid who has been raised in the halls of power understand the pressures on those of use that are on the lower end of the socioeconomic scale? I will not say that this is impossible, but Mike Huckabee has been there as the son of a fireman/mechanic father and mother who was a clerk. There has been some criticism of Huckabee's "liberalism" but is it liberalism or an understanding that there is a place for government to protect those who have less power and influence than corporate America. I am pro-business, but I understand that left unchecked, the push for profits will always trump the rights of workers. In the long run this hurts, not helps, business in America.

Mike Huckabee has the chance to draw away the union vote that has been squarely in the Democrats camp for so long. There were many members of my old church in Tolono who vote Democrat despite their disagreement with that party on a whole host of other issues, such as abortion. Why do they vote Democrat? They are all union members who see the Republican party as representatives of big business. Is this true? There is certainly an aspect of this among the Republicans, but it does not have to be this way. Electing a Republican President that has a more meager background would be a step in the right direction. Is Huckabee liberal or just less "connected" than past Republican leaders? I want to see the Republican part move away from the Carl Roves of the world and more toward grass roots leaders like Mike Huckabee who can relate to people who have traditionally voted Democrat like African-Americans, union members.

The Republican debate last night

Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:59:35 GMT

The general consensus on this morning's news programs is that Mike Huckabee came out pretty good last night considering the opening round blows between Guiliani and Romney. Huckabee did show his sense of humor again, but that humor was clearly backed up with some substance. I also think that John McCain did very well and I was impressed on his answer to the question of torture. This is the difference between Romney and McCain: McCain has the courage to stand his ground on issues that may not be popular with his base. Romney's positions are, to say the least, fluid depending on the political context. I accepted and believed Romney when he said that he changed his mind on the abortion issue, but it was clear that Romney is trying to paint himself as a "true conservative" when in fact he is fairly moderate. I am not opposed to many of these moderate positions, but I want a candidate that will own up to them instead of trying to avoid them. Romney and Huckabee were both state governors who had to operate in a traditionally progressive states, but Huckabee has directly stated that this was the case and explained why this caused him to compromise on many issues. It takes compromise to govern.

As far as Guiliani is concerned, it is bothersome that no one seems to be concerned about the his marital history. I realize that after Bill Clinton's Presidency that this issue has been deemed irrelevant by most voters, but there is a direct connection between his adultery issue and the questions posed by the young black man concerning black on black violence. This may seem like a stretch, but in fact, there is a direct correlation between the break down of the traditional family structure and crime. 68% of all black children are born into single parent homes! Guiliani has the money and power to buffer the effects of his extra-marital activities and divorces, but in lower class homes like mine and millions of other homes, divorce and other break downs of the Dad and Mom family structure is financially devastating and leads to children being plunged into desperate economic situations. Desperate economic situations and lack of family stability leads to crime. Over half of my ministry has been dealing with the consequences of divorce, adultery, premarital pregnancy and other family. Family break-down is not limited to the Black community, it is just more pronounced.

On the tax situation, all of the candidates took the "cut all taxes" position that are expected from most Republican primary candidates, but Mike Huckabee has a specific tax plan that would abolish the IRS and replace the income tax with national sales tax. I have some concerns about this plan, but the next President will probably have a Democratic congress who will never pass such a plan, so I would rather see Huckabee develop a position that is do-able. Our tax code is positively Byzantine and although I am highly educated, I find myself jumping up and down, swearing and moaning every time that I have to fill out my tax forms and pour over the tax code. The irony about the current tax plan is that at my income level I do not actually have to pay any income taxes but have to spend hours and hours to come to this conclusion! I want a tax code that dismantles the symbiotic industries of tax preparers and the Internal Revenue Service. Taxes are not inherently evil (give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's) but we need a smart tax code that does not penalize success and does not add undo burden upon citizens. I plugged my family's situation into the FairTax scheme and we would neither benefit or be harmed directly under the plan, but I would certainly have to do less paperwork!

In the final decision on who to choose as the Republican candidate, Republicans must consider who can beat Hilary Clinton in a Presidential Election. The Republicans must address a wide range of social issues that seem to be monopolized by the Democrats. A young single mother that I work with is going to vote for Hilary Clinton because she believes that her life will be better under her leadership than a Republican. The next Republican candidate is going to need the votes of us on the lower end of the economic scale and I believe that Huckabee can address these issues with the "compassionate conservatism" that never seemed to materialize out of the last administration. Did the war short circuit this conservative social program or was it merely a political slogan? I guess we will never know, but this time around I want a Republican President that will provide strong leadership on issues such as the environment, poverty, education, immigration (before this issue spirals out of control), and right to life ethics and stop letting the left steal away these issues. As far as I can tell so far, Mike Huckabee is willing and able to do this.

