August 3, 2006
Ending Corporate Welfare
The ACLU is indignant that there are members of Congress pushing to pass a law that would bar awards of attorney fees when groups sue to get religion out of the public square. These award of legal fees are very directly responsible to a vast increase in the body of law that has gone so far to protect against the appearances of government endorsement of religion, that even private individuals have been sanctioned for daring to utter the unutterable name of Jesus Christ in public.
It has been the ACLU's influence that not only is the government (rightly) prevented from taking sides on the matter of religion, but when private individuals happen to be speaking on government property, the First Amendment is brought to bear against them. It is unthinkable in the highest degree that the Founders or anything in the Constitution intended to restrict the free expression rights of citizens. The First Amendment was designed to create institutional separation between the agencies of government and the houses of religion, not to be a pre-regulated restriction on what private people can or cannot say.
The ACLU has used attorney fees to bully schools into submission in questionable cases or in matters where no settled law exists. School budgets are already tight (mostly because of bloated bureaucracy, but that's not the point). Many schools will capitulate to avoid having to fork out money to defend a winning case. As in most areas of law, he who has the most money wins. With the award of legal fees, it only encourages entrepreneurial lawyers to build cases where none may exist. It also prevents the ACLU from browbeating agencies into avoiding situations where those agencies may be right.
However, the money schools have is not their own. The money sitting in government accounts is not their own. They are merely stewards of assets they have been given to perform tasks they have been assigned. Their masters are the citizens who fund those organizations and who elect their leaders.
There is something profoundly wrong when, because of the actions of a politician, the entire society that funds that politician's organization is made to pay. There is much talk about making politicians and bureaucrats accountable, awarding legal fees for cases like this don't make the politicians accountable, it makes society accountable. It is irresponsible in the extreme to make other people pay for someone's "bad" actions. I'd prefer courts punish those people who are actually doing the deeds, not finding someone who has big enough pockets and make them pay, no matter how peripheral they may be. We'll throw them out of office the next election if the case warrants it.
Preventing the default award of legal fees makes good economic sense and it is good policy. The First Amendment is a simple area of constitutional law that does not, nor should not, take millions of dollars to litigate. It is about time this case of corporate welfare comes to an end.
Posted by John Bambenek at 1:27 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 1, 2006
Is Islam a Violent Religion?
Something has always bothered me about declarations that claim Islam is a violent religion. Largely relying on circumstantial evidence, because the regions that are typically the most violent tend to be Islamic, the argument goes that Islam is a violent religion. I haven't read the Koran that I was sent by CAIR yet to decide for myself, but the claim sounds eerily similar to those that come from another sector of society.
The problem I have with this line of reasoning is that if you take history from a few hundred years ago, it could just as easily be applied to Christianity, and in fact, many secular "thinkers" continue to argue that Christianity breeds nothing but violence. It is this line of thought the leads social elites to demand that students say nothing that could smell of religion because that would violate the "wall of separation". How it can be argued that the First Amendment (designed solely to protect individual citizen's right of expression) supports the notion that private citizens not be allowed to speak their minds is beyond rationality.
Universities unconstitutionally suppress religious speech. Anything that can be related to Christianity is ripped out of the public square. This is what Enlightenment thinking has wrought, not freedom of expression, but restriction of the lines of inquiry into the deepest questions of human existence.
By claiming Islam is a violent religion on similar bases, people have unconsciously validated the Enlightenment thought that religion only breeds violence. This idea is simply wrong.
As an example, take North Ireland which is often described as suffering from sectarian violence. On one hand, you have the Catholics who want to claim North Ireland as their own, and on the other, you have the Protestants (Anglicans) who want to claim North Ireland as theirs. The problem is the fighting has nothing to do with religion. Belfast holds no particular weight for the Papacy, and unless Belfast figures into Henry VIII's problems with his Y chromosome, it has nothing to do with Anglicanism either.
The fighting over North Ireland is a political fight based on two nation's claims that the land belongs to them. The Irish (a predominantly Catholic people) claim that Belfast rightfully belongs to them. The English (predominantly Anglican) claim it is theirs. Religion isn't the area of contention. Anyone who describes this as a sectarian fight largely misses the point or is intentionally trying to find a tendency of violence in religion where it does not exist.
Another example is the so-called sectarian violence in Iraq. The Sunnis and Shiites don't like each other, that is clear. However, when they have been fighting in Iraq, it doesn't appear that they are fighting over the finer points of Islam. They do appear to be fighting over economics and political power. For the two groups to come together and form a viable government, it won't take a reconciliation of the finer points of religious doctrine, but a political compromise.
The problem with religion is that it makes good propaganda in the hands of social elites who want to manipulate public opinion in their favor. This is why the "wall of separation" exists, to prevent the organs of government from misusing religion and vice versa. The institutions ought to remain separate.
It isn't religion that drives people to violence; it is the social elites who use religion as a tool. It is naïve in the first degree to think heads of state site around and think about what God wants of them. Generally, the most power hungry are more concerned with an increase of their own power and wealth, typically the things directly antithetical to most religions.
