First, I wish to apologize to my faithful and loyal readers on RedBlueChristian.com for my absence.  As will be obvious in this particular post, my mind has been elsewhere.

Second, there is a possibility that this will be perceived as a rant; it is not meant to be.  But it is written out of frustration and frustration sometimes leads to ranting and raving.

———————————————————————–

I was going to write the essentials of this piece last week but I was angry at the world and thought better of it.  But perhaps I should be angry. 

Last year, Freddie Mac paid Chairman and Chief Executive Richard Syron nearly $19.8 million in compensation even though the mortgage company’s stock lost half its value. During the same period, Fannie Mae President and Chief Executive Daniel Mudd got compensation valued by the company at $12.2 million, including a $2.2 million bonus.  If I understand the recent mortgage bailout plan, then much of the money that is coming out of that plan is going to these two organizations.  Okay, they are losing money and perhaps they need government help but why are they paying over $10 million dollars to two individuals??  What exactly do they do that justifies such income??

If they are receiving that sort of income, what type of income should the people who taught them in high school and college be receiving?  (Wouldn’t it be a nice idea of schools gave bonuses to the faculty whose students received awards like Nobel Prize, the Pulitzer Prize, or any of the other major awards that are part of our lives?)

And it isn’t just these two individuals.  The guys who ran Enron into the ground were getting major league bonuses and selling off their stock while hiding the truth from the workers and preventing them from getting out when the getting was good.  Where is the justice in that?

It has been stated and it continues to be the truth that the gap between the rich and the poor is growing.  My wife firmly believes that the middle class is dying and that we are on our way to a two-class society (essentially those with and those without).  Every indication says that is true.

But, what I see must only be an illusion or some figment of a bad dream (does this mean that when I wake up, Victoria Principal will be coming out of the shower?).  The economy is in a bad shape and those who are running this country (businessman and politicians alike) either don’t understand that or don’t want to believe it.

If we are to believe the economists and other "learned" souls, we are not in a recession.  As of July 31st, the economy, as measured by gross domestic product, grew by 1.9 percent in the second quarter of this year. That’s nothing to write home about, but it’s not to be despised either. A recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth. We’ve had two consecutive quarters of positive growth, gross domestic product having increased by 0.9 percent in the first quarter. So therefore we are not in a recession.

But that doesn’t explain the rise in gasoline prices, the rise in food prices, and the turbulence and turmoil in the housing market.  It doesn’t explain that many food banks are strapped right now and the number of people coming to them for assistance is increasing every week.  At my home church, we are getting anywhere from 10 - 15 new applicants every week.

Whether or not we are in a real recession or a "mental" recession, as a noted Texas economist recently announced, is inconsequential; for many people, these times aren’t a recession, they are a nightmare!

I am one of those who is living that nightmare.  I have been fully unemployed for 15 months now and just began to receive supplementary unemployment benefits after not having any since March.  I received some income from an adjunct teaching position last summer and hopefully will be getting some this fall as well.  I haven’t been sitting back expected someone to call me with a job offer; I have been looking but with limited results.

First, many companies today tell you to file your application on-line and then you never hear anything (one person told me that he did hear something but it was a year after he had submitted the original application and now the company wanted to know if he was still interested and, if so, would he resubmit his information).  Most companies today do not tell you that they have hired someone and that you are no longer being considered.

I did have one job interview but after making it through all the hoops, the organization decided to kill the search and start over.  They apparently were not satisfied that any of the finalists (myself included) had the same vision of the organization as they did, which was an increased on-line presence.  I saw where they wanted to go and I thought it was possible but I also saw several problems that they hadn’t consider; I concluded that they didn’t want to hear the bad news that comes from adapting technology to traditional approaches.

Another organization, after telling me they would keep me informed, didn’t bother; when I asked, I was told that I wasn’t considered a good fit.  I may have been too old for them (but that is almost impossible to prove these days) or they were uncomfortable with my being both a chemist and a minister.  I can’t prove either, so I move on.

I know of two other searches in which I am still being considered but they have changed the parameters of the search and any results will not come about until January at the latest (and then there is the likelihood that if I am not selected for an interview then I will never know the outcome).

My lack of employment has had the expected results on my income and the lack of income has had its affects on my mortgage and other bill.  Please don’t tell me that there is hope for me in the recent legislation that was passed and signed into law.  The law that President Bush signed a week or so ago won’t take effect until October.  There is existing legislation in place but it requires the lenders to act and the lenders don’t want to act.  I have a potential solution to this problem but it requires money up front and we don’t have the money.

And as a warning, if you get behind in your bills, especially your loans and credit cards, expect your creditors to call you at least three times a day.  The calls will be computer generated and even be linked to a call center in India.  If you have caller id, the display will read "unavailable" or "unknown".  And there is not one thing you can do about it except pay your bill, even if you don’t have the money.  The law that prevents telemarketers from calling you doesn’t apply in this case.  And the people who call you really don’t care what your situation is, they want their money and they will keep calling until you give it to them.

I never expected that I would be fabulously wealthy; I never expected to even be wealthy.  I expected that I would have a certain degree of debt.  It is a part of life.  But I thought that I would have a reasonable job,I would do what I like doing, I would receive suitable compensation for my efforts and I could pay my bills. 

I  thought that having a Ph. D. would mean something.  Right now, all it means is that I have another bill to pay and creditors telling me that I have to pay it before I may anything else. 

Through my words, my thoughts, and my deeds I have sought to make this world a better place.  Right now, I am not sure if that is enough.

I entitled this little piece "Economics 101".  The basics of economics should be that no one should suffer, no should be hurt.  As I have written before, John Wesley didn’t mind it if you earned a lot of money.  In fact, he encouraged it!!  Earn all you could, he said.  But he also said don’t do it on the backs of others.  And he also encouraged each of us save all that you can and then give all you can.

It would appear that some of us are earning all that we can but the rest of the story is missing.

—————————-

Cross-posted to Thoughts From The Heart On The Left

President Bush blasted China for its lack of human and religious rights in a recent speech on his way to the Olympics. The problem is, America is in deep financial debt to China. We have no political will or ability to backup anything we say. The result is clear, the deepening debt of America has now emptied our political voice of any moral teeth. What about the human and religious freedom in Saudi Arabia or the fact that it is the money source behind much of the world’s Islamic terrorism? America is silent on Saudi because of our oil dependence. In light of America’s debt to many foreign countries, sadly, we have become an empty voice of freedom and democracy that is seen by much of our world as irrelevant.

The Princeton Review has just released its list of the top ten most socially conservative and liberal colleges in the United States. Some schools on the list are not a surprise, others may be, and some of these colleges I did not know existed.