Southern Baptist Convention Messengers BEWARE!

Wed, 19 Sep 2007 00:13:21 GMT

There would be a lot of SBC messengers that would be in serious trouble if this security force was employed at the annual convention! Long winded resolution? ZAP! Integrity in Church Membership? ZAP! ZAP!

Seriously though, did this kid really need to be tazered? My question is this: why in the world didn't more of these young liberal college students rise up to help their brother (I am assuming that the majority of students that would be able to withstand a 2 hour snorefest from John Kerry are liberals) I guess they just don't make liberal rebel rousers like they used to in the 1960s. I noticed this phenomenon when I was living in Champaign. A group would have an anti-war protest and have 12 to 20 people standing on the corner looking like state highway workers (that one is for you, Joe). I am not anti-war, but if I was, I would certainly do a better job than these kids.

My generation (common referred to as "X") and particularly the generation of my oldest daughter (commonly referred to as "Y") are so numb to any sort of outrage about anything. I really like blogging, but I don't think that it is any substitute for in your face protesting. What would I protest? Well, nothing in particular, I understand that preaching is God's mechanism for real change, so I preach. But if you are a Atheist Liberal Vegetarian who used to work for Greenpeace, I would think that there would be a great many things that you could be taking to the streets about. The above incident might be just such an opportunity.

ADDENDUM: I saw another video angle of the incident and I noticed that although no one attempted to help this idiot kid, there were about 15 people taking videos of the tazering! On top of it all, John Kerry stood their like a wooden statue while the whole thing went down. I think I read something about John Kerry being a war protester at one time . One might think that he would have jumped down there and used his clout to calm the situation.

A bit of political analysis

Wed, 11 Jul 2007 12:45:43 GMT

A favorite tactic of Presidential candidates lately is the evocation of Ronald Reagan. This is easy to understand, of course, the 80s were a time of optimism and RR was front and center in that unabashed patriotism. It is no wonder that candidates want to be associated with him as they run for President themselves. There is one problem, however...

I have not heard one candidate make the case for winning the war in Iraq. Now, I am not saying that it is winnable per se and I am not saying anything about the war itself, I am just saying that there is a part of me that wants to hear from a leader that we can actually win this war (other than W). RR would have at the very least made me feel as if we were going to win. The last 5 years have been much like the middle to late seventies when our confidence as a nation had deflated after a protracted war. What candidate is going to pull us from that malaise?

If you want to evoke Ronald Reagan, you need to be able to communicate that we can actually win. Is this a strategy that could work for a candidate in 2008? Maybe not, but it would certainly distinguish a candidate from a crowded pack of contenders who are hoisting white flags on their campaign buses. It reminds me of Name that Tune. "I can retreat in failure in 6 months!" "I can retreat in failure in 5 months!" "Candidate, retreat...in....failure!"

JKK

The First Amendment and International Human Rights

Fri, 09 Feb 2007 14:04:46 GMT

I have had an interesting intersection of college coursework this morning. As I have said before, I am taking a course about the First Amendment of the Constitution and a class about human rights. They have both proved to be outstanding classes and they have brought to my focus one of the major differences between the United States and the rest of the world. The difference comes down to the legal trend of the United States to have a more absolutist protection of expression versus most other nation's tendencies to restrict speech that is considered extreme or harmful to other groups. This restriction includes any religious or political group that advocates unpopular political positions. One might understand how laws like this developed in places like Europe since countries like Germany and Italy were both overwhelmed by Fascism and this Fascism led to some of the most horrifying consequences in human history, but this is quite different from the American experience.

The United States has, for the past hundred years, consistently moved towards a rejection of such "group libel laws" and protected the speech of groups such as the Nazis in Skokie (I hate Illinois Nazis), The Klu Klux Klan and the most challenged group in American Supreme Court law, the Jehovah's Witnesses. Other countries think little of barring certain political parties, not recognizing duly elected officials to legislative bodies and censuring many forms of political expression for the sake of protecting their Democracies. The argument has been stated in many ways that to beat Fascist, you must act like them. Historically speaking, however, laws on the books in the United States that were meant to suppress one group invariably were used against the very group that advocated the laws in the first place. A classic example is the House Un-American Activities Committee that was originally designed to investigate and suppress Fascist groups in the 1930's but by the 1950's the committee was used to squash groups that were on the left.