The next time someone says Islam (or another religion for that matter) is violent, take pause. Such over-simplistic stereotypes tend not to be well thought out and are generally just intellectual laziness on the part of a person who can't win an argument otherwise. Anyone can cherry-pick a verse or two from a book.
Posted by John Bambenek at 1:04 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 8, 2006
Hollywood to America: You Much Watch Our Smut
A recent appellate court ruling has decided that it is illegal for companies to pay Hollywood for movies and then sanitize them of gratuitous nudity, over-the-top profanity, and puerile violence. For years, Hollywood has found ways to insert into otherwise coherent storylines scenes of nudity, sex, profanity, and violence.
In what seems like a simple compromise, a company would pay for the video, sanitize the content for those who request that service, and then sell the video to the consumer. In these cases, Hollywood gets paid for the price of the movie.
That apparently is not enough.
It isn't enough for Hollywood to get paid for their trash, consumers must watch the garbage in unedited form to make sure that viewers either have to manually fast-forward or otherwise endure pornography that is completely irrelevant to the storyline. Hollywood says that editing their films destroys the "creative intent" of movie producers.
Exactly what does a nude Kate Winslet add to the storyline of Titanic… well, besides masturbatory material?
Christians and other groups have responded to the trend of Hollywood being barely able to make a movie without some B-rate actress flashing the audience by setting up companies to siphon out the irrelevant content. Again, in cases where people buy these movies with the cleaned content, Hollywood gets paid full price. They make exactly as much as they would if someone bought the unedited film some place else.
There is simple economics involved. This is a free country, if people demand porn; they can get porn (despite the clear objectification of women and harm it does to society). However, if people want movies without the extraneous and non-plot enhancing nudity, violence, or profanity, that is something that presents a clear and present danger to our nation. In this case, we cannot allow supply to meet demand.
Here's the interesting feature, by pursuing this line of litigation with firms like Clean Flicks, Hollywood is causing direct harm to their bottom line. Instead of allowing consumers to buy the films edited to their standards, it generates a conflict. Consumers are now faced with the choice to either buy the film that they object to as-is, or to not buy it at all. This litigation has made the voice of the American Family Association, Coral Ridge Ministries, and the like that much louder. Ever better, it gives a catalyst to help propel the nascent efforts of a Christian movie-making industry into a viable movement.
The ability to choose to terminate a pregnancy (or more accurately, murder their child) is celebrated. The ability to choose the gender of one's sexual partner is hailed. The ability to choose to have sexual relations outside marriage (or adultery for that matter) is elevated to civil right. In all areas of American life, the right to choose whatever one wills is held up as the central and united ideal. That is, until someone chooses to express their Christian values in their economic activity. (Or for that matter, if they dare utter the name of Christ in anything that can be labeled a "public square".)
Hollywood, in rejecting a compromise that allows everyone to benefit, has chosen to bring the culture war to the forefront and fired the opening volleys. They believe that their monopoly on American moviemaking gives them the right to dictate what society's values should be. As a result, they've directly attacked one their streams of revenue.
Hollywood has the right to produce trashy films, or to attempt to integrate trashiness in films that can stand on their own without it. However, the consumer has the right not to buy such trash.
With the incredible success of films like The Passion of Christ, Lord of the Rings, and other family-friendly films one would think that the movie industry would see that there is an untapped market to be exploited. Instead, they've chosen against their financial interest and decided to alienate that market. In a free market, businesses that tell their customers that their values don't matter tend to not do well in the long term. Time will tell how long it will be until another entity fills the void.
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:50 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
June 20, 2006
Catholic Carnival - Corpus Christi Edition
Here's this week's Catholic Carnival, a weekly roundup of self-submitted posts from Catholic bloggers.
Reflections
Harrison Ayre at Witness to Hope presents Reflections on the Problem of Evil. "The Problem of Evil is one of the greatest problems that have ever plagued theologians and philosophers. How do we reconcile evil with a Good and Loving God?"
Audrey Yii at My Journey presents Being Too 'Salty'. "Jesus said Christians are called to be salts of the world. But how 'salty' should we be? This post is about my personal experience when I've added too much 'salt'."
Tom Reagan presents Maturing in a View of Jesus Through the Rosary. This is Part II in Tom's 3-part series Maturing in a View of Jesus, a View of Mary, and a View of Ourselves Through the Rosary. Part I is about maturing in a view of Mary, and Part III will be about maturing in a view of ourselves.
Elena LaVictoire at My Domestic Church presents A Teachable Spirit. "I post a lot about the difficulties of the Titus 2 responsibility and how it is difficult to live out that command. It is my opinion, that a great deal of that comes from an unteachable spirit in many young women today. I came across two examples of this in blogs by first time moms this week. "
Jay at Living Catholicism presents A Penitent Blogger presents Dark Accusations and Hard Questions, a reflection on our need to be diligent as servants of a just and merciful God"
The Feast of Corpus Christi
Leo Wong at Diary of a City Parishioner presents The Solemnity of the Most Holy Body and Blood of Christ with thoughts on the Real Presence.