Here is the list:

The Top Ten Most Socially Liberal Colleges

1. Warren Wilson College (Asheville, N.C.)

2. Hampshire College (Amherst, Mass.)

3. Bard College (Annandale-on-Hudson, N.Y.)

4. The Evergreen State College (Olympia, Wash.)

5. Bennington College (Bennington, Vt.)

6. Reed College (Portland, Ore.)

7. Sarah Lawrence College (Bronxville, N.Y.)

8. Simon’s Rock College of Bard (Great Barrington, Mass.)

9. Vassar College (Poughkeepsie, N.Y.)

10. Wesleyan University (Middletown, Conn.)

—

The Top Ten Most Socially Conservative Colleges

1. Brigham Young University (Utah) (Provo, Utah)

2. Grove City College (Grove City, Pa.)

3. University of Dallas (Irving, Texas)

4.United States Air Force Academy (USAF Academy, Colo.)

5. University of Notre Dame (Notre Dame, Ind.)

6. Wheaton College (Wheaton, Ill.)

7. United States Military Academy (West Point, N.Y.)

8. Texas A&M University — College Station (College Station, Texas)

9. Furman University (Greenville, S.C.)

10. United States Merchant Marine Academy (Kings Point, N.Y.)

+ + + + + + +

Cross-Posted at Allan R. Bevere

In a recent ad we hear the following:

“A windfall profits tax on big oil to give families a thousand-dollar rebate,” an announcer in the ad says.

(Source: MSNBC.com.)

The entire energy debate seems to have become a pandering game, with each candidate dulling any responsible suggestions he might make with various bribes to the public. McCain, who used to oppose off-shore drilling now supports it, and though he admits it’s more long term, he still brings it up in connection with current high gas prices. (I actually regard it as a short-term non-fix, because I believe “long term” should mean at least a century when we’re talking energy policy.)

Obama seemed to resist this particular idea, though he will now allow it as part of a compromise. Which leads me to a digression. In reality, any candidate is going to have to compromise on the actual laws he will propose. Little of what is promised by either candidate in the campaign will actually happen. Why are we so shocked when a candidate suggests he would accept something he opposes generally as part of a compromise package? What should annoy us is that the candidates pretend they will be able to somehow govern without significant policy compromises.

The problem here is that the debate is being framed in terms of managing gas prices. The capitalists among us should object to this, no matter how it is done. The way to reduce the price is to either increase supply or reduce demand, and the best means to accomplish that is the natural market forces. There are those who will object that foreign cartels change this equation. But in actuality capitalism does not call for people to be required to sell. That is simply one aspect of supply.

We can artificially push down the price of gas temporarily, but that will not solve our problems, because all of the factors that push gas prices up will still be present. The oil-drilling idea has the advantage that it will eventually increase supply. It will be useless (except psychologically) in the very short term, provide some value in the longer term, but will not provide a truly long term solution in my opinion. Nonetheless I would support limited drilling provided reasonable environmental concerns are dealt with.

High gas prices are the best possible thing for the long term because they will push us to change the way in which we consume and produce energy. There are many technologies becoming available, and as gas prices increase, they will become more and more economical. This is a good thing. If we artificially hold the prices down now, such an adjustment will have to be made sometime, and the longer we wait, the more painful it will be. It’s time now to do more than talk about breaking our addiction to oil.

But back to Obama’s redistribution plan. This is classic redistribution of wealth. Take the money away from the oil companies that are making profits, and give it to people who are having to buy the high-priced gas. This has many of the hazards of price controls, only it actually won’t work. The oil companies will find a way to get the money back, and a couple of years from now we’ll realize that the rebates did nothing more than attempt to buy our votes. (Buying my vote was unnecessary for Obama. Despite my strong opposition for his gas tax/rebate plan, McCain still annoys me even more.)

The whole notion of “windfall profits” is fairly ridiculous in any case. Just what is the windfall? The price of energy has gone up. I remember this discussion in a public policy toward business class when I was in college relating to excess profits. (Looking at the current situation, I suspect “excess profits” would be the better economic description for the situation. I fail to see the windfall, but perhaps I’m just not looking at it right.)

Excess profits appear to be fairly well defined (see Wikipedia for a decent, if rather abbreviated discussion). The problem is that while the definition is clear, calculating what would be an excess profit is much less clear, and in practice the term “excess profit” becomes synonymous with “windfall profit” and simply refers to any profit the person speaking doesn’t think the one making the profit should have.

Note in addition that very few people talk about the oil company profits in terms of percentages (see this report to congress for some numbers, though I haven’t checked them), because those would sound much less overwhelming. It’s easy to make any large company’s profits sound obscene, even when the return is not really all that far out of line with other industries. This is not to say the oil companies are not profiting. It’s just that I don’t think it’s bad for them to do so.

In the case of oil we have a choice similar to what we have in other industries–don’t buy their product. In this case I have to add “as much”, and in addition note that reducing our consumption will take time. And lest anyone think I’m suggesting something that I will not do myself, let me note that fuel costs have cut into my business severely. I have had to change the way I plan my days to avoid certain driving in order to handle the higher gas prices.

I believe we need to feel this pain now in order to change the way we produce and consume energy. I am disappointed with congress and with both our presidential candidates, though I’m not surprised at their action. We, the voters, are demanding that they behave irresponsibly, and they’re just doing what we ask. No, not what we say we want. What our actions show we want.

Unfortunately, what many of us want is lower gas prices tomorrow. What we’ll get is an even worse problem a few years in the future.

Crossposted from Threads from Henry’s Web.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Soviet dissident who, through his writings and speeches profoundly critiqued the Communist government of his homeland, has died. He was 89.

Solzhenitsyn was not only sharply critical of totalitarianism, but he brought his incredible intellect to bear on the excesses of Western society, as well as the shallow citizens it can tend to produce.

One of my favorite Solzhenitsyn quotes comes from the famous speech he gave at Harvard University in 1978:

But should someone ask me whether I would indicate the West such as it is today as a model to my country, frankly I would have to answer negatively. No, I could not recommend your society in its present state as an ideal for the transformation of ours. Through intense suffering our country has now achieved a spiritual development of such intensity that the Western system in its present state of spiritual exhaustion does not look attractive. Even those characteristics of your life which I have just mentioned are extremely saddening.

A fact which cannot be disputed is the weakening of human beings in the West while in the East they are becoming firmer and stronger. Six decades for our people and three decades for the people of Eastern Europe; during that time we have been through a spiritual training far in advance of Western experience. Life’s complexity and mortal weight have produced stronger, deeper and more interesting characters than those produced by standardized Western well-being. Therefore if our society were to be transformed into yours, it would mean an improvement in certain aspects, but also a change for the worse on some particularly significant scores. It is true, no doubt, that a society cannot remain in an abyss of lawlessness, as is the case in our country. But it is also demeaning for it to elect such mechanical legalistic smoothness as you have. After the suffering of decades of violence and oppression, the human soul longs for things higher, warmer and purer than those offered by today’s mass living habits, introduced by the revolting invasion of publicity, by TV stupor and by intolerable music.