The human rights issue arises when you look at documents such as the various United Nations declarations concerning human rights. Most of the statements are based upon the United State's Bill of Rights, except for glaring exceptions for speech that is deemed libelous towards other groups based on race, color, creed, or religion. What is an American to do? The big question comes down to this: Why has the American democracy been so resilient and thus able to protect all manners of speech without fear of being overthrown by extreme political positions? The French certainly do not enjoy such stability nor do most of the Western democracies. The countries of Europe, although often thought of as "progressive" and "liberal" are in fact quite repressive within their own boarders and have difficulties dealing with the inclusion of unpopular minorities (look at their problem with the growth of Islam in their countries compared to the treatment of religious minorities within the United States.)

I look forward to addressing these questions this semester…

BTW, this post was made using Microsoft 2007. I will try to post an entry with a picture in it. Kevin and I were discussing whether or not that would work or not.

Mike Huckabee is running for President

Sun, 28 Jan 2007 20:13:27 GMT

I have just seen news reports that Mike Huckabee has officially thrown his hat into the ring for the 2008 Presidential campaign. I have been anticipating this move for several months and I am glad to see that he is running. Much will be made of the fact that Governor Huckabee is an ordained Southern Baptist Minister, but I know from personal experience that ministering in churches might give him a great advantage in dealing with criticism that is leveled at the President of the United States! Here in the early stages, he has my support, but I will wait to see his over all platform before I go "all in." This man is certainly no Pat Robertson(this is a good thing) and has won 2 landslide elections in a Democratic state. This shows that he is able to work in a bi-partisan manner. He has also been a proponent of several issues that hit close to home like health care provisions for the working poor in his state and increased funding for schools. He also seems to have been a "fat preacher", lost 110 lbs and adopted a healthier lifestyle.

I have spent this entire weekend attending my "Freedom of Expression" class. This class dealt mostly with the First Amendment and the topic of separation of church and state came up more than a few times. It will be interesting to see the public response to the fact that he is a former minister. I will be paying close attention to this response and I will blog about the gulf between the general public's view of the establishment clause and the actual case law. I will also watch this campaign closely and try and decide whether or not it will affect my own run for President someday. If he actually gets elected then the question is: "Will the American people elect 2 Baptist preachers back to back or nearly back to back? I could potentially run for President in 16 years. If he does not get elected, then does this mean that a Baptist preacher is unelectable? What would be nice is to fall into the race like Obama. The guy has not done much of anything but has turned into a superstar overnight.

Who knows, maybe by 2024 the coffeehouse hipster vote will put me over the top. I would also depend on the Bald American vote. Who was the last bald president? For that matter, was there ever a German-American that was president? All my kids except Eleanor (She graduates in 2026) will be out of the house by then, so only she would get to live in the white house. Now Tracy as First Lady....that topic deserves its own entry!

International human rights and cultural relativism

Fri, 12 Jan 2007 15:07:52 GMT

I have begun the readings in my human rights class and the first article is a discussion of the fundamental philosophical underpinnings of modern human rights law and practice. The article discusses religious systems, utilitarianism, Marxism, human positivism and cultural relativism. The author seems to come to many of the same conclusions that I did in my previous post on Christian ethics.

First, the essential issue of any philosophical foundation of human rights is dealing with the issue of unalienable rights. From whom or from what do our rights flow from and what objective truth makes them unalienable? Marxism and the Utilitarianism of Bentham both tend to emphases the individual rights. Utilitarianism reduces individual rights to a function inside of the social calculus and Marxism's Specie Being is a poor replacement for the rights of the individual over and against the state. Cultural relativism is perhaps the worst of all in that there is no objective truth other than the truth of a particular society at a particular time in history. Cultural relativism, by definition, must allow for horrific rights abuses in the name of "culture." This is the macro equivalent of what I hear in the church when someone says "That is just how they are."

The first system the author dealt with also gives the best foundation for universal human rights, A Supreme Being that imbues rights to his creation. Granted, the discovery of what those inalienable rights are is the subject of great debate and I would of course favor Divine revelation in the scriptures, but my main point here is this: What gives man worth and from what source do his rights come from? A human positivist is dependent upon the State to grant rights by law, but it is the State that is in need of restraint in the protection of human rights. A right that comes from the State can be taken by the State (usually in the name of security)

Finally, one of the articles that I have been reviewing states that one of the most pressing current problems of human rights is the activity of non-governmental organizations operating within the sovereignty of another country. Many governments around the world are so weak that they are powerless that they must bend to the will of powerful (and almost always armed) interest inside their own country. Legal protection is extended to these groups by the weakened state in exchange for continued support or, as is often the case, the protection comes from forceful extortion. Somali Warlords, Hezzballah, the Taliban and national militaries that are conditionally loyal to their government are all sources of human rights violation that traditional rights enforcement organizations must learn to deal with in new ways.