Kevin Miller at HMS Blog presents The Sum of All Sacrifices, a reflection on the Mass readings for Corpus Christi, focusing on what sort of sacrifice the Eucharist is.
Father's Day
Christine at Ramblings of a GOP Soccer Mom presents National Review Roundup on Dads discussing how important fathers are.
Other Uncategorized Stuff
Herbery Ely at HerbEly presents Book Review: Just War, Lasting Peace: What Christian Traditions can Teach Us. This book is the result of a one-day invitational forum on the applicability of the Just War tradition to the modern world. Herb recommends the book but wishes that it had given more background on 1) the decline of war over the past twenty five years; 2) von Clausewitz's famous dictum about war being the continuation of politics; and 3) the context of turning the other cheek. He provides links to additional resources.
Rob at Crusader of Justice presents Summer Reading List on eight books with a Catholic theme to them that he really enjoyer many of them from his first year at Franciscan.
BarbaraSzyskiewicz at SFO Mom presents An Open Letter to Woman's Day Magazineon why one Catholic mom cannot, in good conscience, continue to
subscribe to this mainstream magazine.
Humor
cehwiedel at Kicking Over My Traces presents Bill Mauldin Collection
Posted by John Bambenek at 12:20 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 4, 2006
The Economics of Life
The pro-life movement is celebrating victories that after over 30 years of Roe v Wade, the scourge of abortion, at least public support for it, has waned and is now the minority position. South Dakota passed an outright abortion ban believing the time was right to challenge the law. Poll after poll demonstrates that the public knows that conception is the "moment that changes everything" where a new life is created and begins its journey to birth. Are we a pro-life nation then? The answer to that question is still no.
It seems a contradiction to say that while most oppose abortion that it does not follow the nation has become pro-life. That is, until you take a look at the new battlefields of the pro-life movement. Terri Schiavo is the most popular example.
An unbiased observer would certainly be taken aback at the concept of the individual making decisions for Terri was her husband that has since gotten engaged to another woman and had two children with her. There is an obvious conflict of interest there. However, the public was largely unconcerned with that.
The point where support for Terri fell the most was when the cameras showed images of Terri Schiavo to the world. The public saw someone who was unmistakably alive but unmistakably having a "low quality of life". Most felt that it was not worth being alive in those circumstances. Suddenly, it didn't matter what Michael Schiavo's motivations were or his conflict of interest. He was making the "right" decision to end a life not worth living.
It is known that the abortion movement grew out of the eugenics movement and it should come as no surprise that the husband of the lawyer who litigated Roe v Wade lobbied Bill Clinton to approve RU-486, not for easy access to abortion or women's rights, but because "twenty-six million food stamp recipients is (sic) more than the economy can stand." It isn't about life, it is about a productive life (in Ron Weddington's case, where the financial output is greater than the input).
This can also been seen in the recent burst of "futile care" cases (where hospitals unilaterally decide who should die independent of the families wishes or objections). While few would argue that those who are alive only with the help of life support equipment (i.e. respirators, not a feeding tube) can be "unplugged", futile care laws have been used to try to kill children, including a child perfectly able to heal, the uninsured, and Katrina evacuees that were "no worth moving". With talk of universal health care, one wonders if that will finally put complete control on whether (poor) patients should be left untreated.
One could argue that doctors know best and if they determine care is futile, then it really is. However, in the case of Haleigh (the girl who recovered above), doctors can and are wrong. Medical advances developed a year later may have helped Terri Schiavo recover. Then there is the case of just using futile care law to avoid dealing with poor and uninsured patients and leaving them to die legally. After all, more is going in to them than is coming out.
Going back to the original premise, it can be seen that the nation isn't becoming more pro-life, per se. What has lead to the downfall of support of abortion is the realization that unborn children have the potential to be productive citizens save some external force that prevents them. The rise of an anti-abortion culture is the convergence of pro-life forces with those who believe that the potential of productive life should be allowed.
Where the pro-life movement has yet to engage in is the rising notion of reducing human life to matters of economics. Taking whatever subjective equation is used, if someone comes out having a "negative" balance they can be killed. If they have a positive balance, they can live. This quantification system, even if it aligns with those against abortion, is decidedly not pro-life, usually because the poor and minorities (however they are determined) tend to cluster on the "negative" balance side of the equation.
The value of a human life has been determined. The problem is that those subjective measures mean that the most vulnerable in society will be the ones most likely to be considered "without value". Fighting against the valuation of life is the next big pro-life challenge.
Posted by John Bambenek at 11:42 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 13, 2006
Book Review: The Meaning of Marriage by Robert George and Jean Elshtain
The debate on gay marriage is full of conjecture and assumption on all sides. In preparing for a recent panel discussion on gay marriage, I looked for resources that could help me cut through the various facets of marriage and its history. I found those resources in The Meaning of Marriage.
This book is a collection of essays (see below) that take different approaches to marriage and its recent development in the United States. As a complex social institution, all too often discussion on marriage is over-simplified depending on the area of expertise (or for that matter, the agenda) of the author. This book overcomes those problems by presenting a wide range of thinkers from a variety of fields to present their views on marriage. It takes approaches from the law, philosophy, sociology, history, economics, and religion and puts them into a concise volume.