How true indeed.

+ + + + + + +

Cross-Posted at Allan R. Bevere

If Senator Barack Obama is elected our next President he will very likely be able to appoint, if in office two terms, two Supreme Court Justices.  That would give SCOTUS 5-4 liberal majority.  That should give us pause according to the conservative-leaning Committee for Justice whose executive director, Curt Levey, said an "Obama court is a conservative nightmare." They released a "Top 10" list of items that we can expect from that Court.

10.  Expanding and perpetuating the use of racial preferences.

9.  Creating new constitutional rights to physician-assisted suicide and human cloning.

8.  Expanding judicial oversight of military detentions and CIA interrogations.

7.  Prohibiting tuition vouchers for religious schools.

6.  Banning the death penalty.

5.  Requiring taxpayers to fund essentially unlimted abortion rights.

4.  Creating new constitutional rights to massive government welfare and medical care programs.

3.  Stripping "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance.

2.  Eroding property rights.

1.  Ordering all 50 states to bless gay marriage.

Do we really want an already present judicial oligarchy strengthened?  Can you imagine SCOTUS having the same judicial activism as the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court?  It is hard to imagine, but that is likely where we are heading under an Obama administration.

HT: Amanda Carpenter

The entire country needs to see this video on Obama and attempts to protect infants who survive abortions. Please watch this video and share it with everyone you know.(Sorry, I can’t seem to imbed videos here. Please click through.)

The Onion published a list of potential running mates. The best one: David Duke, since Obama is currently not polling well among racists. I also think Jesse Jackson could help him cut off any chances of McCain catching up.

crossposted at www.scottoverpeck.com

Eleven reasons America is the new top socialist economy

This article from Market Watch popped up on my bank’s news aggregator. For obvious reasons I did not post a link or screen shot. Could not find it on the Market Watch site so I copied and pasted it here. Pretty fun. Do not agree with all the comments they make but a very good article. I will say: this every time he talks about government favors for business that is not free market or conservative. The author seems to think that it is. Anyplace he says conservative just add “so called” in front of it.

ARROYO GRANDE, Calif. (MarketWatch) — Welcome to the conservative’s worse nightmare: The law of unintended consequences. Why? Nobody wants to admit it, folks, but the conservatives’ grand ideology is backfiring, actually turning the world’s greatest capitalistic democracy into the world’s newest socialist economy.

A little history: The core principles of conservative economic ideology are grounded in Nobel economist Milton Friedman’s 1962 classic “Capitalism and Freedom.” Too late to stop President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society, those principles became the battle cries energizing conservatives since Reagan: Unrestricted free markets, free enterprise and free trade; deregulation, privatization and globalization; trickle-down economics and trickle-up wealth to an elite plutocracy destined to rule the new American capitalist utopia.

So what happened? Are you guys nuts? Hey, I’m talking to all you blind Beltway politicians (in both parties) … plus the Old Boys Club running Wall Street (into the ground) … plus all you fat-cat CEOs (with megamillion parachutes) … and all your buddies scamming everybody else to get on the Forbes 400. You are proof of Lord Acton’s warning: “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

It’s backfiring! You folks turned our America from a great capitalistic democracy into a meddling socialist economy. Still you don’t get it. You’re acting like teen addicts tripping on an overdose of “greed-is-good” testosterone while your caricature of conservative economics would at best make a one-line joke on Jay Leno.

Here are 11 reasons your manipulations are sabotaging the great principles of leaders like Friedman and Reagan:

1. Dumber than a fifth grader with cognitive dissonance
Kids know what it means. They know most adults today can’t see past the end of their noses. Liberals tune out candidate McBush for being lost in the past. Conservatives can’t hear Obama without seeing that turban.

Cognitive dissonance simply means most brains cannot see past their own narrow ideologies. They dismiss any data that contradicts their old ideologies. Whether you’re a conservative Republican or liberal Democrat, you only hear what you already know is “true.” All else is tuned out.

2. Where did all the leaders go with their moral character?
Friedman’s economics requires leaders of moral character. Did it run into Lord Acton’s warning: “Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely?” Former Ford and Chrysler CEO Lee Iacocca said yes in “Where Have All the Leaders Gone?”

Friedman’s great conservative principles have been commandeered by myopic ideologues whose idea of leadership is balancing the demands of self-interest lobbyists with the need for campaign donations. Unfortunately, a new “change” president won’t be enough; there are 537 elected officials in Washington controlled by 42,000 special interest lobbyists.

3. Fed and U.S. Treasury adopted Enron accounting tricks
Bad news: Enron failed several years ago because of its off-balance-sheet accounting scam. The Fed’s doing the same thing: Dumping Bear’s $30 billion liabilities onto the taxpayer’s “balance sheet.” Next Treasury proposes adding $5.3 trillion more from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Unfortunately clever accounting tricks by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke aren’t going to fool foreign lenders analyzing America’s creditworthiness. Worse-case scenario: U.S. Treasury bills with less than a triple-A rating.

With 90 banks on the brink and already too many bail-outs, our so-called leaders are running out of magic bullets. So now the taxpayer’s “balance sheet” has become the all-purpose “dumping ground” and it’s overcrowding fast as our leaders raise the white flag of socialism.

4. Deregulation creating new socialist housing system
Back in 1999 a Democratic president and Republican Congress were in love with a fantasy called the “new economics.” Enthusiastic lobbyists invented the brilliant idea of dismantling the wall between commercial and investment banking: They killed the Glass-Steagall Act that was keeping the sleazy hands of short-term hustlers out of the pockets of long-term lenders.

Flash forward: We lost 85-year-old Bear Sterns and $32 billion IndyMac. Lehman’s iffy. And 90 banks. With the virtual takeover of Freddie and Fanny, Wall Street’s grand experiment with free-market ideology is backfiring, having socialized the housing market. They have nobody to blame but their self-centered greed.

5. Trade deficits outsourced more of America’s wealth than jobs
One look at Forbes lists of fat cats and you know the 21st Century doesn’t just belong to Asia, it belongs to everyone but America. Why? Once again, remember Warren Buffett’s famous “Farmer’s Story” in Fortune: “We were taught in Economics 101 that countries could not for long sustain large, ever-growing trade deficits … our country has been behaving like an extraordinarily rich family that possesses an immense farm. In order to consume 4% more than they produce — that’s the trade deficit — we have, day by day, been both selling pieces of the farm and increasing the mortgage on what we still own.”

Friedman was right: Congressional spending is the biggest cause of inflation, and, wow, those conservatives sure did love blank-check deficit spending the past eight years!

