Texian Weblog

Cicero Nerdum Primum fuit

2008-02-05T01:46:00.000-06:00

I found this neat little diversion while reading Father Hollywood’s blog. You may have heard of it. If you are “tagged,” which I have not been, you are to pick up the closet book, turn to page 123, find the fifth sentence, and post the next three sentences.

As I sit at my computer, I have books all around me. There are bookshelves to my left and my right. The bookshelf on the left contains works of philosophy and theology. On my right is Political Science. I blindly stretched my hands out toward both bookcases with the intention of using the first book I touch, hoping it will be from the philosophy section since the Poli Sci section is admittedly dry. I love Political Science, but let’s face it, you can only take so much of it in a day. Thankfully, the first book I touched was On the Good Life a Penguin Classics collection of some of Cicero’s philosophical works. Page 123 comes from On Duties:

Other schools of philosophy maintain that some things are certain, and others uncertain. We adopt a special view of our own [“we” being Cicero’s school, the Academy]. What we say is that some things are probable, and others improbable.

Cicero is making the point here that the Academy argues that no one can ever be certain of anything because man’s reason and senses are too fallible to achieve any degree of certainty. But, that doesn’t mean the philosophers of the Academy simply throw their hands up and give up, complaining there’s no use to study or debate because certainty can never be achieved. Instead, they have “a special view of [their] own.” Some things are probable, others improbable.

Cicero is correct about the fallibility of reason and the senses. The only thing of which we can be certain is our own ignorance.

Cicero is so cool! In the margins of the editor’s introduction to On the Good Life I have written, “Cicero is not for the weak- or lazy-minded.” Very true. Though, I have no idea where I got that. Sure, that part of the introduction is discussing why modern readers neglect Cicero, but the author never says anything close to “lazy-minded.” It certainly doesn’t sound like something that came from my mind. I have underlined on the same page:

[Cicero’s] treatises are for people who possess mature and independent minds, who have no desire to follow other minds slavishly, and who are compelled, in the course of their daily existences, to grapple with problems which are complex–rarely admitting of a purely intellectual solution–and which call on all the resources of their humanity.

Modern people do not have mature or independent minds. They are, in fact, lazy-minded, which is why reality TV and celebrity worship appeal to them so much. That is, except for us nerds who find ourselves compelled to tackle complex problems.

Perhaps Cicero was the first nerd. After all, he never quite fit into Patrician society (because he was not a Patrician nor even true Roman). He was an intellectual. He loved to read and study. He was a loner, he never had much luck with women, and he was bullied by the jocks of his time (i.e. Sulla, Mark Antony, et cetera). So, Cicero was the first nerd.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

How Bush is Destroying the Republic

2008-02-02T01:03:00.000-06:00

President Bush has recently re-started his practice of including signing statements with legislation. These signing statements are used by the president to inform Congress that he has no intention of enforcing certain provisions of the bill he has just signed because he believes those provisions are unconstitutional. This issue first came to light a few years ago, and since the Democrats have won control of Congress, Bush has relented. But recently he has re-started his aggressive use of these signing statements. Usually these statements are used to sidestep a provision in a bill that the president feels is an unconstitutional encroachment of Congress on the president’s executive power.

However, the signing statements themselves are unconstitutional. The Constitution provides the president with three options regarding legislation: he may sign it, veto it, or allow it to be come law without his signature (see Article I, sec. 7). The Constitution is very clear about what the president should do if he objects to a bill, “he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated.” Sorry Mr. Bush, but it says nothing about including a statement saying you do not intend to execute certain provisions of the law. If you believe the law to be unconstitutional, then veto it and let Congress know that you think it is unconstitutional. That’s the way our Republic works.

We are a nation of laws. Our liberties mean nothing without the law, and if those who are charged with enforcing the law have themselves no regard for the law, then the law means nothing and our liberties mean nothing.

Look, the Bill of Rights is not just the first ten amendments to the Constitution. It is the entire Constitution (see Federalist 84). Every provision of the Constitution is intended to limit the power of government, to ensure that only good laws are enacted, to prevent one person or one group in the government from gaining too much power. This is why we have this cumbersome process of law making. This is why annoying little things like the separation of powers are important.

Bush’s practice of including signing statements, however, throws a monkey wrench in the whole process. He is using them to concentrate power in the executive branch (as if enough power hasn’t been concentrated there already). He is ignoring the separation of powers and declaring himself the arbiter of what is constitutional and what is not.

This could be forgiven as an overzealous mistake, if Bush were correct in his judgements. But, he is not. The Boston Globe reports:

One section Bush targeted created a statute that forbids spending taxpayer money "to establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq" or "to exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq."

The Globe gives Bush’s objections:

"Provisions of the act . . . purport to impose requirements that could inhibit the president's ability to carry out his constitutional obligations to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, to protect national security, to supervise the executive branch, and to execute his authority as commander in chief," Bush said. "The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President."

Now, how is Congress’ attempt to regulate how money is spent out of the federal treasury an unconstitutional imposition on the president’s authority? The power of the purse is held by Congress, according to the Constitution anyway. Article I, sec. 8 (regular readers should be familiar with this part of the Constitution by now) says, “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States” (emphasis is mine, though I imagine the Framers would agree). Too vague? The Constitution also says Congress has the power, “To raise and support Armies,” and, “To provide and maintain a Navy.” The president is indeed the commander in chief of the armed forces, but the Congress decides how to fund them. The provision that Bush declares unconstitutional is actually a perfectly legitimate exercise of Congress’ power under the Constitution.

So, let me get this straight. The president is using an unconstitutional practice to declare constitutional laws unconstitutional. Is your head spinning, too?

Actually, my head is not spinning, but my face is flush with anger. This is the Conservative president we are supposed to love and defend, whom history will judge as one of the greatest presidents in American history? What, I humbly ask, is conservative about how this man has governed? He has given us out of control spending, increased entitlements, incompetent management of the war, warrantless wiretapping, “comprehensive” immigration reform (so comprehensive that it forgot to secure the border), torture, secret prisons, devaluation of our currency, and now this, a blatantly unconstitutional attempt to concentrate power in the executive branch. This is Conservatism?

I think when I go to worship this Sunday, along with my many other sins, I will confess and ask forgiveness for my two votes for Bush (actually, four votes including the primaries).

Now, to what can we look forward in the future. According to the Globe, only one of the four remaining (viable) candidates has sworn off signing statements. Romney? No. Hillary? Obama? No, and no. Only John McCain has said he will not continue the practice. All the others, Obama included, have said they would continue issuing signing statements. So much for “change we can believe in.” Of course, I never could take seriously a candidate whose campaign slogan is grammatically incorrect.

But, back to this point. Only John McCain has said he will not use signing statements. Yet, according to Rush Limbaugh and the other high priests of Conservatism, McCain is not a conservative. So, Bush’s actions are conservative? If Bush is the measure of what it means to be a conservative, and McCain does not meet that standard, then I say good. In fact, why don’t you bring me the most un-conservative bastard you can find. I’ll vote for him.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

I’m Comfortable with McCain as the Nominee

2008-01-31T00:25:00.000-06:00

It appears that Senator John McCain will become the Republican nominee. Perhaps his nomination comes eight years too late, but it is finally happening, and I’m OK with that. Of course, my man is Huckabee. But, he doesn’t seem to have a chance now.

Quite a few people who call themselves Conservatives are upset over the prospect of a McCain nomination. Their first complaint, of course, is that McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts. He explains that he voted against them because they did not include spending cuts. Now, what’s more conservative than that? Instead of those spending cuts, Bush governed us into huge deficits that are now contributing to the decline of the Dollar which has caused inflation and hurts the middle class. A president McCain would have prevented that kind of deficit spending.

He did push for the immigration reform bill that many Conservatives complain would have given amnesty to illegal immigrants. Of course, Bush, who is praised by those same Conservatives, supported the same bill. That was a bad idea, particularly because the border needs to be secure before we start thinking about reforming immigration. McCain has learned his lesson and he is now saying the same thing.

McCain was calling for an increase in U.S. troops in Iraq long before anyone else. McCain even had to convince the White House a surge was a good idea. Many Conservatives were on the fence regarding the issue, but we now see that the surge has worked. Casualties are down in Iraq, the country is more stable, and the Iraqi government is taking control of its country. The surge has given us a new hope for victory in Iraq, and McCain deserves a great deal of the credit. McCain has done a better job at managing the war than Bush, and it's not even his job! There has been much talk lately about McCain’s accusations that Romney supported a time table for withdraw in Iraq. Since Romney is quite eloquent in his poli-speak, it is hard to tell what he supports, but one thing is clear, he was not fighting for a surge and a plan to victory like John McCain.

Unlike a certain other candidate on the Republican side (ahem), John McCain is a solid social conservative. He was pro-life when pro-life wasn’t cool.