The essays themselves are easy to access and digestible, even for readers not fluent in the fields the author is coming at marriage from. The authors are well-known and respected in their fields of study. They provide fresh intellectual ammunition that seems lacking in the gay marriage debate by answering and providing a framework to discuss what marriage has meant, what it means, and what is should mean.
Many of the essays shed light on the philosophical underpinnings of marriage that make it possible to overcome the various rhetorical traps gay marriage advocates use to deconstruct the traditional view of marriage. The legal analyses bring to the fore some of the disturbing and absurd trends in marriage law that has virtually made marriage into nothing more than any relationship between two people who share property. For instance, recent court decisions have stated that sex is not required nor an essential component of marriage. Lastly, the sociological discussions take apart the recent studies that gay marriage advocates like to use to defend their viewpoints even though those studies are fatally flawed.
The collection is a timely work that presents the history and theory of marriage in a cogent manner that makes discussing marriage policy not only possible, but can provide a framework for actually coming to a serious policy other than the typical libertarian “do-whatever-you-want” nonsense that ends up going nowhere.
1 - "Sacrilege and Sacrament," by Roger Scruton 2 - "What About the Children? Liberal Cautions on Same- Sex Marriage," by Don Browning
3 - "Changing Dynamics of the Family in Recent European History," by Harold James
4 - "Why Unilateral Divorce Has No Place in a Free Society," by Jennifer Roback Morse
5 - "The Framers' Idea of Marriage and Family," by David F. Forte
6 - "The Family and the Laws," by Hadley Arkes
7 - "What's Sex Got to do with It? Marriage, Morality, and Rationality," by Robert P. George
8 - "Soft Despotism and Same-Sex Marriage," by Seana Sugrue
9 - "(How) Does Marriage Protect Child Well-Being?" by Maggie Gallagher
10 - "The Current Crisis in Marriage Law, Its Origins, and Its Impact," by Katherine Shaw Spaht
11 - "Suffer the Little Children: Marriage the Poor, and the Commonweal" by W. Bradford Wilcox
Posted by John Bambenek at 11:39 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 1, 2006
St. Peter, the Government, and Social Justice
At a recent conference that discussed economics, a question was posed to a speaker on reconciling a vehement disagreement with welfare policy with St. Peter's teaching (1 Peter 3:13-17) on obedience to the Government. The general idea in the conference was that "trickle down" economics was preferable in lifting people up.
The response was underwhelming, namely he hemmed and hawed about the difficulty in Biblical exegesis and left it at that. This is my attempt to answer the question (with the caveat that I don't think trickle down is the sole solution to the problem). (To be fair, he made parts of the point at varying points during his talk, but had a good opportunity to bring it together in response to one question and it didn't seem like he did.)
Disagreeing with the government is not an act of "insubmission" to the government. You can think the government's policies are wrong and not transgress here. This is especially true because there is no way really to manifest disobedience to welfare laws except perhaps by not paying taxes (which is obviously wrong on many levels). In this case, we aren't talking about disobedience but disagreement.
We have a right to disagree with our government, and particularly, to petition our government for a change in policy. This is a right external to our governmental system but it certainly helps that our government does explicitly recognize it in the First Amendment. In short, there is nothing wrong and much to be encouraged in petitioning the government for different policies. I don't think any politician would have a problem with participatory democracy, at least they wouldn't say they do if they want to keep their job.
Lastly, the obligation to "feed the hungry", "clothe the naked", etc. is mandatory. No Christian can be in good standing and not care about the poor. This obligation is personal and direct on all believers. How those believers go about it is a matter of personal discernment and individuals may focus on some aspects and not others because of their personal talents and opportunities. However, each person according to their state has a binding moral obligation to do something.
The answer to this question is that as Christians we are obligated to advocate for the poor where appropriate. In participating in democracy, we should use our voice to advocate those policies which we believe to best help the poor. The expression of ideas contrary to conventional welfare wisdom isn't disobedience to authority or contrary to Christian belief. They are mandatory acts in which we use our freedom to advance our fellow man according to what we truly and honestly believe is best (with all due research and investigation into the options and which is superior).
Posted by John Bambenek at 7:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 24, 2006
Gay Marriage Debate Talk: My Opening Statement
The following was my opening statement at the gay marriage panel discussion that took place last week on campus. One thing to note, the words "form" and "matter" are also terms used theologically to determine the validity of sacraments and they have a particular meaning in the Sacrament of Matrimony. I, however, define these terms differently for the purpose of the debate to construct a secular and social institution. In sort, those who are theologically minded might notice I'm making these words mean something else but the reality is that I'm talking about marriage as a social institution instead of the Sacramental event. Hope this makes sense. I explicitly avoided the religious angle because I think it would have just been a discussion stopper, for one. "Seperation of Church and State" and all that. I stick with a philosophic view, so I try to form philosophic structures to defend it where people can't hide behind the wall of seperation. That, and I think, that if the law is going to recognize something and provide benefits, there should be some public good involved. The difference is, I think marriage properly constructed provides that public good, whereas what we have now does not.