6. Banking system in meltdown, minting penny stocks
The Friedman conservatives apparently understand Joseph Schumpeter’s “creative destruction.” Yet, our free-market ideologues can’t seem to accept that America is now on the “destructive” downside leg of the cycle, in the economy, markets, trade, politics and, yes, sadly, even with their conservative ideology.

You don’t have to be smarter than a fifth grader to figure out that our leaders are clueless about the reality of our crumbling banking system, with many banks trading as penny stocks, while the Fed still panders to conservative pre-election politics rather than getting serious about inflation.

7. Ideologues preach savings, but still push spending
A core principle of conservatism is frugality, saving for the future. Grandparents raised me, struggled during the Depression, passed on strong ideals.

Somewhere over the past generation conservatives forget frugality. This distortion peaked in 2003 when consumers were told to spend, not sacrifice, and fuel the economy even as government spent excessively on war. That was a clear breach of every conservative leader’s position in earlier wars.

As a result, in one brief generation, as the power of conservative ideologues grew, America’s savings rate dropped precipitously from 11% in 1980 to less than zero today.

8. Warning, the market’s under 2000 peak, losing money
Imagine you’re on Jeff Foxworthy’s fabulous show competing to see if you really are smarter than a fifth grader. Question: “If you put $10,000 in the market in March of 2000 when the Dow peaked at 11,722, how much money would you have today if the market’s 10% under 11,722?” So you guess $9,000.

But then two fifth graders raise their hands: One asks if the CPI inflation rate should be considered? If so, maybe $5,000 is closer to the right answer. The other kid wants to know if you’re buying stuff in Chicago or Singapore.

The truth is, the best answer for most adults is: “You’ve lost a hell of a lot of money in the market under the grand conservative ideology the past eight years.”

9. Inflation and dollars: Is Zimbabwe the new model for the U.S.?
The Los Angeles Times ran a photo of a Zimbabwe $500 million bank note, worth $20 at noon, less at dinner. Why? Inflation’s there is running 32 million (yes million!) percent annually. The German company printing their banknotes finally cut them off.

Things may be worse in America, psychologically. Our ideological obsession with “growth” is not working because there is too much collateral damage, namely inflation. Our dollar has lost substantial value to the euro because our dysfunctional leaders are convinced that a trade policy funded by debt makes sense.

Now we owe China $1.3 trillion, sovereign funds want equity not cheap dollar IOUs, and still our clueless Treasury and the Fed continue debasing our currency, printing money like Zimbabwe.

10. Free-market health care failing 47,000,000 Americans
Big Pharma loves free-market conservatism and no-compete Medicare drug programs. Nobody else is happy. Taxpayers get stuck with the bill.

“The Coming Generational Storm” tells us that without massive reforms and big lifestyle changes for taxpayers (especially retirees), within a couple short decades America’s entitlement programs will eat up the entire federal budget. Medicare is the biggest cost item in your future, over $50 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

Conservative ideologues naively believe the answer is more pay-out-of-pocket insurance plans, even with 47 million already uninsured because they can’t pay. Here as in so many areas of our economy, free-market junkies really are suffering a severe case of cognitive dissonance, as blind to the facts about the uninsured as they are to their outdated free-market fantasies.

11. Conservative free-market policies inflated oil 300%!
Yep, oil inflated 300% in eight short years under the “leadership of two oil men.” But, you can’t blame them. We put the foxes in the henhouse, knowing full well “real” oil men love digging holes on the supply side, supporting ethanol subsidies and blaming speculators — it’s in their genes! Talk about cognitive dissonance; real oil men thrive on cowboy images of Marlboro Men in Hummers, Navigators and F-150 trucks.

Net result? Another perfect example of “creative destruction” in action as conservative ideology meets “law of unintended consequences,” driving GM, the symbol of America capitalism, closer to bankruptcy … while turning America into a socialist economy.

crossposted at www.scottoverpeck.com

I’ve never done a post on illegal immigration before… at least not that I can remember.  Last Sunday there was a rally in Postville, IA to protest the treatment of the illegal immigrants who worked at Agriprocessors, Inc.  They spoke out against poor working conditions, and to call for the legislation that would give legal status to illegal immigrants.  This facility was raided back in May by ICE with 389 workers arrested.

When I saw the article regarding the rally in Monday’s Des Moines Register something immediately jumped out at me:

More than 1,000 people from around the Midwest converged on this small town Sunday to show disdain for the treatment of immigrant workers arrested during a massive raid here in May (emphasis mine).

Immigrant workers… hmmmm could there be some editorializing going on in a news story?  No way!  The Register would never do that!  The New York Times coverage was a little different:

The march was called to protest working conditions in the plant, owned by Agriprocessors Inc., and to call for Congressional legislation to give legal status to illegal immigrants. The four rabbis, from Minnesota and Wisconsin, attended the march to publicize proposals to revise kosher food certification to include standards of corporate ethics and treatment of workers (emphasis mine).

I think it is interesting that the New York Times would get this right, and the Des Moines Register wouldn’t.  It shows how slanted to the left the Register has become.  I also found the make up of the protesters interesting:

The Tony Leys of the Des Moines Register reported:

More than 1,000 people from around the Midwest converged on this small town Sunday to show disdain for the treatment of immigrant workers arrested during a massive raid here in May.

The demonstrators included hundreds of people bused in from the Chicago and Minneapolis areas.

They carried signs reading, "Love thy neighbor" and "Build sense, not a fence." They chanted, "We are all immigrants" and "Si, se puede — Yes, we can." (obviously Obama backers, LOL)  And they listened to religious leaders pray in English, Spanish and Hebrew.

Julia Preston of the New York Times wrote:

About 1,000 people, including Hispanic immigrants, Catholic clergy members, rabbis and activists, marched through the center of this farm town on Sunday and held a rally at the entrance to a kosher meatpacking plant that was raided in May by immigration authorities.

First off… how many was it?  Again could it be that the New York Times was more accurate than the Register?  Interesting.  I also find it interesting that they had to ship the majority of people from out of state.  Perhaps it is because Iowans know what a burden illegal immigrants have been on our economy?  These people do not represent mainstream America by any means.

"Love thy neighbor."  That is manipulative.  To want the law to be enforced is not an act of hate.  I agree with the group when they protest how these illegal immigrants were mistreated.  That is deplorable, and we should stand against that.  I also don’t think it’s helpful to protest ICE doing its job.  Those arrested broke the law.  Until the law is changed their status is illegal, and ICE was well within its rights to do what it did.  I also feel that companies that break the law should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.  If companies wouldn’t hire illegal immigrants there would be less incentive for them to come.

"Build sense, not a fence."  I’m sorry, but that is stupid.  So let’s welcome the drug trafficking too?  How about terrorists who want to come into the U.S. through our porous southern border?  The border must be secured before any meaningful immigration reform can take place.