Conservatives also complain that McCain is in favor of a Kyoto-style cap and trade system. I have mentioned here before that cap and trade works. It reduces greenhouse gas emissions without harming industry. It puts market forces to work to solve a global problem that threatens our economy, our standard of living, and our national security. It will stimulate industry to find new solutions to the problem of global warming. The world needs America to step up and face this challenge. Americans can solve this problem by bringing to bear the same kind of innovation and ingenuity that has made us the largest economy in the world. A cap and trade system will encourage American innovation. It will also bring new investment into nuclear power and renewable energy, and it will reduce our reliance on oil which we are currently buying from anti-American governments in unstable regions of the world. The most important thing here is that McCain is one of the few Republicans that realizes global warming is a problem and we must do something about it.

Another criticism of McCain regards his campaign finance reform. I agree that the McCain-Feingold bill was a bad idea. But, at least McCain realizes that the current campaign finance system, which gives a disproportionately large voice to lobbyists and special interests, is broken. Special interests are, by definition, more concerned about their own welfare than the general welfare of the United States. Unfortunately, they are the king-makers in American politics. Politicians at every level rely on them for the money they need to run a campaign, and when they get elected, their first concern is for those who helped them get elected. Special interests pay the piper, and he who pays the piper gets to call the tune.

My biggest problem with McCain is that he does not support fair trade, which I think is one of the biggest issues in this campaign. He does, however, support policies that will help ease the pain caused by globalization, and his other fiscal policies would do a great deal in improving our economy.

But, the most important thing to remember about John McCain: he’s not Romney. If my choice is between an honorable war hero or a slick car salesman, I choose the war hero. McCain is certainly not a perfect candidate (I doubt there is such a thing) but at least you know where he stands. Honor and integrity count a great deal for me and they are an important part to being a great president.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

Romney’s Michigan Win

2008-01-17T00:13:00.000-06:00

First of all, I think this Romney win will benefit Huckabee by bringing McCain’s surge to an end. Huck’s only real competition in South Carolina is McCain. If McCain had won Michigan, Huck couldn’t stop him in SC. But, with Romney’s win, Huck has a chance to overtake McCain.

But, here’s what has been bothering me since Tuesday night. It is customary, and just plain courteous, for the winner of an election to allow his vanquished opponents to speak to their supporters before he gives his victory speech. Huck gave Romney that courtesy in Iowa, and McCain gave it to Romney in New Hampshire. But Romney did not extend the same courtesy to McCain on Tuesday night. Just as McCain was starting his speech, Romney started his and all the networks dropped McCain and switched to Romney (since he was the winner).

CNN brought this up a few times that night, but I haven’t heard much else about it. Not that it’s a big deal, but it does give some insight into the type of person Romney is.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

Small Government Democracy

2008-01-08T19:02:00.000-06:00

Here's something that has bothered me for some time. I have heard people argue that democracy is not the best government because democracy fails as soon as the people realize that they can vote for themselves anything they want. Democracy ultimately leads to big government. Therefore, democracy must be severly limited. It is true that democracy must be held back to prevent mob tyranny (which is why our system places the rights of the individual above the power of the people), and that democracy does not work without a wise and moral populous. However, this particular argument about the shortcomings of democracy is wrong. The people cannot simply vote for whatever they want because they will have to pay for it. Crunchy Con Rod Dreher touched on this in a post today about Conservative arguments that Huckabee is not a true Conservative. Neither are mainstream Republicans, Dreher argues,

My disgust with Bush and the late, unlamented Republican Congress is not that they spent so much money (though that's part of it). My real disgust is that they spent on credit. If the people want big government, then the politicians are going to give it to them, despite (in the GOP's case) their rhetorical pose against it. But if they're fiscally responsible, then they ought to pay for it, and not hide from the voters the cost of what they demand. If politicians told people that they can have this shiny new program, but they were going to have to give up something else, either in terms of a spending cut or a new tax, to get it, then government would limit itself naturally.

Exactly right. Democracy naturally limits government. The GOP was expanding government without paying for it. The people saw the problem with this and voted the GOP out. It is the Republican establishment, not Huckabee, who have been betraying Conservatism. They have twisted the Conservative principle of fiscal responsibility into a policy of free money. This is their failure, not democracy's. Huckabee, on the other hand, saw as governor of Arkansas that you actually have to pay for government, which is why he raised taxes to pay for better roads and schools (with the people's consent, I might add). At the end of his term, the Arkansas state government had a surplus, which he said should go back to the people in the form of a tax cut. That sounds more like a Conservative to me than Bush or the Republican Congress. Which is why Dreher argues that the attacks of the GOP establishment on Huckabee's record are weak. He doesn't use the word, but I will: they are hypocritical.

I suppose it could be argued that limiting democracy is a sure way to get a larger, more intrusive government. Under a democratic-republic with universal suffrage such as ours, everybody is a part of the governing class and everybody shares the burden of government. If democracy is limited, then it would be possible for the governing class to vote for anything they want and pass the cost on to those outside their class. But, I'm not going to bother with that argument for now. Suffice it to say: a democratic-republic naturally limits government and probably does it better than any other system.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

Huck and the Christian Democrats

2008-01-08T00:58:00.000-06:00

I don’t think I have ever mentioned this here before, but I’m somewhat of a Germanophile. I have certainly mentioned before that I’m a Huckaphile. One of the reasons I like Mike is that he is the closet candidate we have here to a German Christian Democrat. For those who are unaware, the CDU (Christlich Demokratische Union) is a center-right party in Germany. They are socially conservative and advocate an economic philosophy called the Social Market Economy (Soziale Marktwirtshaft) which supports the capitalist system, but uses the government to fix problems created by capitalism (such as wealth inequality, pollution, et cetera).

I have believed for some time that this is the type of party Americans are looking for: a party that is socially conservative and fiscally centrist. Our only two choices are the Dems who are socially and fiscally liberal, and the GOP which is socially and fiscally conservative. The reason elections have been so close over the past eight years is that Americans only agree with either party about half the time. They agree slightly more with the Republicans, and the Republicans are on the right side of the most important social issues, so elections usually break in favor of the GOP. But a party that is socially conservative and fiscally centrist would be tapping into the desires of a large majority of Americans and can expect Reagan-like numbers.

The fact that Huckabee is an American Christian Democrat has been noticed by others, as well. For example, Henry Olsen explains this in The Wall Street Journal. He writes:

Mike Huckabee's stunning victory in Thursday's Iowa caucuses does more than change the GOP nomination race. With a platform explicitly grounded in his Christian faith and a populist economic message, Mr. Huckabee offers the Republican Party a new political narrative, light years removed from the limited government principles governing the GOP in the Reagan and post-Reagan era.
This pro-faith, pro-government message may sound strange to American ears -- but it is a staple of conservative political parties on the European continent. Mr. Huckabee, in other words, essentially gives Republicans a choice: Does the GOP want to become a Christian Democratic party?

I’d say yes, but Olsen follows this question with an argument against Christian Democracy writing,

Every country which has been primarily governed by Christian Democrats since World War II (Germany, Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands) is poorer than the United States, with substantially higher unemployment rates and slower economic growth. The differences aren't even close.

This surprised me. After all, the Christian Democrats oversaw the German Economic Wonder of the mid-20th century. Using the Social Market philosophy, Konrad Adenauer and the CDU were able to bring Germany up from the ashes and rubble of World War II to create one of the biggest and strongest economies in the world.

Tremendous growth, however, is not the primary goal of the Christian Democrats. They prefer a slow, stable economy with low unemployment and more equally distributed incomes.

Olsen backs up his argument with stats showing that CD countries do indeed have higher unemployment and slower growth. I can’t speak for all the nations in Olsen’s list, but for Germany, these numbers are more than likely outdated. It is true that Germany has experienced some hard times over the past decade, mostly due to the cost of reunification. However, according to the German news agency Deutsche Welle, the total number of unemployed Germans has dropped from around 5 million to 3.278 million in the two years since Chancellor Angela Merkel and the Christian Democrats regained power from the left wing Social Democrats. That’s a 34% decrease in two years, and it’s the lowest unemployment number in 15 years. Deutsche Welle also reports that,

A survey of top managers and executives from six EU nations has found that Germany tops the list of most competitive economies in Europe. Internationally, the country takes second place -- behind China.

Further, according to the CIA World Factbook, Germany’s estimated GDP growth in 2006 was 2.8%, the United States was at 2.9%. Not much of a difference there. Also, Germany’s economy is the third largest in the world (behind the US and Japan). Germany is also the world’s largest exporter. Americans, concerned about a huge trade deficit and a dwindling manufacturing sector, may look with envy at that number. Obviously, Germany is not as bad off as Olsen claims.

Merkel and the CDU have achieved this turn around by introducing economic reforms that we in America would consider Reagan-esque. The similarity doesn’t end there. Merkel has had to turn around an economy that was experiencing the same kind of malaise as the U.S. economy in the 1970's. When all is said and done, we may look back and see Merkel as a German Reagan.