The intention of setting this up the way I did was to get people to think. It seems Libertarian, but it's not. In short, I played a gamble. By saying that we either need to enunciate a public good or get rid of the institution, I'm banking the most people intuitively think we need to keep the institution, so they look for a public good. I think from the response, the thought experiment worked and got a few people thinking.
======
I would first like to take this opportunity to thank you for coming tonight. So often in political discourse, warring camps spend so much time attacking each other that rarely do they listen to what others have to say. I believe a free society requires open and free discussion so that when we inevitably disagree on issues, we know what we are disagreeing with. I hope tonight's civil discourse will help bridge the gap between these ideas so that even though we may disagree, we can still appreciate that we all are essential components of this free society.
From the perspective of the intellectuals opposed to gay marriage, this issue is not really about gay marriage. This issue is about the state of marriage, in general, and we've been discontent for a long time. While it certainly may appear that the pushback started with the gay marriage debate, it has been brewing for a long time. Earlier debates on covenant marriage largely reflect this.
What we historically call marriage is an organic, primeval, and pre-political institution. It is most emphatically not a creation of the state or a so-called "legal institution". Despite brief periods of social experimentation, marriage has always constituted a particular form. Philosophically, we can describe marriage in terms of its "form" (or its participants) and its "matter" (or the nature of the relationship between the participants).
The matter of marriage, until very recently historically speaking, has been a life-long, committed, exclusive, procreative, and sexual change of state. It is hard to view marriage through the lenses of our current experience of disposable relationships as a change of state. Marriage wasn't viewed as simply a relationship back then. Being married was primary something you were, I change in the very substance of your identity. As our modern experience of the last century has whittled away at the matter of marriage, the idea that marriage constituted a state change has been lost.
The deconstruction of marriage began, I would argue, in 1930 at the Lambeth Conference when the Anglican Communion changed their religious teaching to permit contraception. This began the process of legitimizing the separation between sex and procreation, and namely, has lead most in this country to not only remove procreativity from the matter of marriage, but to view fertility as a disease to be cured. It is not difficult to point to the variety of social ills caused by this separation that makes the bold, yet over-estimated presumption, that sex and procreation are somehow separate activities and that safe sex will somehow completely exclude children.
There were many people who criticized this mainstreaming of contraception and the harm it would eventually visit upon society, children and women in particular. Children are harmed by the notion that they are inconveniences to be avoided and shackles to adult freedom. This notion is not lost on those children and this plays out in the great number of psychopathologies we see in our children today. Women are harmed by this by suffering from poverty in greater proportions, being subjected to a series of unsatisfying relationships, and forced to live in a world of male-centered sexuality.
The over-estimate of "safe sex" necessarily allowed those to behave in sexual ways that were previously prevented if not by ethics or law, by the natural consequence of children resulting from sex. This directly led to premarital sex and extramarital sex in much greater proportions than history has seen. By removing procreativity, exclusivity was eventually removed.
In part, arising from this new idea on sexuality, and in part, arising out of other causes, divorce became and increasing problem. While the law previously made it difficult to get a divorce, this has lead to many couples simply lying or gaming the courts to get what they want. Starting in 1969, California adopted so-called no-fault divorces in which couples could separate without proving someone at "fault" (for instance, adultery, abuse, etc). By 1985, all states had such laws.
It is common in this debate to refer to marriage as a contract. However, marriage as it is currently practiced it is something quite less than a contract. If the marriage "contract" can be, without penalty, unilaterally breached by one party, often with the party gaining in the transaction, it can hardly be considered a contract. Contracts are binding; marriage as it is practiced is at best a short-term economic gentlemen's agreement. (Show divorce packet). This is the form to petition for divorce, in many cases, this is all it takes in this county. 7 pages. It is easier to get divorced in some ways than it is to get married. If all it takes is one seven page packet of paper to get divorced, how can marriage be considered committed? Much less life-long?
With all of these innovations, the matter of marriage has become essentially non-existent. When the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled on gay marriage, no one blinked when they suggested that sex was no longer even an essential part of marriage. What is left of marriage after being ravaged by these innovations is little more than a temporary property sharing arrangement. Society behaves as if this is true, yet all the sudden "finds" meaning when gay marriage is involved. This arbitrariness is discrimination.
The question we are faced with now is not whether to allow gay marriage or not, but why we publicly recognize marriage in the first place. If it is merely a private organization of property, there is no reason to exclude gay couples from it. However, there is also no reason to recognize it at all. If a public good cannot be enunciated from what marriage has become, it should not be publicly supported.