Dangerous times filled with dangerous people.

Sun, 24 Dec 2006 13:37:59 GMT

I just came across this article from CBS news that reported on a conference that focused upon denying that the holocaust happened or that it was as severe as reported. This conference was hosted by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran and was attended by none other than David Duke the notorious Klu Klux Klan leader. The Iranian President was quoted in saying "The Zionist regime will be wiped out soon the same way the Soviet Union was, and humanity will achieve freedom" and "By the grace of God, the arc of the Zionist regime's life has reversed and is heading downward. This is a divine promise and the public demand of all nations of the world." Take these statements and read them in the context of this article about Iran's vow to accelerate enrichment of uranium and one has to wonder if we invaded the wrong country. For decades, Iraq and Iran counterbalanced each other in the region, but now a weakened Iraq has no way to resist Shiite power emanating from Iran.

In my discussions with college age people I often hear the comparison of our President, George Bush with Adolph Hitler and you can even seen T-Shirts and Mugs with similar sentiment (apparently t-shirts are the 21st century alternative to actually becoming involved in civic-minded activities) How can they even come close to justifying this comparison when you have people like Ahmadinejad making such sweeping anti-Semitic statements and seeking nuclear weapons? Who is really like Adolph Hitler? I think I have made up my mind on who fits that bill and it is not our President. I am concerned, again, with the amount of polarization in our country and it is reflected in the ad hominum attacks against our fellow citizens (this goes for both sides). In a world that is filled with people and groups who have clearly expressed their desire for other people to be "wiped out" I would think that identifying who our enemies truly are would be simple. The people who are chanting "Death to America", planting bombs and trying to build nukes are the ones we ought to be concerned with harming us, not the local Conservative Republican banker, the Liberal Democrat college professor or even the old fashion Communist labor leader (ahhhh, the good ' ole days when commies were the biggest concern we had!)

We live in a country that people of all types can come and live in relative safety no matter what they believe or what race they are. To be certain, there are problems here and there, but for the most part you can be Buddhist, Muslim, Jew, Hindu or any other religion not worry about being attacked. The greatest challenge you might encounter is being exposed to a random nativity scene, Christmas tree or Ten Commandments monument (GASP! not a nativity scene! Non-Christians might burst into flames!) There are cases of religious violence now and again in the United States but they are incredibly rare and are not even close to the amount of religious violence you find in more "enlightened" countries like France, The Netherlands and Germany. My point in this is that we should not buy into the idea that all the violence in the world is "our fault." We are far from faultless, but we cannot let some strange collective "American Guilt" drive our foreign policy or our national dialogue.

Another Issue from last year's sanctity of life sermon

Tue, 12 Dec 2006 05:23:42 GMT

This story is about a sick boy who is treated with cells taken from an aborted fetus. Proponents will say that "the cells were going to be discarded anyway, we should at least put them to good use." but this ignores the core concern that if you develop a product to be sold in the marketplace from aborted babies then you risk creating a demand for more aborted fetus cells and when demand goes up supply goes down, prices go up and then the market will respond by providing that supply of aborted babies. Simple economics will create a demand for fetuses created in the lab for the sole purpose of being destroyed. This already happens, of course, but a "cure" for something like Parkinson's will send the practice into factory-like production houses.

I have no doubt that they might be able to cure many diseases with stem cells, but the question remains: Should they cure Parkinson's in that manner. This is not a fringe question, it is a common question in all of the biological sciences and it is the reason that practices and standards are developed for research on living beings.

Again, I want to draw your attention to some key phrases in this article and show that this issue is almost never discussed on a theological or even philosophical level, it is played out in the court of the emotions or is so scientifically clinical, that it is removed from arena of real ethical judgements.

“We don’t think that is a coincidence,” (that it happened on Hanukkah) said Marcus Kerner, who said a deep faith in Judaism and long hours of prayer prompted the family to volunteer Daniel for the risky procedure."

If my faith in God and my prayers cannot be invoked when representing unborn life, I hardly see how another man's faith and prayers can be invoked when there is a decision that brings harm to fetuses. This picture below is certainly heartbreaking and as a father of four I cannot imagine what this father is going through. I would give my life for my children, but I would not take the innocent life of another child for them or be part of an experiment that could have global consequences. Since I consider an unborn fetus as deserving of equal protection under the law, it would not be different than me shooting another child (or having someone else do it) so that their heart might be harvested for one of my children.