Olsen has tried to cast Christian Democracy as Liberal. The reality is that it is quite conservative and pro-market, but Christian Democrats don’t believe that the free market system is infallible. Nothing in this world is infallible.

Reagan won by arguing against the forces that threatened the middle class. At the time, the problem was a burdensome government. Reagan fixed the problem by making government smaller and lowering taxes. Today, governmental policies such as lopsided trade agreements (or the lack of a policy, such as in the case of immigration) are harming the middle class. Huckabee seeks to fix these problems by insisting on fair trade and securing the borders.

Much has been said about Huckabee’s tax hikes in Arkansas. The truth is, Huckabee inherited a state with a horrible road system and failing schools. These problems take money to fix. Conservatism is not just about tax cuts, it’s about responsible government. There are quite a few Republicans in Congress who feel they can spend all the money they want and still call themselves Conservative because they voted for a tax cut. Huckabee is not that kind of Republican. That’s why he should be the GOP nominee.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

True Conservatism

2008-01-05T01:42:00.000-06:00

As you already know, Mike Huckabee won the Iowa Caucuses. This, of course, will cause the Republican Establishment to complain even louder than before that Huck is not a true Conservative.

I want to say a few things about this “true Conservatism.” Where is it? Are we to assume that Conservatism is practiced most purely by the Republicans in Congress? If that’s the case, then I’m glad Huck is not a “true Conservative.”

The Conservative message has been hijacked by the Washington Republican Elite and twisted to favor their constituency: corporate CEO’s. Conservatism as Ronald Reagan preached it is about the little guy. It is about protecting the middle class from harmful government policies. Conservatism is not about pandering to the corporations, special interests, and foreign lobbyists. It isn’t about pork-barrel spending. It isn’t about destroying our manufacturing with reckless, lopsided trade agreements. It isn’t about faith based economics. And it certainly isn’t about incompetent administration officials or corrupt congressmen.

When Reagan ran for president, the middle class was threatened by an over-intrusive government. Today, the middle class is threatened by a corporate owned and operated government (the Washington-Wall Street Axis). Ronald Reagan sought to change the policies that were harming the middle class, and the Republican Establishment hated him for it. Mike Huckabee is trying to do the same thing, and the Republican Establishment hates him for it, too.

The problem here is that the Republican Party is too closely linked with corporate greed. The solution to this problem is not found in the nomination of an ex-corporate CEO. It is time for someone new, who will lead the party back to supporting the middle class over corporate interests.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

Huck the Anti-politico

2007-12-18T23:33:00.000-06:00

The above is Mike Huckabee’s newest campaign video. And what a brilliant move it is. It is simple, sincere, and it rises above the fray. Instead of saying “vote for me and don’t vote for the other guy,” Huck simply says, “Let’s put politics aside for a moment. Merry Christmas.” For someone like me, who is spending this Christmas rebelling against consumerism and commercialism, this ad is refreshing. I’m sure many other voters will think the same thing, and not just evangelical voters.

The beauty of this ad is that it cannot be attacked. Well, some people still find fault with it. The AP reports,

Catholic League president Bill Donahue said Huckabee went beyond wishing people a joyous holiday. Donahue said he was especially disturbed by the cross-like image created by a white bookcase in the background of the ad, saying he believed it was a subliminal message.

I’m not sure why a Catholic would be concerned about the appearance of a cross. An apparition of Mary never seems to bother them. Anyway, here’s Huck’s response to the accusation that there are subliminal (or as Bush would say, subliminable) messages in the ad:

Huckabee said the bookshelf is just a bookshelf and shrugged off the controversy: "I will confess this: If you play the spot backwards it says, 'Paul is dead. Paul is dead.'"

Ha! Is there any wonder why I love this guy?

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

Religion, Liberty, and Krauthammer

2007-12-18T01:29:00.000-06:00

I’m a few days late on commenting on this. So sue me. Can’t a man take a weekend off?

In last week’s column, Charles Krauthammer, known affectionately here as the Master, criticized the claim that Mitt Romney made in his recent religion speech that freedom requires religion and religion requires freedom.

But this is nonsense -- as Romney then proceeded to demonstrate in that very same speech. He spoke of the empty cathedrals in Europe. He's right about that: Postwar Europe has experienced the most precipitous decline in religious belief in the history of the West. Yet Europe is one of the freest precincts on the planet. It is an open, vibrant, tolerant community of more than two dozen disparate nations living in a pan-continental harmony and freedom unseen in all previous European history.
In some times and places, religion promotes freedom. In other times and places, it does precisely the opposite, as is demonstrated in huge swaths of the Muslim world, where religion has been used to impose the worst kind of unfreedom.

I wanted to make a few quick comments on this.

First, Europe is free, but even some Europeans bemoan the fact that European democracy is not nearly as liberal as American democracy. Simon Jenkins writes,

Americans are people of the book, treating their constitutions, precedents and treatises as of quasi-sacred import. The linguistic beauty and clarity of meaning of their early documents is unsurpassed.
An American election is more than a periodic shifting of oligarchic chairs. It is a mass assertion of the people’s right to choose and dismiss their head of state. It is the closest any big country gets to James Madison’s “pure democracy”, regularly purging the accumulated toxins of the political blood. Europe has nothing to match it.

The reader may like to read Lincoln’s address to the Young Men’s Lyceum for more about our political religion.

Jenkins further argues that the new European constitution would never be signed by an American president without the input of the people. European leaders, however, saw no problem with signing the document without first consulting the people who must live under this document.

Perhaps Americans’ tendency to hold certain things such as God, the Bible, and marriage sacred also encourages them to hold liberty and the Constitution sacred.

There is a more basic problem that threatens European liberty today: a declining population. Rampant Secularism in Europe has encouraged Europeans to seek first the Kingdom of Mammon. Children tend to get in the way of selfish and materialistic pursuits. Accordingly, European families are smaller than American families. Religion in America encourages and strengthens the family. True, there are Americans who place wealth and career above all things, but the majority of Americans place family second only to God. Despite the image many people around the world have of Americans, the average American sees his career as a means to an end, not an end itself. Most Americans only want to earn enough money to be able to support themselves and their families. This is true of Americans from many different creeds. As Europeans selfishly destroy their civilization and their liberty, America will continue to grow.

Europe is not as vibrant as Krauthammer claims. The lack of religion in Europe has much to do with that. Romney was right, freedom does require religion.

But why do we hold liberty to be sacred and beyond the reach of government? We believe that our rights come from God, not government, not society, not nature, not ourselves. The rights of man transcend all the powers of government because they come from a Power that transcends all things. Our sacred documents, our charters of freedom, declare this in majestic prose, “all men are created equal,” and, “they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . . .” Our Founders declared that they are undertaking the dangerous task of creating a new nation founded upon Liberty “with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence.” Maggie Gallagher argues,

The reason God is on our coins and in our Pledge is not that He is practically necessary to democratic liberty, but rather that He is the philosophical foundation of it. Our rights come from a sphere outside the reach of the state. Government may or may not recognize our rights, but it can never repeal them.

Now to Krauthammer’s second point, that religion in the Middle East “has been used to impose the worst kind of unfreedom.” It is true that religion is used in the Middle East to support oppressive governments. But, let us not forget the other side to Romney’s statement, that religion requires freedom. Religion in the Middle East has become corrupted by a lack of freedom.

It is no coincidence that religion, whether it is Islam, Christianity, or even Secularism, quickly becomes the tool of the state when there is no religious freedom. Introduce religious freedom into the system and religion soon becomes a force in opposition to oppression. Even Krauthammer agrees that religion has helped make society better:

Abolitionism, civil rights, temperance, opposition to the death penalty -- a host of policies, even political movements, have been rooted for many people in religious teaching or interpretation.

But such good work on the part of religion comes only when the religious are free to assert their faith as opposed to having it dictated to them by the state. In states such as those in the Middle East, religion ceases to be religion and instead is simply a tool used by the state to control the populace. If Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the others allowed free exercise of religion (or if the people learn to assert it themselves), we would see a powerful force rise up to oppose the radical terrorists and the oppressors. The problem in the Middle East is not too much religion, but not enough religion.

In Europe we see liberty dying alone without religion. In the Middle East we see religion dying alone without liberty. Romney was right: freedom requires religion and religion requires freedom. They either stand together or they die alone.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

U.S. Blocking Climate Conference

2007-12-13T10:50:00.000-06:00

While trying not to appear as if it is blocking progress at the UN climate change conference in Bali, our government nevertheless has refused to agree to mandatory greenhouse gas reduction goals. Our government would rather like to hammer out a voluntary agreement at a U.S. hosted conference next month. Citing what they perceive to be a refusal on the part of the U.S. to negotiate an agreement in good faith, European Union leaders, led by Germany, have threatened to boycott the U.S. conference if the Bali conference ends in failure.