Then we can talk about visas.  A path to citizenship for some, not all.  I don’t think it is fair to those immigrants who are here legally for amnesty to be given for all.  Perhaps we need to look at quotas from different countries as well.  Another thing too, I think the status of the children of illegal immigrants who are born on U.S. soil needs to be addressed.

The 14th Amendment was not seen to apply to children of aliens until the Supreme Court decided that should be the case in the 1898 Wong Ark Can decision.  Since children born by illegal immigrants on U.S. soil  are considered citizens this provides further motivation to come here illegally.

So I believe that with increased border control, punishing companies who break the law, and addressing the status of children of illegal immigrants born in the U.S. (which I’m not sure would take a Constitutional Amendment or not) we should see, I believe, a drop in illegal immigration.  Then we also need to make sure our legal immigration process is fair and fast, because it is part of our heritage and we need to honor it as such.

Originally posted at Caffeinated Thoughts

In the midst of another presidential election season, I have been wondering of late what it truly means for the church to be a political alternative to the world. How does the church as alternative look in the midst of the rough-and-tumble of election year politics. In this post, the reader will no doubt see that I do not have it figured out by any stretch of the imagination, so I will be long on the problem and short on the answers; but I do not think most Christians on the political scene have this figured out either. So, with few answers and an arsenal filled with critique, allow me to think out loud and hopefully not ramble too much.

By way of setting the context, I must reveal where I stand, at the moment, on the candidates and the two “Christian” options that appear to be given to those of us who follow Jesus.

First, I greatly respect both Senators McCain and Obama. I think that they are good and decent men who desire what is best for the country. I know that neither man is perfect. Each has made decisions and statements for the sake of political expediency, each man has his imperfections; and each man has views with which I agree and with which I do not. As I have said in previous posts, it is arrogant to attack someone’s character because his or her politics does not line up with mine. I try my best not to attach ulterior motives to either candidate. I will leave that to the partisan hacks on both extremes.

Second, I also have great respect for those on so-called “Religious Right” and the “Religious Left.” I believe that by-and-large they want what is best for the church community and the country as a whole. There is no doubt that the “Religious Right” has had its shortcomings and has rightly deserved a fair amount of the harsh critique it has received. At the same time, however, the “Right” has not been entirely wrong in its politics and has furthered the discussion in a way that is difficult to comprehend without their presence. One wonders if the so-called “Religious Left” could now be involved in the political realm in the way that it is without the trailblazing of the “Religious Right.”

This leads me to the so-called “Religious Left,” who avoid the term because they want to appear as truly being an alternative to the politics of the nation-state; but like the “Religious Right” one can rightly wonder if they can be such an alternative, when it is clear they line up, for the most part, with the Democratic Party. I must confess that as I have read and reflected on the views of the Religious Left, there is no doubt that they offer an alternative to the “Religious Right,” but it is by no means clear that they offer a kind of politics that can faithfully embody that polity known as “Church.” Nevertheless, they are not wrong on everything, and they have highlighted important issues that have been neglected by the “Religious Right.”

Read the rest of this entry »

The blogosphere is a great place for the honest exchange of ideas and for substantive debate on the important issues of our time. It is also the venue where anonymity and lack of civility run rampant.

A few minutes surveying a handful of political blogs and websites that allow unmoderated comments will reveal this to be the case. I actually had stopped reading comments on the sites I frequent because I could no longer stomach the anger, the insults, and the profanity; but in preparation for this post, I spent some time reading many comments from anonymous hacks once again. Nothing has changed.

I find it is absolutely astounding that someone can respond in such an uncivilized way to a well thought out and well written post. Someone puts forth an essay taking a position on some matter of politics, ethics or religion, and some anonymous blogger responds, not in a substantive and challenging way to continue the debate, but instead hurls insults and profanity, that I dare say they probably would not do if everyone reading their rantings knew who they were.

Individuals, whether they are politicians or political pundits, social commentators or religious figures, whose essays and posts are published online, put forward their ideas with everyone knowing who they are. Most of us who put our views “out there” expect and anticipate that there will be discussion and debate, and do not mind individuals who comment, offering differing points of view. But what is truly unfortunate is that there are individuals “out there” who, likely because of unchanneled anger, too much time on their hands, immaturity, and a self-esteem that is threatened by those persons whose views are different, use the anonymous blogosphere to comment in tone and lack of substance in a way that simply reveals to those who read their comments that they have “issues.”

There are not only anonymous commenters “out there,” but anonymous bloggers, who feel that they have a right to give their opinions, without anyone knowing who they are. I have just one suggestion. If your identity must remain unknown, do the rest of the blogosphere a favor and keep your views unknown as well. If what you think is important enough to post, it is also important that you be known as well.

If however, the anonymous bloggers and commenters “out there” insist on posting in their anonymity, let all them do so together on their own websites, and leave the rest of us in peace who think that it is important to carry on a serious discussion.

+ + + + + + +

Cross-Posted at Allan R. Bevere

WashingtonWatch.com - H.R. 6554, To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow the personal exemption deduction for a stillborn child

I am not sure what I think about the bill itself. Typically any chance to lower taxes I am for, but this seems like it could be easily, and horrifically abused. But, wow, to be against it is like voting no on lollipops at doctors offices. I can just picture the ads now, “Would you deprive a grieving family of some restitution for their loss?” Well, when you put it that way of course not.

On the flip side the reason the government currently taxes less to larger families has to do with the expense of childrearing. I know when my son was born in January I often joked about getting robbed since prior to his birth was when I bought all of his stuff. So, in theory parents of stillborn children may have alot of expenses as well.

So I am all tied up in knots on this one. I think it is a great example as to why we need a simplified tax code that takes out the social planning aspects. The US government should not be encouraging or discouraging child birth period. Leave that to parents to decide. Since I know the nature of government is to get more and more oppressive and involved in individuals lives, I try to make the best judgements on laws and leaders I can but this one is tough.

What are your thoughts? Should the government give tax breaks to the parents of stillborn children?

Crossposted at scottoverpeck.com

They may not want to print it, but I will here.

HT: Greta Van Susteren

In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation hard but not hopeless. Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.

Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there, he said on January 10, 2007. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”

Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence. But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.

Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress. Even more heartening has been progress thats not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Malikis new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City-actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.

The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obamas determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his plan for Iraq in advance of his first fact finding trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.

To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.

Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military’s readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.

No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five surge brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.

But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his plan for Iraq. Perhaps thats because he doesnt want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be very dangerous.

The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when weve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the Mission Accomplished banner prematurely.

I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war-only of ending it. But if we dont win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.

Senator McCain is the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.

You can write the NY Times to let them know how you feel about their bias.