In most states a person who shoots and kills a pregnant women is charged with two counts of murder (Scott Peterson, for example) but if that same women has an abortion, it is sanctioned by the law. There seems to be some discrepancies concerning the legal status of unborn babies and as I have said in the past, these artificially lines of demarcation in pregnancy are man-made and are not based on "good science" but rather old traditions of "quickening." In the end, I am not qualified to draw the line anywhere in a pregnancy and say "Today the baby is a person, but yesterday it was not."

Ahmadinejad's letter is thinly veiled anti-Semitism

Wed, 29 Nov 2006 19:24:52 GMT

"What have the Zionists done for the American people that the US administration considers itself obliged to blindly support these infamous aggressors? Is it not because they have imposed themselves on a substantial portion of the banking, financial, cultural and media sectors?"

This passage is not from Mel Gibson's rant but rather from the open letter to the America people by the President of Iran. I am sure that those who decried Mel Gibson's behavior will quickly embrace this letter as an olive branch of peace and quickly insist that President Bush follow its principles!

Apparently, according to Ahmadinejad, everyone is noble, justice loving and Godly except for the Jews. The Jews apparently have no right to exist and control all the Banks and Media in a giant global conspiracy. How can a nation like Israel negotiate a peace settlement with peoples who want them wiped off of the face of the Earth? What happens when this man gets nuclear weapons?

In the next 24 hour news cycle make sure you pay attention to who supports Ahmadinejad's sentiments and then look at the position that they took with Mel Gibson.

The oil will run out in the Year 2000

Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:17:48 GMT

When I was a kid I distinctly remember science films that predicted the end of all the oil in the year 2000. This was based on the most up to date scientific data and particularly on the M. King Hubbert idea of "Peak Oil." According to the theory production hit a peak in 1970 and then would start to decline. This worked out to be true for the United States, but here we are driving around in SUVs on gas that is not much more than 1980 prices when adjusted for inflation. Then I came across this article http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15715744/ which runs counter to the "Peak Oil" theory. Why is the point of all this? I will tell you...

I believe that energy independence and a reduction in fossil fuels is a good thing for our country and the world, but scare tactics are not going to do the trick, only clear economic benefit is going to drive the majority of the U.S. population. Not only is the notion that "scientist are unbiased" utterly ridiculous, but there is also the fact that "scientist" are not the only people in the equation of shaping public opinion. Politcal candidates, office holders, pundits, activist, and media outlets all combine into what will be seen on the evening news. For example....

Katrina hits the Gulf Coast last year. Bad News. But apparently not bad enough because there are those that want to use this disaster to bring light their own particular pet causes. Katrina then becomes a sign of Global Warming and Brian Williams and his peers bring out dozens of "experts" that global superstorms are going to be the norm and that it is George Bush's fault. We were then told that the 2006 Hurricane season was shaping up to be even worse than 2005 because of the conditions caused by globabl warming. What happened? Not one major hurricane has hit the US this year, only 3 or 4 tropical storms. Does this mean that there is no such thing as global warming? No, it just means that the evening news is no place to interpret data by "unbiased scientist." There are so many variables involved in climate changes that it boggles the mind and it is just plain tough to predict what a warming planet is going to do.

It is not only the scientist who do such things, it is also the religious community. Pat Robertson jumps in the Sodom and Gommorah band wagon everytime there is a disaster. According to Pat Robertson God smote the city for their sin. God does indeed do such things but I cannot verify with the scriptures that God did that to New Orleans. There were also a lot of Southern Baptist in the Gulf area, does this mean that God is mad at the Baptist? (Don't say it Kevin, atheist have now right to ascribe actions to a being they do not believe exist). For both the tree-huggers and the Christians, overstatements concerning the "end of the world" are going to undermine credibility and make it more difficult to preach in the future. Good things and bad things happen to good and bad people (In rains on both the wicked and the just). This why I recently taught through the Book of Revelation from a theological perspective instead of trying to predict certain events and trying to incorporate every tinhorn dictator in the scriptures as the Anti-Christ. As for global warming and energy independence, there is enough evidence to invest money into alternative energy research that will make something like biodiesel a viable alternative to fossil fuel. If I can save some serious money on fuel and not lose out performance then I am all about hugging some trees.

The moral of this story is that you should not cry wolf...