It is just sad that our government has refused to work with our allies and the global community to find a solution to this problem. Our government has previously refused to sign the Kyoto agreement because it did not include developing nations who are also large producers of greenhouse gasses such as India and China. That was understandable. But, now there is an opportunity to work on a new agreement that would replace Kyoto, and our government still refuses to cooperate.

As I have said before, climate change is a moral issue. We are required by divine law to be good stewards of the blessings and resources that God has given us (Gen 2:15). Further, we are required by divine law to protect the weak and poor among us (Matt 5:42, Matt 7:12, Phil 2:4, Heb 13:16, 1John 3:17), and they will be most affected by climate change. Without getting too deep into a theological discussion here, I would like to say that it could be argued that our reliance on technology instead of God is a sin (Psalm 118:8). The consequence of that sin is pollution which, like all sins, leads to death. I pray that our leaders will see this and try to do more to combat this problem.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

Is Romney a Little Thin Skinned about his Mormonism?

2007-12-12T21:38:00.000-06:00

Mitt Romney complained today that Mike Huckabee attacked his religion, calling the act, “going too far. It's just not the American way.”

When I first heard this, I was a little confused. Attacking Romney’s religion doesn’t sound like Huck at all. What did he say? The quote comes from a New York Times article. Here’s the offending part:

Chapter 3 [of the Book of Proverbs, which Huckabee is currently reading] also contains the admonition to ‘‘keep sound wisdom and discretion.’’ Huckabee is, indeed, a discreet fellow, but he has no trouble making his feelings known. He mentioned how much he respected his fellow candidates John McCain and Rudolph W. Giuliani. The name of his principal rival in Iowa, Mitt Romney, went unmentioned. Romney, a Mormon, had promised that he would be addressing the subject of his religion a few days later. I asked Huckabee, who describes himself as the only Republican candidate with a degree in theology, if he considered Mormonism a cult or a religion. ‘‘I think it’s a religion,’’ he said. ‘‘I really don’t know much about it.’’
I was about to jot down this piece of boilerplate when Huckabee surprised me with a question of his own: ‘‘Don’t Mormons,’’ he asked in an innocent voice, ‘‘believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?’’

If Huck is guilty of anything, it’s being uninformed about Mormonism. But, that’s something of which most Americans are guilty (probably because the LDS church is not very clear about its doctrine, as we’ve discussed here before). The NY Times reports that Huckabee apologized to Romney after today’s debate and included a transcript of Huckabee’s explaination of the quote to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer,

We were having a conversation. It was over several hours, and the conversation was about religion, and he [the NYT reporter] was trying to press me on my thoughts of Mitt Romney’s religion. And I said I don’t want to go there. I don’t know that much about it. I barely know enough about being a Baptist. And I really didn’t know. Well, he was telling me things about the Mormon faith, because he frankly is fairly well-schooled on comparative religions. And so as a part of that conversation, I asked the question, because I had heard that, and I asked it not to create something — I never thought it would make the story.

So, perhaps Huck is also guilty of a little naivete, trusting that a reporter from the New York Times isn’t going to take a Republican’s quote out of context.

Romney should understand this, too. After all, when CNN showed a question from a kid with the Confederate Flag hanging on his wall at the CNN/YouTube debate, Romney correctly judged this as an attempt by CNN producers to brand Republicans as racists and refused to answer the question. So, he shouldn’t be so quick to take offense at something he reads one of his rivals say in the New York Times, or anywhere else in the Mainstream Media for that matter. When asked about the quote, Romney’s response shouldn’t have been focused on Huckabee, complaining that Huck was attacking his faith. He should have instead said something like this, “I know Governor Huckabee, and this doesn’t sound like something he would say. I suspect there might be a little bias involved here, so I’m going to withhold comment until I hear from Governor Huckabee.” That would have won big points with Iowa Republicans for Romney. Romney missed out on a good chance to regain his footing in this campaign.

The NY Times also quotes the LDS’ explanation of this “Jesus and Satan are brothers” belief,

On first hearing, the doctrine that Lucifer and our Lord, Jesus Christ, are brothers may seem surprising to some—especially to those unacquainted with latter-day revelations. But both the scriptures and the prophets affirm that Jesus Christ and Lucifer are indeed offspring of our Heavenly Father and, therefore, spirit brothers. Jesus Christ was with the Father from the beginning. Lucifer, too, was an angel “who was in authority in the presence of God,” a “son of the morning.” (See Isa. 14:12; D&C 76:25–27.) Both Jesus and Lucifer were strong leaders with great knowledge and influence. But as the Firstborn of the Father, Jesus was Lucifer’s older brother. (See Col. 1:15; D&C 93:21.)

Actually, Col 1:15 says, “[Jesus Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.” It doesn’t say anything about Christ and Satan being brothers. And I have no idea what the “D&C” reference is. It certainly doesn’t come from the Bible.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

The Bigotry of Austin Cline

2007-12-11T21:40:00.000-06:00

Hey, I can make cute pictures on my computer, too!

Yeah, I know. The cut and paste job is awful, but that's the point. Cline’s little posters are so bigoted they don’t deserve a serious response.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

AP Tries to Scare Voters With Old Huck Quotes

2007-12-11T18:20:00.000-06:00

I suppose that the AP thought this story about comments made by Huck in 1992 would turn many voters off. Frankly, it makes me more likely to vote for him. Take a look at this quote about women in the military:

women should be treated with respect and dignity and not subject to the kinds of abuses that could occur in combat.

Pretty good. The only problem is the comment about forcing AIDS patients into quarantine. But, when you consider the confusion there was in 1992 about AIDS and how it is transmitted, this comment seems quite reasonable. After all, we do the same thing today for patients with highly infectious diseases.

You know, Huckabee was also grossly overweight back then, too. Why not mention that if you're going to dig up old stuff?

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

Romney’s Faith Speech

2007-12-07T01:29:00.000-06:00

Ok, I’ll chime in with the rest of America on this speech.

My first thought on the speech has nothing to do with the speech itself, but with CNN’s broadcast of the speech. Just a few minutes in, CNN covered half the screen with a graphic intended to inform viewers about Mormonism. I guess they assumed that Romney wasn’t going to do the job himself. The graphic was very distracting and quite unfair to Romney. I’m not sure if the decision was made because CNN is biased, or because they, like all the other 24 hour news networks, like to bombard their viewers with excessive information, taking it past the point of diminishing returns. Considering the fact that the recent CNN/YouTube debate proved that they think Conservative voters are interested only in guns and Confederate flags, I tend to think the decision was based on CNN’s bias, with maybe a dash of info-bombing. (In case you missed it, CNN included a question from a gun-wielding militiaman who wanted to know exactly how many and what kinds of guns the candidates had. I was astonished. 5,000 questions were submitted, and this is what they chose? This is what they think Conservatives want to know?)

Second, deciding not to vote for Romney because he’s a Mormon is not violating the Constitution’s ban on religious tests. The Constitution forbids the government from imposing religious tests, but the voters can, and usually do, consider a candidate’s religion when deciding whether or not to vote for him. Think about it. Would you want a radical Islamist as president? What about a Scientologist? Sure, a person’s faith is between him and God, but if he’s a candidate for president and his faith is too far out in left field, then it raises some serious questions about his judgement. And, if his church is secretive and taciturn regarding its doctrine, then that should cause you to think twice about voting for him.

Now to the speech itself. There really wasn’t anything new here. Romney made some excellent points about the role of faith in society and politics, but those points have already been made before, including in this very weblog. But it never hurts to bring them up again. Romney eloquently defended the belief that religion and liberty go hand in hand,

Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.

He also pointed to the danger of government-sponsored religion,

I'm not sure that we fully appreciate the profound implications of our tradition of religious liberty. I have visited many of the magnificent cathedrals in Europe. They are so inspired . so grand . so empty. Raised up over generations, long ago, so many of the cathedrals now stand as the postcard backdrop to societies just too busy or too 'enlightened' to venture inside and kneel in prayer. The establishment of state religions in Europe did no favor to Europe's churches. And though you will find many people of strong faith there, the churches themselves seem to be withering away.

However, Romney only gave partial answers to the questions people have about his church. Christian voters are concerned about Romney’s relationship with Jesus Christ. Many have heard that Mormons do not believe that Jesus is God, and they want to know if this is true. Romney’s answer:

I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. My church's beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.

Here, we received only a partial answer. Romney appears to answer the question, but he really doesn’t. The question is: does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe in the Trinity? Why dance around the issue? Certainly you must have good reasons to believe what you do. Let’s hear those reasons. Even the LDS’s own website isn’t clear about this. It isn’t Romney’s faith that gives me qualms about voting for him, it’s his reluctance to be open and clear about it.

The next thing that really stuck out in my mind was this part:

Americans do not respect believers of convenience.
Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world.

I thought it was quite odd for Romney to say this since he has received quite a bit of criticism over converting to the pro-life side right around the time he started thinking about running for president. Funny how he was pro-choice while running in Massachusetts, but now that he is seeking the Republican nomination he’s pro-life.