TO WRITE THE PUBLISHER OR PRESIDENT Arthur Sulzberger Jr., Chairman & Publisher:
publisher@nytimes.com.
Scott H. Heekin-Canedy, President, General Manager
president@nytimes.com.

Originally posted at Caffeinated Thoughts

“Democratic activists and European intellectuals are ecstatic about Barack Obama’s trip to Europe. Europeans see a man they hope will win the presidency (a recent poll found 72% of Germans backing Sen. Obama). U.S. Democratic activists see their nominee gaining the experience of a continent whose policies — more pacifist, statist and secular than America’s — they would prefer to emulate. Both sets of people hope Mr. Obama will be influenced by what he sees and emerge a man whose message of change will be informed by stereotypical European aspirations and experiences.”

“But the Europe Mr. Obama will visit is quite different from the one Americans often hear about. Over the last decade, much of Europe has very quietly embraced market-based reforms that either draw inspiration from American successes or — on issues like retirement security — are even more market-oriented than many U.S. Republicans support.”

“What’s more, these changes have been adopted and implemented by parties left and right. This Europe is a shining example of exactly the sort of postpartisan government action that the Obama campaign says it is about.”

“The cutting of corporate income- tax rates is an excellent example of European market-friendly bipartisanship. Germany’s right-left coalition of Christian and Social Democrats implemented a large rate cut earlier this year, reducing the top marginal corporate rate to about 30% from 39%. Spain’s Socialist and Britain’s Labor governments have followed suit, reducing their countries’ top corporate rates.”

“These traditionally left-of-center parties understand that in a globalized economy, wealth and investment are mobile, flowing to those countries that provide hospitable investment climates. As part of a European Union where center-right governments in Greece, Denmark, Ireland and Eastern Europe have dramatically reduced corporate tax rates, they understand that they cannot help workers if they drive away the capital that employs and pays them.”

You can read Henry Olsen’s entire article, “Europe Has an Ecomonics Lesson for Obama,” here.

+ + + + + + +

Cross-Posted at Allan R. Bevere

I am continually struck by how strongly I can affirm, respect and agree with someone one day and then just be blown away by something the next. John Mark Reynolds is a brilliant philosopher and I often read even his political works knowing that they will contain wisdom and insight that many other “conservative” writers posts do not. Reading Reynolds article about the upcoming Gay Marriage Ban vote here, I could not help but feel compelled to respond. It lacked his usual well thought out and well stated arguments and simply equated to a schoolyard “I saw it first.” This last election has been rough on Moral Majority Republicans I know, but one cannot allow a series of stinging defeats to disintegrate the level of discourse. I am fairly certain he will never read this but hopefully it will provide you all some talking points to discuss among coworkers and friends.

First and foremost, let me lay out that this is a political and philosophical argument, not a theological one. I affirm, as a Christian what the scriptures say about homosexuality. I also affirm what they say about submitting to authorities and yet often change lanes without signaling thus have trouble justifying the harsh treatment people who are homosexual receive at the hands (and blogs) of those claiming to be Christian. All this to just reassure you that I am not part of the (oft discussed in right claiming Christian claiming) gay agenda. I simply try to treat people equally as Christ did. Christ loved the least and the lost, do you? I will end my plea to not be destroyed as a heretic to Conservatism and/or Christianity (which are not linked) please note the ever so wise Thomas Jefferson to the nation during his first inauguration in 1801, “Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle.”

What we have here is a fundamental misunderstanding both on the role of government and the authority of the church as well as a scary overlap in the two (anyone remember the great Reformation?)

Churches are debating this issue as much as voters. Thus, having the government step in and make the decision for us sets a dangerous and terrible precedent. What’s next? Do some theologians in the dispensationalism or covenant theology debate get the government to decide that Biola University or Westminster Seminary need to change their theology (I know at least one A-Team Blogger has his fingers crossed.) Of course all (well most) Christians can agree that this is preposterous. How about at your office? Should the government solve that pesky TPS report debate? (Office Space reference for those not in the know.) Absolutely not. It is the sole decision of churches, denominations and parishioners how they will handle same sex couples wishing to be married. Reynolds got it right here, marriage is largely a religious institution. Why is he then advocating government intervention when some churches disagree? Some churches are theologically liberal and take the approach that the homosexuality passages in scripture were cultural constructs. Some churches take another stand and say that homosexuality brought down the Roman Empire and we are next. Others see homosexuality as wrong, but like me do not want the government to be involved in religious decision making.

The government should never have gotten into the business of marriage. And make no mistake it is a business, having married recently and lost a marriage licence I know they are making some cash. The requirement for marriage licences in U.S. has been justified on the basis that the state has an overriding right, on behalf of all citizens and in the interests of the larger social welfare, to protect them from disease or improper/illegal marriages; to keep accurate state records; or even to ensure that marriage partners have had adequate time to think carefully before marrying. But all of these things are not the role of government as outlined in the Constitution. Prior to the mid 19th century marriages were not regulated by the state, but once the influx of “inferior races” started they became important to “protect the social welfare.” What redemptive value does alienating people and making them hate you have? C. S. Lewis said in Mere Christianity that Christians shouldn’t be trying outlaw divorce by legislation. The church is clear on its position, he said, and we would know who was really a follower of Christ and who wasn’t by their conduct, so there was no point in trying to force people to obey Christian morality. After all, he went on, we wouldn’t like it very much if the “Mohammadans” came in and tried to outlaw alcohol! As I write this in a nod to Lewis I have cracked open a can of Pabst Blue Ribbon (I know really high class). I think the implications of this hero of the faith to the modern debate are clear but just in case you can substitute the words “gay marriage” for the word “divorce” and the argument still makes a lot of sense.

Last thoughts here. To be certain there are a ton of competing viewpoints here. Reynolds (and most Moral Majority Republicans points) article makes it seem like their are two choices: Christian or Not. It is my contention that the gay marriage debate has more to do with one’s opinions on the role of government than one’s faith in Christ or even moral values. To set up such horrible dichotomies, and us versus them, viewpoints only serves to further de-legitimize Christianity’s influence in our culture. So here is my Pauline statement on the matter (referencing Acts 17:17-34), “I am amazed at how focused the US is at making sure that people have equal access to marriage licences.”

To view original post as well as JMR’s response click here. 

DENVER — Conservative Christian leader James Dobson has softened his stance against Republican presidential hopeful John McCain, saying he could reverse his position and endorse the Arizona senator despite serious misgivings.

“I never thought I would hear myself saying this,” Dobson said in a radio broadcast to air Monday. “… While I am not endorsing Senator John McCain, the possibility is there that I might.”