Marriages have had public benefit in the past precisely because of their procreativity. Well-adjusted and well-reared children are of immense value to any society, without them we simply become articles of interest to historians and anthropologists, not a living and thriving society. While the matter may be drained from marriage, it can still be restored. By draining the form from marriage also, making marriage "anything you want it to be", it deconstructs marriage irrevocably. It turns a social institution into a meaningless title leaving people wondering why they bother with it. Something that means anything in effect means nothing. If sex and procreation are merely private relationships, why can't friends be married for the sake of economics? I've never heard any explanation why polygamy won't be legitimized after gay marriage, and I've heard more than one supporter of gay marriage concede that it would. I challenge anyone here who will dispute the previous statement to explain to me how we can have gay marriage and not implicitly be forced to accept polygamy or other "forms" of marriage. I sincerely would like to know.
I have not come here to give voice to Fred Phelps of God Hates Fags infamy. I think society's mistreatment and demonization of homosexuals is discrimination. In a society of strip joints, adultery, porn, and cheap sex, it is absurd to cherry-pick one "Sex crime" while exonerating the others. You can't insist sex has meaning and then act as if it does not. I think it's pretty absurd to make attempts at "keeping score" on which practice is more wrong, while erasing our "favorite vices" out of the ledger.
My opposition is not based solely on the matter of gay marriage in a vacuum, but to the series of acts that have tried to remove any meaning from marriage. I hold we shouldn't even maintain what we have but instead to return to a relationship that does have meaning, a meaning that is best for men, women, children, and society.
The one thing I hope our society can learn is that disagreeing with an idea does not require dehumanization of political opponents. It is possible to disagree and still treat those with whom you disagree with the full measure of human dignity which they are entitled to. I may disagree with gay marriage, but I would gladly, whole-heartedly, and without reservation man the walls against any who would visit physical harm on a fellow citizen simply because of those disagreements. That was the oath I took when trained as a military officer, an oath which I don't view myself as released from today.
I hope this helps explains my position and look forward to your questions.
Posted by John Bambenek at 1:28 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
March 12, 2006
Book Review: Within the Market Strife
During the 2004 election cycle there was much discussion on the Catholic vote and which way it would go. Are Catholics more liberal or more conservative? Where do Catholics stand on economic and social issues? These questions had no real answers to them.
Schmiesing's book provides some insight into these questions by looking to a period when Catholic thought in America started to come into its own. The book proceeds systematically from the period beginning with Rerum Novarum and ending with Vatican II showing the diverse schools of thought between many of the prominent Catholic thinkers of the time. What is immediately noticeable is that there was rarely complete consensus about what policies to adopt despite coming from the same theological viewpoints in a time where "theological dissent" was properly defined as heresy.
The book is very approachable to those who do not have a great understanding of economics or theology and expounds on the views held at the time in a manner that is easy to digest and understand for the non-practioner. He goes generation by generation describing the views of the principal players about the big discussions of the time. One can understand what could motivate those with the same general moral viewpoints to diverge on issues like right-to-work laws and the living wage.
At a time when it seems that all parties are reevalutating their beliefs, it is helpful for Catholics to go back and see where we have come from and the development of social and economic thought that has occurred. This book provides an excellent point of reference from which to begin to move towards applying Catholic principles to present-day problems.
Posted by John Bambenek at 6:16 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
March 1, 2006
DI Column Up: Lent and the Carnival
ATTENTION Dawn Patrol Readers: This is the article Dawn is referring to.
You can read it here. I'll have some pictures from Sex Out Loud later today probably.
UPDATE:
There really weren't any pictures worth taking. Table of condoms and genital shaped chocolates really. Everything else was just stupid.
UPDATE 2:
Thanks for the link and kind words, Dawn Eden!
Posted by John Bambenek at 7:11 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
February 15, 2006
DI Column Up: False Religion
Oh yeah, I have a column up,False Religion. Take a look.
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:30 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 9, 2006
DI Reprints Mohammed Cartoons...
I got wind of this early, but today the Daily Illini reprinted the infamous Mohammed Cartoons and as was expected, they were flooded with phone calls, letters, etc. The news has broken nationally with the old editor and chief posting updates.
Personally, I don't know how I feel about it except to say that the new editor meant to prove a point and got the reaction he wanted. At some point I'll write on my opinions of the mischaracterizing of free speech (private citizens influencing others to not run things is not a free speech issue, certainly not in terms of the 1st Amendment), but the situation is pretty deep in all the issues it covers. I'm trying to put together a panel discussion on the issue, we'll see where it goes.
Michelle Malkin plugs it and more on the issue.
UPDATE: Here is the Chancellor's response.
UPDATE 2: Here's a brief quote from the AP article out on the subject (Not known is it is linked online anywhere yet)...
AP-IL PROPHET DRAWINGS DAILY ILLINI Student-run newspaper reprints some of Danish newspaper's cartoonsCHAMPAIGN, Ill. (AP) - The student-run newspaper that serves the University of Illinois community on Thursday ran reprints of some of the cartoons whose publication has sparked outrage and violence in many parts of the Islamic world.
The Daily Illini, which is independent of the UI, ran only six of the 12 cartoons first published in September in Denmark's Jyllands-Posten, but led with the one that has caused the greatest furor: a depiction of the Prophet Muhammad wearing a bomb as part of his turban.