All in all it just seems to me that Romney is too slick, too polished, and he isn’t as strong on the two most important issues in this campaign, immigration and fair trade, as I would like for him to be. There are two wings to the Republican party, the Christian wing and the corporate wing. Romney appears to me to be in the corporate wing. That doesn’t earn him any points with me.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

Venezuela Election

2007-12-02T20:23:00.000-06:00

The Venezuelan election is too close to call right now. As you may know, the Venezuelan people are deciding on a series of constitutional reforms which would eliminate presidential term limits and allow Chavez to consolidate power.

Chavez has already warned that if the United States try to interfere with the election, he would stop oil exports. It wouldn’t surprise me that if Chavez loses this election, he will blame the United States.

But I doubt Chavez will lose. It’s much more likely that Chavez will fudge the results of a close election and declare himself the winner. That’s how Socialist dictators operate. That’s how all dictators operate.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

Novak on Huckabee

2007-11-27T00:37:00.000-06:00

So, I’m finally getting back to blogging. We’ll see how long this lasts.

In case you missed it, Robert Novak criticized Mike Huckabee Monday for calling the Club for Growth the “Club for Greed.” Novak apparently believes this is not the proper behavior of a Conservative. “That,” writes Novak, “sounds like Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich or John Edwards, all Democrats preaching the class struggle.” Novak calls Huckabee’s playful little twist of the Club’s name an ad hominem attack. Actually, Huckabee’s attack was directed at a group, so shouldn’t it be an ad homines attack? Plural: “to the men” as opposed to “to the man.”

Of course, to the extent that the Club for Growth favors policies that enrich the wealthy at the expense of the middle class, I’m inclined to agree with Huckabee. That’s not preaching class struggle, that’s just the plain truth. But saying that will get you branded as a “false conservative.”

Well, that’s not the only reason Novak calls Huckabee a false conservative. Novak also has a problem with Huckabee’s fair trade ideas. He’s misleading, according to Novak. Novak writes, “Huckabee is campaigning as a conservative, but serious Republicans know that he is a high-tax, protectionist, big-government advocate of a strong hand in the Oval Office directing the lives of Americans.”

Wow! That’s quite a bit to pack into one sentence.

True, Huckabee is a protectionist. But, what’s so wrong with that? What’s so wrong with refusing to send our money to support the Communists in China? What’s so wrong with ridding our market of dangerous, Chinese-made products? What’s so wrong with investing our wealth in our own industry? What’s so wrong with helping the economy create good-paying manufacturing jobs for the average American? I know people are going to say that if we eliminate these cheap imports from our market, it will only hurt the middle class, the people we are trying to help, because everything will be more expensive. It is true that products will become more expensive, but you have to look at the flip side. If high-paying manufacturing jobs stay here in America instead of being exported overseas, then the middle class (and the lower class for that matter) will benefit and they will be able to afford these more expensive products.

Huckabee doesn’t want to end trade with China altogether. He wants to make sure that American and Chinese industry are competing on a level playing field. Right now, Chinese industry has an unfair advantage, from protective tariffs the Chinese government places on our products, to the subsidization it provides to Chinese industry, to the lack of safety controls it imposes.

Right now, the Chinese government imposes exorbitant tariffs on our products. Then it turns around and gives that money to its own industry. And then it sells us toys with lead paint in them! How is this helping the American people? If that’s what it means to “fit in normal boundaries of economic conservatism,” then count me out. I’d gladly take on the title of protectionist, or better yet, Populist.

Ah, Populism. Having Huckabee around reminds one of the heady days of William Jennings Bryan.

Novak also criticizes Huck for calling global warming a “moral issue.” I guess Novak needs to read his Bible. We are expected to be good stewards of the world God has created for us, and we are expected to help our fellow man. Spewing greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere is not being a good steward, and since climate change will hit the poor and weak among us hardest, the very people Christ commanded us to protect, global warming is a moral issue.

Novak also says that Huck supports the cap and trade system, which Novak calls an “anathema to the free market.” Cap and trade, which creates an economic incentive to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, is an essential part of the Kyoto Protocol. With that system, Deutsche Welle reports that Germany will meet it’s Kyoto goals. Apparently, the cap and trade system works. By the way, according to the CIA World Factbook, Germany is the world’s largest exporter, beating out the United States by $108 billion per year. So, it seems the cap and trade system hasn’t been all that bad for German industry. It remains very productive.

Novak also calls Huck, “a compulsive tax increaser and spender.” That’s better than mainstream Republicans who just spend compulsively. At least Huck governs responsibly. I’m no economist, but I figure if the Republicans hadn’t spent the last six years running up the national debt the Dollar wouldn’t be so weak today. Unfortunately, mainstream Republicans believe they can spend all the money they want and still call themselves conservatives because they don’t raise taxes. Huck knows better.

And that brings me to another point. Novak attacks Huck for attacking the president’s veto of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. I’m not sure what problem Huck had with the veto, but here’s mine. The Republican Congress had been sending spending bills loaded down with pork to the president for six years. Bush never vetoed any of those, which is why the Republicans were voted out. Bush never bothered to show Congressional Republicans that there are consequences to uncontrolled spending, so the American people had to teach that lesson. Now the Dems come along, and they come up with this SCHIP bill which Bush promptly vetoes. Let me get this straight, all that pork was never vetoed, but a bill intended to help children does get vetoed? Who’s running this show? Perhaps it was a bad bill, but this is where you choose to make your stand? For pork, but against kids?

Another example: recently, the Democrats in Congress passed a bill which would protect middle class workers from the Alternative Minimum Tax. Republicans voted against it, and Bush threatened to veto it because the bill also included a tax increase on wealthy investment fund managers. With the two parties deadlocked, it appears that the bill won’t get far. If the AMT ends up stinging middle class families, it will be because the GOP sided with the wealthy once more.

Finally, Novak says, “When [Huckabee] decided to lose 100 pounds and pressed his new lifestyle on the American people, he was far from a Goldwater-Reagan libertarian.” Would you like to talk some more about ad hominem attacks? Look, Huck didn’t “decide” to lose weight. He had to. He was dying. And, as an overweight person, I haven’t felt like Huck has pressed his new lifestyle on me. Have you? Also, being far away from libertarianism is a good thing in my book.

The reason Novak and the other mainstream Republicans are worried about Huckabee’s surge in the polls is because their worst nightmare is coming true. Listen to Novak’s own words: “The rise of evangelical Christians as the motive force that blasted the GOP out of minority status during the past generation always contained an inherent danger if these new Republican acolytes supported not merely a conventional conservative but one of their own” (emphasis mine).

So, as long as Christians march in lock step with the party, the GOP is happy to have our votes. As soon as we realize that we are being taken advantage of, we become “dangerous.” It seems Novak believes the GOP has been playing with fire these past 20 years, and now they are being burned.

Novak is right, though. Evangelicals finally have our own candidate, and he doesn’t buy into the faith-based economics espoused by Bush, Novak, Limbaugh, and all the other “conventional” conservatives. For years now, these Republicans have been telling us, “if you give enough breaks to the rich, and you close your eyes REAL TIGHT . . . everything will work out for the middle class, too.” Unfortunately, it doesn’t quite work that way. You have to actually help the middle class. Huckabee understands this, which is why the mainstream Republicans fear him.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

Question:

2007-10-01T10:36:00.000-05:00

Why would you want a see-through frog, anyway?

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

The Blog is Dead . . . Long live the Blog

2007-09-29T11:10:00.000-05:00

Christianity Today has posted an article explaining that the blogging phenomenon has peaked. There are not enough new bloggers to replace the bloggers who are stepping away from their blogs. Why are so many people leaving? According to CT, while many Christian blogs are quite good,

What tired bloggers are increasingly discovering, however, is that it's not necessarily the quality of their blog posts that matter. It's matching their quality with frequency.

And I think that’s absolutely true. As a tired blogger myself, I find it very rewarding to do a good quality post, but unless I’m posting at least twice a day no one is going to read it. That defeats the purpose. I might as well just yell my opinions out to myself while driving in my car, which is what I was doing before blogging (OK, I still do it).

This constant demand for updates forces bloggers to lower the quality of their work. CT quotes Alan Jacobs on the sorry state of the blogosphere, “Right now, and for the foreseeable future, the blogosphere is the friend of information but the enemy of thought.” I think that is exactly right.

Thinking actually takes time. A typical post for me, which involves research, writing, and tagging might take up to an hour or more. Sometimes the research is just that involved. Most times I’ll end up rewriting a post several times just to make sure I’m getting my point across and I’m not saying anything I didn’t mean to say. Once the post is out there, someone might misinterpret what I’m saying, and then I have a pointless debate on my hands (I like debates, but let’s be clear, there are people out there who spend more time commenting on other people’s blogs than they spend writing for their own blogs).

Take, for example, the “recent” post, Evangelical Entrepreneurship. I spent the better part of a Saturday afternoon trying to make sure I worded the post correctly. I even had to take a break for dinner! The subject matter was just that difficult, for me anyway. Obviously, I can’t spend every afternoon just writing for my blog. I have a job. I have a life.