Source: Fox News

This doesn’t surprise me with the radical positions Senator Barack Obama holds evangelicals are still left with a clear choice.  I myself haven’t endorsed McCain, but unless there was a viable third party candidate who could win I don’t feel I have any choice but to vote for him.  I’m sure Dobson and many evangelical leaders for whom life and family are still primary concerns it is time to look pragmatically at the General Election.  During the primary elections we fight for principles, but while there is still clear choice between the policies of a center-right McCain and the policies of a far left Obama - one has to be pragmatic.

Dobson when on to say in his statement, "if this is a flip-flop, so be it."  No Dr. Dobson, I think with many young evangelicals being duped by Senator Obama, it is the only responsible position.

Cross-posted at From Their Own Mouths

One of the things that distresses me greatly is the inability of some political partisans to put their humanity ahead of their politics. What do I mean?

Last weekend, former White House Press Secretary, Tony Snow died after a courageous battle with cancer. The vast majority of people, liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican, paused in the midst of the wars of an election year to pay tribute to a good and decent man, who had caring friends on both sides of the aisle. The same thing happened a month ago when MSNBC Washington Bureau Chief, Tim Russert passed away unexpectedly. The same thing also happens when politicians of all political stripes die, as well as religious figures. We pause to remember the contribution they made to the common good and the significance of their lives as they fulfilled their roles as parents, spouses, children and friends. It is right and appropriate that we do so.

But, it never fails that there are some individuals, who, for whatever reason, feel the need to continue the partisan bickering even while family and friends are mourning their loved one and preparing for his or her burial. They seem to have no ability to eulogize someone without getting in some kind of partisan shot, as if their very self-worth depends upon their dissent.

It was very disheartening to read the AP obit on Tony Snow, in which the author could not resist taking a shot at Snow in her analysis of his performance as White House Press Secretary. Then there was the LA Times that foolishly allowed unmoderated comments on their obituary-post, where some anonymous, and no doubt left-wing extremists, said things about Snow that cannot even be repeated on this blog.

And while it was difficult to find such unfortunate nonsense among the mainstream media in reference to the passing of Tim Russert (which was a good thing), there were more than enough anonymous right-wing fringe-folks taking their shots at Russert in the blogs. (The whole anonymity of the blogosphere is a post I intend to write about next week.)

When I post obituaries on my blog, I make it an intentional point, not to highlight any differences I may have had with the politics or the religion of the deceased. I do not do so because I do not believe anyone cares what I think, but in addition, it is a time to remember and pay tribute to someone whose life mattered somewhere and to some persons and to some causes. It is also a time to reflect upon the truth that this was an individual for whom Christ died, which is much larger and more significant than my political and religious views.

I have had the great pleasure in my life of knowing individuals whose politics I do not share; whose religious views I do not embrace. We discuss, we debate, and sometimes we argue; but most of the time we are friends who share fellowship. They are all wonderful people. I do not judge their virtue or vice based upon whether or not they happen to agree with me. To do so would be nothing less than arrogant and self-righteous. And on occasion, when I have had the sad duty of eulogizing them at their funerals, I have not mentioned the differences we have had. What I did speak of was their faith and their commitment, their integrity and the significant role they played in the lives of their loved ones. Why would I even consider doing anything else?

There is nothing wrong with analysis and critique of public personalities, whether they are political or religious figures. There is also nothing wrong with debating their legacy, both positively and negatively after they have died. But the better part of valor demands that we wait until after the funeral, that we exercise some decorum in refraining from criticism, and consider the contribution they have made to the common good. Just like all of us, these individuals were cracked icons of God, but they were indeed icons nonetheless.

In many cultures and religions throughout history, there has been a traditionally understood time of mourning after a loved one dies. Certain rituals and dress assist the family as they work through their grief. At some point, the official period ends and life resumes. How nice it would be, if we could do something like that for all those who die in reference to our differing points of view. Is it not possible for us to put our humanity ahead of our politics, even for a brief period of time, in order to mourn the loss of someone who made a contribution to this world? Is it not possible to appreciate and understand the loss of an individual, who is loved and cherished in a home somewhere, where tears are being shed by children who will never see their father or mother again this side of eternity? Why is it that there are those who cannot refrain from expressing their dissent until after the funeral? Why do they believe that their voice, their opinion is more important than the tributes offered on behalf of those who have finished their course in this life?

I will offer three words of explanation for this phenomenon: immaturity, self-centeredness, and inhumanity.

+ + + + + + +

Cross-Posted at Allan R. Bevere

(This is a compressed version; the complete article is at Homeward Bound.)

THE BIBLE AND THE BALLOT BOX 2

If we want to be faithful followers of Jesus, we have to let our faith inform every aspect of our lives – not just what we do on Sunday. Nowhere is this more important than how we, as citizens of a republic, let our faith shape how we vote and otherwise influence our government.

Few political issues cause as heated arguments between Christians as capital punishment. Both sides argue from the Bible. Both sides approach the issue with a great deal of passion. I have no illusions about changing anyone’s position, but there is one side in this debate that commonly calls the other’s compassion and devotion to Christ into question. My goal is to convince that group – those opposed to the death penalty – that the other side is making a reasonable and biblically acceptable stand.

THE MOSAIC MANDATE
We should start this discussion by addressing the elephant in the corner: “If anyone takes the life of a human being, he must be put to death” (Lev 24:17).The Mosaic Covenant required the death penalty for quite a few offenses. Yet none of us really wants to start imposing capital punishment on rebellious children – well, occasionally, but I get over it quickly. How can we use the Law to impose the death penalty for murder but not cursing your parents, adultery, or Sabbath breaking? We can’t. That’s ok, because we are not part of that covenant – and praise God!But we can take two important concepts from Moses. First, capital punishment is not murder.Second, since God instituted the death penalty, capital punishment is not inherently immoral. Liberal Christians cannot make that statement without impugning the Almighty Himself.

THE NOAHIC COVENANT
Long before Moses, God gave a command to Noah:

“Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man” (Gen 9:6).

Many have framed their argument against the death penalty around the inherent dignity and value of all human life, but God says, because human life is so valuable, the appropriate punishment for taking a life is to forfeit your own.

This passage is also in the Old Testament, but we cannot cast this aside as easily. The Mosaic Covenant was binding on the nation of Israel. This is clearly presented as a universal statement. And if this no longer applies to us, does God’s promise to never again wipe out humanity with a flood (v 8-11) also expire?

THE ROMAN RULERS
If the OT were the sole support of capital punishment, those who oppose it on biblical grounds would have a better case. The truth is, though, the NT specifically mentions capital punishment:

“For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong … if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer” (Rom 13:3-4).

The sword only serves one function. If this is not talking about capital punishment, what can mean?

When combined with the preceding paragraph we see:

Leave room for God’s wrath (12:19). The ruler is an agent of God’s wrath (13:4).