Posted by John Bambenek at 5:14 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
February 8, 2006
Christian Carnival CVIII
Welcome to this week's Christian Carnival CVIII, a weekly roundup of self-submitted blog posts from Christian Bloggers. Sorry for the lateness of getting this posted but having just returned from vacation, I've fallen somewhat behind. Posts are in the uncreative order of receipt.
Here's this weeks entries:
Martin LaBar of Sun and Shield presents Dick Fischer on taking Gensis literally, pointing to an on-line article by Dick Fischer, wherein he argues, with quite a bit of evidence, that most or all of the claims of Young-Earth Creationism are contradicted by scripture.
John Howell of Braing Cramps for God presents Natural Law: Its Source and Discernment.
Miss O'Hara at Miss O'Hara presents Numb.
Kim C at Life in a shoe: a peek into the methods and madness of one mother of 7 presents Abortion in America. Good news from the other side: it's becoming harder and harder to get an abortion.
FMF at Free Money Finance presents The Tithe is for Today. Talks about why tithing is a New Testament principle.
John Luke at Blogcorner Preacher presents
The Random Yak, for the Random Maniyak at Random Yak presents A Song of Wandering, but Not Alone
David Taylor of Disciple's Journal presents On missions: What about the persecuted church?. While the nations rage about . . cartoons . . I provide a brief profile of Christian Freedom International as one example of ministry to believers in some of the toughest areas of the world to be a Christian.
Ed of Attention Span presents A Hint of the Eternal. What does it mean that God is eternal? How can we as finite humans wrap our minds around that concept? At Attention Span, rev-ed sees "A Hint of the Eternal" in a spring by the side of the road.
Laura Curtis of Pursuing Holiness presents Here we go again.... Christians will protest the “crucifixin’s” segment of Will and Grace furiously if the American Family Association has anything to say about it. And that is our right. However, before we act on this, let’s take a moment to think. Christians will protest the “crucifixin’s” segment of Will and Grace furiously if the American Family Association has anything to say about it. And that is our right. However, before we act on this, let’s take a moment to think.
Will Hinton of Dignan's 75 Year Plan presents End of the Spear Controversy. "The casting of Allen does present ironies if not outright dilemmas. Saint himself said so, but has continued to offer Allen support (see below). But how far do these culture warriors want to take this? Because the logical conclusion of this approach leaves you in a cultural hermetic bubble, without any relationship to those of differing beliefs and practices. This isn't about surrendering to PC ideologies. It's about loving our neighbors and not confusing "in the world" with "of the world."
Rev. Trudy Mackay of The God Blog presents How do we walk in love?. "Today it is impossible to keep track of the people you affect. Through our blogs, Rev. Trudy and I communicate with thousands of people every day. We can’t know how our words sit with them. Some take courage and inspiration; others might disagree. Even if you don’t have a blog, the simple act of going to town and walking in a store puts you in a situation beyond your own control. You are seldom seen as you see yourself. There is nothing you can do about this without the Lord’s help."
John Hollandsworth of Light Along the Journey presents Neo's Choices in the Matrix. John draws out some parallels between the choices that Neo makes in the famous film with the choices that all of us are faced with in our walk with God.
Matthew Jones of Random Acts of Verbiage presents Judges 19. A look at an extremely difficult Biblical passage. Where is the good news?
Richard Anderson of dokeo kago grapho soi kratistos theopilos presents The Fruits of the Theology of Matthew. Richard discusses the significance of Matthew using the word "fruits" six times in his gospel including three times in the Parable of the Wicked Tenants.
Adam Graham at Adam's Blog presents Poem: Our Father. Adam at Adam's Blog begins a series of poetic meditations on the Lord's Prayer with "Our Father."
Michael Meyer of Chasing the Wind presents Trusting in God's Promises. Half-hearted Christians never learn to conquer the giants in their lives. Trust in the Lord to receive His promise.
Kim at Mother-Lode presents There is More. How do we reconcile our longings and disappointments with Christian contentment? Kim maintains that it is neither a Candide-like insistance that we live "in the best of all possible worlds" nor a Buddhist-friendly denial that anything matters.
Lennie of CrossBlogging presents Tolerance and Compassion in Islam. The last few days have provided some interesting events. The incidents in particular are the Cartoon in a Danish Newspaper and the Painting of Bin Laden portrayed as Christ. The first has outraged Muslims. They are rampaging in the Middle East attacking and threatening Westerners. The cartoonist have now gone into hiding after threats on their lives. Contrast this to reaction by Christians offended by the Bin Laden as Christ painting. The Christians have been speaking out and sending emails. They are not out rioting and threatening to kill the artist.
Jerry of Truth be Told presents Brockback, Jacked Up, and Screwed Up.
deputyheadmistress at The Common Room presents The Mission Field
Richard Crout of Give Your All 4 God presents Important Lessons from the Pinewood Derby.
Phil Dillon of Another Man's Meat presents The Luigig Cascioli Case - Prooof for the Existence of Fools. This post is the ongoing case in Italy where a priest was sued and has to prove Jesus did exist.