A good post is like a Thanksgiving dinner, it takes longer to cook than it takes to eat. Unfortunately, the analogy breaks down after that. After dinner, you are no longer hungry. But after reading a good post, you want more and more. That just puts more pressure on the blogger and either quality suffers, or the blogger just gives up.

The blogosphere could be so much more, if only we rewarded quality instead of quantity.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

UN Inspectors find Iraqi chemical weapons

2007-08-31T01:58:00.000-05:00

The AP reports that UN weapons inspectors discovered Iraqi chemical weapons on Wednesday. Unfortunately, the discovery was not made in Iraq, but at the UN’s offices in New York.

I just find this funny. These are the same people who said Saddam Hussein was not hiding any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. After all, they looked for them. They looked high and low. They checked under every rock, and they never found any WMD in Iraq. And yet chemical weapons were hiding in their own offices and for 11 years they couldn’t find them either.

Sometimes, I just don’t know . . . .

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

Evangelical Entrepreneurship

2007-07-21T20:33:00.000-05:00

Last week, the United States Senate invited, for the first time, a Hindu chaplain to deliver the traditional opening prayer. Unfortunately, the prayer was interrupted several times by protesters in the gallery who shouted over the chaplain, calling his presence an “abomination.” I’m sad to say that these protesters were Christians who, through their actions, have brought the Gospel down to the level of ACT UP and other militant organizations who choose to advance their ideas through shouting and disruptions rather than through calm debate and prayer (as a Christian should).

I understand the protestors’ concerns, but I disagree with their methods and with their opinion that only a Christian prayer should be given in the Senate. As Christians, we should not expect government to cater to our faith. We should maintain a distinction between the church and the state. Holy Scripture, and American political theory forbid the establishment of a state religion. Those Christians who demand that only Christian prayer be heard in the Senate Chamber violate both the Word and republican principles. They are no different than the atheists who insist on a secular government. Both want a state that is intolerant of any religion or philosophy other than their own.

John Nichols points out that the Framers expected a country and a government that were open to all religions. Their understanding of religious freedom extended to all faiths, not just Christian denominations. And that is as it should be.

The state should not tell the church how, where, or who to worship, and the church should not tell the state how to govern. Both institutions have their separate duties defined by God. The state has the power of the sword, and the church has the power of the Gospel. In America, however, there is a wrinkle in this strict separation. The American government is a democracy. While the church as an institution does not have a right to tell the state how to govern or to use the state’s power to advance its interests, the people who make up the church certainly do have that right. Therefore, despite arguments to the contrary, it is appropriate for the state to pass laws that have only religiously derived moral justifications (such as laws forbidding gay marriage) because the people decide what laws the government should pass. The state has no right to decide that certain laws are invalid because they have only religious justifications.

In an opinion piece for USA Today, Stephen Mansfield argues that “our Founding Fathers did in fact make a covenant with us. That covenant guaranteed us that Congress would make no state church but that religion could be free to shape our national life with its ethical and ennobling content.” This idea, Mansfield argues, has become corrupted by Court decisions limiting religion in the public square. That is not at all what the Framers intended. A moral citizenry is essential for a good democratic government and the church is the most effective means of ensuring a moral citizenry. That is the proper role of the church in politics.

This plan benefits both the state and the church. Consider Europe, where for centuries national churches have enjoyed the protection and promotion of the state. What has resulted from this state sponsorship? According to Andrew Higgins, European church attendance has seen a steady decline through the Twentieth Century. Christianity has given way to secularism. This decline cannot be blamed solely on modernism. The United States, perhaps the most modern nation in the world for the past 100 years, has not experienced a similar decline. The reason, according to Higgins’ article, is that the state churches have become lazy and complacent with their favored status. Meanwhile, American churches have remained vigorous and, most importantly, free of government control. Higgins reports that there are independent churches in Europe who are vigorously confronting the secularist culture, and while the state churches are declining, these young, energetic churches are growing.

Higgins attributes the growth of these churches to a form of free market evangelism. Free from government control, independent churches in America and Europe are more adaptable to the needs of lost souls. This has created what Higgins calls a “religious bazaar.” Just as free market capitalism has created a strong and prosperous economy, free market evangelism has created strong and prosperous churches.

Christianity Today’s Weblog calls this theory interesting, but warns that it “leaves little room for the Holy Spirit.” Of course, it is true that the Holy Spirit can cause the church to grow even under the most oppressive regime. But what is happening here is not government oppression, but government “coddling” as Higgins puts it. The traditional churches in Europe have become tired and therefore have lost the Spirit. The Holy Spirit is at work in Europe, just not in the state churches.

The state churches are an example of how a mingling of state and church can kill the church. The better plan is what the Framers intended: a state that is forbidden from establishing a church, but also remains accommodating to religion. Our government should not be a Christian government, nor should it be a secular government. Religion plays a very important role in the life of a democracy. The Framers understood this, and so should we. We should not use government to advance the interests of the church because that will corrupt the church. But neither should the government be free of religion.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

Secularist Persecution

2007-07-14T02:43:00.000-05:00

In a commentary published on Guardian Unlimited, Brendan O’Neill suggests that Environmentalism might be the new Death Cult, and in their zeal to attack Christianity and Islam, atheists have ignored this. He writes,

Forget fundamentalist Christianity or Islam: environmentalism is by far the most influential death cult in existence today. It is inculcating in the masses the idea that the end of the world is nigh; that we shall we punished for our sins; that penance is our earthly duty; and that anyone who says or thinks otherwise is a "heretic" or a "denier" who should be held up to public ridicule.

Just like Christian theology, O’Neill argues, Environmentalism teaches that the Earth is being destroyed by our selfish sins and that we must do penance, such as planting trees to offset our carbon emissions.

I need to make one clarification here. O’Neill speaks as if penance is a Christian doctrine. It is not. O’Neill admits that he was raised Papist (or Catholic as he puts it). As is typical, even those who have abandoned the Papist Church for atheism agree with the Papist faithful that the Papist Church is the only true Christian Church. Therefore, what that Church teaches is assumed by O’Neill to be what Christianity teaches. That is a poor assumption to make. I also disagree with his gleeful assertion that the great monotheistic religions, “in the west at least, are in terminal decline, and [their] influence is miniscule bordering on non-existent.”

Despite this, O’Neill makes a good point. Those who deny global warming are ridiculed as heretics and deniers. What O’Neill fails to see is that those who deny evolution and other sacred doctrines of Secularism are subject to the same ridicule.

Take, for example, another commentary published on Guardian Unlimited. Adam Rutherford comments on Iowa State University’s decision to deny tenure to Guillermo Gonzales, an Intelligent Design supporter. The University President did not say that Gonzales’ acceptance of Intelligent Design was an issue in the decision, however many in the ID community believe it was. While Rutherford believes the University when it says that ID did not play in its decision, he also argues that it should have played a role. Rutherford writes,

Saying, whether in 4004 BC or 13 billion years ago, that "God made it" is not falsifiable and therefore not science. I know that, were I in a position to offer Guillermo Gonzalez tenure, I would deny it for the precise reason that his, yes, religious views about purpose in the universe explicitly mean he is a crap scientist, regardless of his ability to generate valid data.
Furthermore, I hope I would have the conviction to say the same if he hadn't failed in the other academic criteria. As a vocal supporter of the demonstrably unscientific guff that is intelligent design, Gonzalez displays ignorance of the scientific process, and appears to wilfully defy it. And for that reason, he neither deserves the use of the facilities of a university to conduct scientific research, nor the privilege of teaching the next generation of scientists.

I apologize for the long quote. We typically do not like to include such long quotes in our posts, but in this case it was necessary to make our point. Gonzales’ opinion that there is purpose and design in the universe makes him, in Rutherford’s opinion, unqualified as a scientist. Rutherford never actually calls Gonzales a heretic, but I think “crap scientist” comes awfully darn close. I have dealt before with the issue of whether ID is science or not. I will repeat what I said then. ID can be disproved if one can prove there is no design, and isn’t that what atheistic science has been trying to do lo these many centuries? Also, if ID’s presumption of a creator disqualifies it as science, then what about evolution’s presumption of naturalism?

Let’s move on to another of Secularism’s sacred doctrines: homosexuality. President Bush’s nominee for U.S. Surgeon General, James Holsinger, is causing quite an uproar because in the early 90's he wrote a paper for the United Methodist Church in which he outlined the health risks of homosexuality and claimed that homosexuality is not natural. His opinion of homosexuality is based in his Christian faith, and many who share his faith (myself included) share his opinion that homosexuality is wrong, ungodly, unnatural, and destructive to both body and soul. But, the president wants a person with this opinion to be the next Surgeon General. So, the question is, do Holsinger’s religious opinions disqualify him from high office? Christianity Today points out in an editorial that the high priests of Secularism seem to think so. CT writes,

[A]ffirmation of homosexual behavior seems to be shifting from an in-group shibboleth to an unwritten requirement for American leadership.
Where does that leave biblical Christians? We may soon come to the point where supporting a sexual ethic based on an orthodox reading of Scripture becomes part of our cross to bear.