FORGIVENESS ON THE MOUNT
There is one other elephant in the room. Jesus, in fact the whole NT, has a lot to say about forgiveness and revenge:

“But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matt 5:39).

I think when Jesus told us to forgive and not take revenge, He meant exactly what He said. But He didn’t mean anything more than what He said.

Jesus tells us how to live life as a subject of His kingdom. But His commands do not tell us how to run a country. As a matter of fact, if you run a criminal justice system according to this principle, you cease to have a criminal justice system.

As Greg Koukl has pointed out, if we can’t give someone the death penalty because “Jesus would forgive,” we also can’t give them life in prison. We can’t give them five years, five days, or five minutes in prison. We can’t even give them a $5 fine. We have to forgive. If Jesus didn’t mean that we can’t have any criminal punishments, then He didn’t mean we can’t use the death penalty.

THE SILENT CHURCH FATHERS
My final appeal will be, again, to tradition. If Jesus’ instructions to forgive require discontinuing capital punishment, we should expect the early church fathers to mention that, but the only references I could find to the death penalty in the first couple of centuries of the church were from Tertullian who complained about unjust application of it to Christians but seemed to assume it was a legitimate punishment in the state’s arsenal.

SO WHAT?
In an earlier piece I said you shouldn’t vote for someone who holds a position you are convinced is recklessly immoral. But I also don’t think you should reject someone for a carefully considered position you disagree with.

I don’t expect to change anyone’s mind about supporting capital punishment here. In truth, you can be a conservative and reject capital punishment, or you can believe it should be used sparingly. You can reject it as no longer necessary or as an overly dangerous tool in our flawed legal system. I find it justifiable and occasionally necessary but in dire need of serious reform.

The question is not whether you can support capital punishment. The question is whether you can see how a reasonable person could believe that capital punishment is acceptable biblically. If you can do that, then this is not an issue that should drive you away from voting for a candidate.

The next Bible and the Ballot Box will enter into the always-unpleasant battle over abortion.

———
Related:
The Bible and the Ballot Box 1: Helping the Poor Biblically

The other day, in response to a question about displays of patriotism during Sunday services during national holidays, I added the comment that peace and freedom are not won on the battlefield but in the hearts and minds of the people.

A blogging colleague responded by saying that this assertion was wrong. He said that war is sometimes the solution and that peace and freedom are sometimes won on the battlefield. He added that imperfect freedom and imperfect peace make for imperfect solutions but that such solutions are sometimes much better than the alternative.

I was tempted to ask what war actually solves and why we must settle for imperfect solutions. But as the focus of the remainder of my colleague’s remarks was on that original topic, so too will the focus of these remarks be on the issue at hand. But his comments are reflective of what I see happening in the world today,

We are in the midst of an economic crisis in this country. It is likely that this crisis will transcend national boundaries and slowly and surely begin to affect the other nations of this world. It is a crisis driven in part by the increasing energy crisis. Because so much of what we use today is somehow related to the price of energy, if we do not solve the energy crisis, then we cannot solve the economic crisis.

Yet, the offered solution to the energy crisis is to drill for more oil and let the supply of new oil drive down the current price of oil. In theory, this is a correct idea. But I see several problems with this solution.

First, drilling for oil takes time and any oil that is obtained through new drilling will not be on the market for several years. Our refining capabilities are, it seems, are at their maximum levels right now, so we would need additional capacity in that regard; again, a process that takes time.

There are some who are opposed to new drilling, especially in the Alaska North Slope fields, because of environmental concerns. Their concerns are valid and need to be taken into consideration. Any new drilling and the construction of new refiners must take into consideration environmental issues and, more importantly, such concerns must remain beyond the simple start of the project. Typically, long-term maintenance is often forgotten and this is where the problems start.

Finally, we have to consider that fact that the supply of crude oil is fundamentally limited. Sooner or latter, it will run out and we cannot produce it anymore. And as long as our economy is based on the supply of crude oil, we are going to be faced with this situation.

Whether it is more oil to solve the energy crisis or war as the solution to war, we have this nasty habit of seeing our solution in current and past terms. When will we begin to think “outside the box” and seek alternative solutions?

There are three ways to see the world – “yesterday was better than today”, “there is nothing wrong with today”, and “let’s make tomorrow better than today.” The problem is that, more often than not, we see the world in terms of the first two views and give little thought to the third. We do not seek alternative solutions because we are either incapable of thinking in those terms (and given the state of education today, that should not be surprising) or we are afraid to think in those terms.

To think in new ways is a frightening experience. We are far more comfortable thinking in the same old ways that we have used all our lives, even when we know they do not work. We long for the good old days when things worked and there were no problems. We are in a comfort zone and we do not want that comfort zone disturbed. And when things like September 11^th happened, we do not know how to respond and we become fearful.

Our politics are based on those views. Our politics today are more fear than hope. Politicians on both sides of the spectrum speak more to our fears than our hopes and the only change that may occur is the change when they modify their views to fit the current polling data.

To ask people to think differently is a monumental task but it can be done. It will take time and it will not be easy (both of which are factors that many people don’t want to face today). It will require leaders who are willing to put forth new ideas, not ideas that respond to the polls. And if they put forth these new and radical ideas, they will have to put forth the commitment to hold to those ideas, not matter what happens.

I don’t want my political leaders to be television weathermen, telling me which way the wind blows. I don’t want my political leaders to tell me what is happening and how the other side is to blame. I want my political leaders to lead.

And the American people have to do the same. Instead of meekly accepting politics as usual, it is time that the people start asking the hard questions. It is time that we begin to see the world for what it can be, not what it is, and it is time to say, “enough of the usual processes; they don’t work. Let us begin something new.”

—————————————

Cross-posted to Thoughts From The Heart On The Left

What do you think of this ad that is now being run on some Christian radio stations?

Go here to listen to the ad.

The advertisement was produced by the Matthew 25 Network  (HT: David Brody).  This is the network’s purpose taken their own website:

Catholic, Protestant, Pentecostal and Evangelical—inspired by the Gospel mandate to put our faith into action to care for our neighbor. We believe that people of faith should actively participate in the political process as an important avenue for social change.

We come together as individual believers to support candidates for public office who share the values of the Matthew 25 Network: promoting life with dignity, caring for the least of these, strengthening and supporting families, stewardship of God’s Creation, working for peace and justice at home and abroad and promoting the common good.

They are a political action committee who has endorsed Senator Barack Obama.   I agree with them in principle to care for our neighbors, and that people of faith should actively participate in the political process.  I look at some of their other desires, and I’m concerned as I know we are looking at these issues differently.

Promoting life with dignity?  How has Barack Obama done that?  By being in favor of abortion?  By voting against the Illinois Born Alive Act that would have forced abortionists to assist babies who survive abortion?  That’s dignity?  How does he view euthana