CT then explains that Christians today face a sexually promiscuous culture similar to the one the first Christians faced in the Roman Empire. Our rejection of that culture gives others reasons to persecute us, even barring us from high office. CT explains that we should not give in to persecution, but continue living according to Biblical principles. After all, the same principles that tell us to reject homosexuality also tell us to shelter the weak and provide for the suffering.

The simple fact here is that God’s way is better than man’s way. Whenever we reject homosexuality or evolution, or hold fast to the belief that God will, in His time, fix this broken world and end the floods and droughts that the environmentalists claim are coming, we proclaim His majesty, righteousness, and grace. The world hates us for it, but Christ warned that this would happen (Matt 24:9). Our job is to preach God’s grace to the world while at the same time exposing the world’s hypocrisy, and there certainly is quite a bit of hypocrisy in Secularism’s claims of “tolerance.”

Father Hollywood has recently published and excellent post on Secularist persecution. I encourage our readers to see what he has to say, as well.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

Update: What, would you say, you believe?

2007-07-13T23:29:00.000-05:00

We commented recently on Ann Holmes Redding, an Episcopal Priest who claims to be both Christian and Muslim. It was reported by the Seattle Times that Redding’s Bishop was comfortable with her new-found heresy. Therefore, we asked in our comment that our readers pray for the Episcopal Church because it obviously “needs the Holy Spirit to convict it of its sin and bring it back into the righteous worship of God.”

Looks like we are receiving an answer to our prayers. The Seattle Times now reports that Redding is actually under the disciplinary authority of the Diocese of Rhode Island, which is where she was ordained more than 20 years ago. The bishop of that Diocese, Rt. Rev. Geralyn Wolf, has decided to remove Redding from her duties as an Episcopal priest for one year so that she can “reflect on the doctrines of the Christian faith, her vocation as a priest, and what [Rev. Wolf] see[s] as the conflicts inherent in professing both Christianity and Islam.”

Good. Of course, the Episcopal Church still faces the problem of having many clerics who are comfortable with, even excited about, Redding’s heresy. Not to mention the other positions held by the Episcopal Church as a whole (not just a few renegade priests) that are contrary to Holy Scripture, such as ordaining women and non-celibate homosexuals. These and other problems are symptoms of the larger problem of the Episcopal Church’s refusal to accept Scripture as the inspired and inerrant Word of God and the only true authority by which all teachings are to be judged. So, our prayers are still needed for the true unity of the Church.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

Have we learned nothing from Luther?

2007-07-01T00:46:00.000-05:00

Honestly, I didn’t know they still do this. The Papist Archdiocese of Philadelphia will be celebrating its upcoming 200th anniversary by offering indulgences. For those who need to brush up on their Papist theology, the Philadelphia Inquirer explains what an indulgence is:

An indulgence, according to the church, allows Catholics who perform certain acts to shorten the time after death that their souls will have to spend in purgatory to atone for their sins.

The Inquirer then explains what acts the faithful must perform to earn an indulgence:

Between now and the final bicentennial Mass of April 13, local Catholics seeking an indulgence must make a pilgrimage to an area shrine or special bicentennial Mass, make an act of sacramental confession and receive communion around the time of a pilgrimage, and pray for the intentions of the pope.

So what happens after April 13? Are you SOL? And what exactly are the Pope’s intentions and why should we be praying for them? Should we be praying that his intentions are honorable?

According to the Inquirer, the Papist Church is well aware of the controversy surrounding indulgences. They should be. After all, indulgences sparked the Protestant Reformation nearly 500 years ago. The debate over the quality and quantity of scriptural support for them still rages.

A few years ago, the Papist Church and the Lutheran World Federation signed the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. According to the article this document states that:

salvation is achieved "by grace alone, in faith in Christ's saving work and not because of any merit on our part."

This statement is in line with the thinking of the Protestant reformers who claimed that justification comes by grace alone through faith alone. Scripture, which is the Word of God and therefore is the only valid authority, affirms this belief.

The Papists’ continued use of indulgences threatens this agreement. The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, which did not sign the document, warned that this would happen. They explained:

. . . the JDDJ very carefully avoids precise definitions of the words grace, faith, sin, etc. That is no accident. Careful definition of those terms would have shown how far apart our two churches actually are on the doctrine of justification.

But the Papists insist that the only reason the debate over indulgences still rages is because Protestants do not truly understand the theology behind them. Christian Washburn, a theologian for the Philadelphia Archdiocese explained to the Inquirer that Lutheran misunderstanding of indulgences lies at the heart of the controversy. He explains:

"It is surprising that, after all of the advances made by the ecumenical movement, some Lutherans still persist in asserting that Catholics believe indulgences bring justification," Washburn wrote to The Inquirer.
"In order to obtain an indulgence, the individual seeking indulgence must have already been justified, or as Catholics would more commonly put it, must be in the state of grace."

But, if one has already been justified, why does he need an indulgence? What good does an indulgence do that the precious blood of Christ our Savior fails to do?

Allow me to quickly run through the problems with indulgences.

First, they have no scriptural support. Scripture is very clear that man cannot earn salvation because “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Further, salvation is only found in Christ, as He said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by Me.” Also, the only means of grace that were established by Christ are Baptism, Communion, and the preaching of the Gospel. These are the only ways in which humans receive grace. Christ never once offered an indulgence.

Nor did He ever tell His disciples that before they enter Heaven, they must spend time in Purgatory to rid themselves of their remaining sins. The concept of Purgatory is not found anywhere in Scripture. Indeed, as Christ hung on the cross, He told the repentant thief who hung beside Him, “today you will be with Me in paradise.”

When Christ died for our sins, He died for all of them. There is no need for a Christian to purge himself of sins that have not been cleansed by the blood of the Savior because all his sins have been cleansed by the blood of the Savior. Salvation is the free gift of God. It is not earned through good works or by making “a pilgrimage to an area shrine or special bicentennial Mass” or anything else. It is not earned because it cannot be earned. Again, “there is none righteous, not even one.”

The doctrine that justification comes by grace alone through faith alone is clearly explained in Scripture. So clearly in fact that one might begin to think that the Papist Church’s continued refusal to accept the doctrine is rooted in its desire to keep faithful Christians under its domination by preying on their fear of falling out of grace. No wonder the LCMS calls the pope “Antichrist.”

If you would like a more thorough explanation of the problems with indulgences, you might like to read Luther’s 95 Theses (which can be found here). Consider it the Declaration of Independence for the Protestant Reformation. If you’re a Papist and you don’t think that you should be reading something written by the hand of a “drunk German monk,” then you might consider reading Paul’s letter to the Romans (which can be found in your Bible). It is, after all, where Luther got all of his ideas.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

What, would you say, you believe?

2007-06-23T12:04:00.000-05:00

The Seattle Times reports that Ann Holmes Redding, a local Episcopalian pastor, has declared herself to be both Christian and Muslim. This is, of course, quite disturbing since this woman is in a position of leadership in one of America’s most prominent protestant denominations.

First of all, let’s be clear, there is no way someone could be both Christian and Muslim. The two faiths are mutually exclusive. If you are a Christian, then you believe in the Trinity. You believe that God came to earth in the form of Jesus Christ and died for the sins of the world. You believe that through this loving action, men are reconciled to God. If you do not believe that Christ is God, then his sacrifice means nothing because only God could pay the debt of our sins. Muslims do not believe this. They do not believe that man is reconciled to God by God’s grace alone, but through works, specifically by completing the five pillars of Islam (confession of faith, alms, pilgrimage, fasting, and prayer five times a day). This doctrine is contrary to the Gospel. Further, Christians and Muslims do not worship the same God. Again, Christians believe in the mystery of the Trinity, that there is one God who is three persons: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Muslims reject this, claiming it is masked polytheism. So, a person could not be both Christian and Muslim. Even at a basic level, the two religions are not compatible. He or she would have to choose one side or the other.

So, how can Redding claim to be both? In reading this article, it become clear that Redding has fallen into apostasy. She is no longer a Christian (and so she really never was a Christian), but now a Muslim with Christian leanings.

Redding says that she was first attracted to Islam because of Muslims’ commitment to prayer. Praying five times a day “gave her the deep sense of connection with God that she yearned for.” Of course, a Christian should no longer be yearning for a deep sense of connection with God since a Christian is already in a state of grace and His grace is sufficient for us (2 Cor 12:9). But, she continues. The article quotes her as saying, “Living a life where you’re remembering God intentionally, consciously, just changes everything.” Indeed it does. But, is she saying that she was not remembering God intentionally and consciously before she started praying with the Muslims? What exactly was she doing all those times she was leading worship services and distributing the Sacraments? She also claims that praying to Allah is the same as praying to God because “It’s the same person, praying to the same God.” That, unfortunately, is an error that many Americans, including Christians, fall into. They are not the same God (as I explained earlier). Even the Seattle Times article makes this clear:

Muslims generally believe in Jesus' virgin birth, that he was a messenger of God, that he ascended to heaven alive and that he will come back at the end of time to destroy evil. They do not believe in the Trinity, in the divinity of Jesus or in his death and resurrection.
For Christians, belief in Jesus' divinity, and that he died on the cross and was resurrected, lie at the heart of the faith, as does the belief that there is one God who consists of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

As for Redding, the Times says

She believes Jesus is the son of God insofar as all humans are the children of God, and that Jesus is divine, just as all humans are divine — because God dwells in all humans.

There appears to be a Gnostic flair to her beliefs. Continuing where we left off:

She does believe that Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected, and acknowledges those beliefs conflict with the teachings of the Quran. "That's something I'll find a challenge the rest of my life," she said.

That’s because she’s wrong! She is trying to have it both ways, and she can’t. God demands total commitment and love from us. He deserves no less. Redding has rejected His grace because she believes that she has found a better way. She has not. She is only being fooled by Satan.

But, what is perhaps more revealing of Redding’s attitude is the fact that she found comfort in Islam because there are more black people at the Islamic worship center than there are at her church. She says,

To walk into Al-Islam [the Islamic worship center] and be reminded that there are more people of color in the world than white people, that in itself is a relief.

Race should not matter to a Christian. A Christian should worship God regardless of the color of his fellow worshipers. The fact that it does matter to Redding shows how her beliefs are clouded by materialism, which is something Christ warned about (Matt 13:22). Here we see the root of Redding’s rejection of God. She wants a god that matches her idea of god and she wants to worship among people who are like her. Like all sin, her apostasy is rooted in selfishness.

According to an interview with Redding published in the diocese’s newspaper, Redding believes that Islam is helpful to her because “what Islam does is take Jesus out of her relationship with God. . . .” Exactly how do you take Jesus out of your relationship with God if Jesus is God (John 1:1-5) and is the only path to God (John 14:6)? Again we see Redding’s rejection of God, the Trinity, and Christ’s Sacrifice, further evidence of her apostasy.

Later in the interview, she says, “I just am not willing to put ‘onlys’ in front of all those affirmations about Jesus.” And that’s the whole problem, because a person is saved only by Grace, only through faith, and only by Christ.

What makes matters worse is that Redding is not being punished by the Episcopal Church. The Seattle Times says,

Redding's bishop, the Rt. Rev. Vincent Warner, says he accepts Redding as an Episcopal priest and a Muslim, and that he finds the interfaith possibilities exciting.

There is no condemnation of her apostasy in the interview published in the diocese’s newspaper. In fact, many people in the Episcopal Church are happy about Redding’s apostasy. According to the Seattle Times:

Doug Thorpe, who served on St. Mark's faith-formation committee with Redding, said he's trying to understand all the dimensions of her faith choices. But he saw how it deepened her spirituality. And it spurred him to read the Quran and think more deeply about his own faith.
He believes Redding is being called. She is, "by her very presence, a bridge person," Thorpe said. "And we desperately need those bridge persons."

No, we need people who will unashamedly preach the true Gospel, not this feel good, everyone is right crap.

Please pray for Redding and the Episcopal Church. It’s bad enough that they allow women to be pastors and have started blessing homosexual marriages (both are perversions of the gender roles created by God and defended in Scripture), but now they are allowing heretics to teach and lead Christians in worship. This entire denomination needs the Holy Spirit to convict it of its sin and bring it back into the righteous worship of God.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

That Bush is killing the GOP – and what to do about it

2007-06-15T02:32:00.001-05:00

For a while there, it looked like he was going to be our political savior. He brought the Republican Party and the country out of the dismay of the Clinton years and gave us something to be proud about, something to cheer for, a reason to feel proud to be American. He stood on the rubble of the World Trade Center and said, “We’re going to catch these bastards.” With tears in our eyes we applauded, we held back our sobs and cheered.

But that was nearly six years ago, and what was once a noble quest to rid the world of terrorism has become bogged down in a mismanaged war in Iraq, a country being fought over by two sides that hate us almost as much as they hate each other.

President Bush is killing the Republican Party with free trade at all costs, immigration reform, kowtowing to corporate elites, and, of course, the poorly managed Iraq War. When we look around America, we see a nation that is being sold to foreign investors. High paying manufacturing jobs are being sent overseas, and those jobs that remain here are being taken by illegal aliens, causing wages to be depressed. Our trade deficit with less-developed countries is growing, becoming a national security issue as well as an economic issue. All the while, we are racking up trillions in public debt and losing our superior standing on the world stage.

It’s time to bring some populism back to the Republican Party. America needs a party that will actually stand up for her.

If the Republican party expects to win this next presidential election, it had better maintain its focus on two key points: immigration and fair trade. By addressing these two issues, we can address many of the domestic and foreign problems we face.

Immigration and Border Control

Illegal immigration can be solved with a plan that is so simple, it would never be passed in Washington. First, we should secure the border. That’s a simple request, but for some reason the federal government has repeatedly failed at this task. That has left the border states to spend their money to do what should be the federal government’s job. Let’s make that clear. There is no border between Texas and Mexico, or Arizona and Mexico. The border is between the United States and Mexico. Simple logic dictates, then, that the United States (as opposed to individual states) should be responsible for security on that border. But, if simple logic does not make this point forcefully enough, then consider the Constitution of the United States which declares that the United States should protect each state from invasion.

Once the border is secure, we should deport all illegal immigrants. Let’s remember that they are illegal immigrants. They have not shown any regard for our laws, they have no legal right to be here, therefore they should not be permitted to stay. They certainly should not be rewarded for their crimes with amnesty.

We should require all employers to submit the Social Security Numbers of their employees to the Social Security Administration for verification. Employers should be required to terminate the employment of any workers who do not have valid Social Security Numbers. Employers who refuse to fire such employees, or who continually hire known illegals should be heavily fined.

New immigrants and guest workers should then be permitted into the country based on our economic needs, and preference should be given to skilled and educated workers.

Fair Trade

The Bush administration (and the Clinton administration before it) has pursued a policy of open and free trade at all costs. We have entered into free trade agreements with nations that are so poor, so far behind our level of economic development that they could never afford to buy the products we sell (for example, the Central America Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA). Consequently, free trade with these nations has become a one way street. They produce cheap products which they sell here, but they do not buy the more expensive products produced here. While these free trade agreements have been beneficial to these nations, it has not been so helpful for Americans, as evidenced by the loss of manufacturing jobs. Looks like Ross Perot was right. Free trade results in a giant sucking sound of jobs going overseas.

In some cases foreign firms are subsidized by their governments and are therefore able to sell cheap products in our markets. At the same time, these governments impose enormously high tariffs upon our products. This is the case with China. Our “free” trade with that nation has also become a one way street.

Therefore, we should replace free trade with fair trade. We should impose reciprocal tariffs on nations such as China and we should only enter into free trade agreements that are in the best economic interest of Americans.

By securing our borders and returning to self-sufficiency, America will remain strong and continue to be a force for liberty in the world.

Unfortunately, the major Republican candidates have demonstrated varying degrees of apathy regarding these problems, especially on fair trade. The major candidates are all beholden to corporate and foreign interests that do not want these problems to be fixed. Large, multinational corporations like being able to hire low-wage illegals and foreign workers. Foreign governments like being able to cash in on the American market and undercut our economy. And their allies in government (many of whom are bought and paid for) are all too happy to sell out our country.

There is, however, one dark horse that is hitting these issues dead on: Congressman Duncan Hunter. Hunter advocates a triple fence along the border and reciprocal tariffs. He also supports a right to life amendment, a marriage amendment, a balanced budget, reduced tax burden on the middle class, protection against eminent domain abuse, reforming the Alternative Minimum Tax, justices that strictly interpret the law, Israel’s right to exist and defend itself, and the reformation of the UN. His stance on these and other issues can be seen in detail here.

In a recent CNN debate, Hunter was asked if he would pardon Scooter Libby if he were President. His clever answer should make all Conservatives happy. He said he would not pardon Libby, instead he would pardon the two border agents who were sent to prison for doing their job. Later, he was asked what would be good for the GOP. He said the GOP should support fair trade agreements that strengthen the middle class. I applauded both answers while watching the debate on TV.

Now, it is true that Congressman Hunter is a dark horse, with little chance of winning. But that can change if Conservatives stand up and take their party back. We must stop looking for the candidate that “looks presidential” and vote for a man that will bring America’s greatness back. Hunter’s positions are not only appealing to Conservatives, but also to centrists. The voters of this country want a candidate who is conservative, but will also stand up to corporate and foreign interests and not let America be sold out from under us. I think Congressman Hunter is just that candidate.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org