A Penitent Blogger presents Commandments of Men. A reflection on how our Lord's denunciation of the Pharisees might also apply to us.
Jeremy Pierce at Parableman presents Neither Male nor Female, Jew nor Greek. This post responds to an argument that Paul's statement that there is no male or female, Jew or Greek, slave or free cannot be used to argue against racial segregation if it is interpreted in a way that allows gender role distinctions.
Kim Bloomer of Sharing Spirit presents All We Need is Love on how love is not about feelings but about action.
Rev Bill presents Pro Bono. Rev. Bill gives us some words from Bono of U2 -- and a link to the speech Bono made at the National Prayer Breakfast.
Terry Hull of Terra Extraneus presents Why I am No Longer a Fundamentalist Christian. "When I was a teenage believer, I knew I was a fundamentalist Christian. I believed the fundamental doctrines of historic Christianity. I still believe those things today. However, today I am no longer a fundamentalist. Today I know that the term "fundamentalist" comes with a lot of cultural and emotional baggage, including a lot that I vigorously reject.
Louie of The Marshian Chronicles presents Some Truth About Accountability. The first of three articles on the importance of accountability in ministry, the reasons so many avoid it, and why it's a pain in the butt!
CWV warrior of Christianity is Jewish presents Here a Year. cwv warrior talks about being a voice in the wilderness after one year of blogging for God.
Kathleen Dalton of Vegetable Soup presents Minor Prophets... Major Prophets... Ordinary Men. Here you will see some practical ways many people (and these are all people I know personally) have tried to fulfill their calling to be like the prophets of old…risking reputations, jobs, family acceptance, even safety…for the privilege of sharing their part of the picture of Jesus for all the world to see.
Alex of Jordan's View presents What was the Point at "The End of the Spear"? Like others in the blogosphere, Jordan was critical of the filmmaker's decision to cast a homosexual activist, but sees the film's greatest flaw to be its muted gospel presentation, which sadly results in a film that does not fulfill its potential either as an evangelistic tool or as an artistic statement
Mark Olson at Pseudo-Polymath presents Considering Worship and Prayer Again. "I'm a tyro when it comes to prayer as evidenced by my carnival entry a few weeks ago. Anyhow, I take another stab at it and solicit suggestions."
Derek Gilbert of P.I.D. Radio presents The Long War. American evangelicals need to step back and take a hard, critical look at this Republican administration we've elected. While we in no way support some of the key moral issues promoted by Democrats, Christian conservatives must wake up to the fact that President Bush is using a war that will never end to justify broad government powers our forefathers fought a war to escape.
Jeff the Baptist presents A Record of Prayer. To all the world this is a boring blue memo pad. You can get five of them for a few dollars at any supermarket or drug store. Yet inside is something precious. Every page is contains prayer requests...
All Kinds of Time presents The Doubters' Commission. A closer look at who Christ was commissioning in the Great Commission.
...in the outer... presents Will the Church Survive?. Thoughts on the feared repercussion of the Italian litigation against Rev Enrico Righi that might lead to an adverse result to the church brought about by an appeal to the EU Court.
Donna-Jean of Liberty and Lily writes of the death of a long-time friend in her tribute, "At Home".
View From the Pew presents Study of Mark: Mark 8:27-31. 'I've been doing a study of Mark (for an unfortunately long time!) and this is the latest installment on one of my favorite passages in the Gospel -- "Who do you say that I am?"'
That's it for this week. Next week will be hosted at Pursuing Holiness. God bless!
Posted by John Bambenek at 2:54 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
January 13, 2006
Let's Talk About Sex II: Christianity, Sex, and Love
Disclaimer: This is yet another draft. It's generally written from the Catholic perspective, but likely matches up with various orthodox Christian interpretations. All comments are appreciated; all errors are mine. To be fair, I'm less than happy with this and it need more work, I'm not sure I really said what I set out to say.
Two recent articles have motivated me to finally write this. The first is the Dawn Patrol's report on the Planned Barrenhood key chains and the second is Planned Barrenhood's discussion on the difference between their view of sex and the "absolutist" (read as Christian) view of sex. This is typical of the certain sectors of liberal sex ideology to say that Christian's hate sex and they are celebrating life and love and all that is light with sex. The problems with this are that (1) it wildly misrepresents the Christian view of sex and (2) they really don't believe their own statements on sex as a celebration.
Below is how they show the differences between the views of sex:
Fixed (F) or Absolutist World View vs. Relativist (R) World View:F. Sexuality is basically animal passion and lust, genital, and must be controlled.
R. Sexuality is a natural and positive life force with both sensual and spiritual aspects.F. The main goal of sex is marriage and reproduction.
R. Sex does not have to be confined to marriage; pleasure, love, and celebration are goals in themselves.F. Sex is only acceptable in heterosexual marriages.
R. Tolerance or acceptance of same-gender relationships.F. Masturbation, oral sex, same-gender relationships, and contraception all thwart God’s purposes for sex and are forbidden.
R. God’s purpose for sex is to celebrate life; masturbation, oral sex, and same-gender relationships can express the celebratory and communion nature of sex.F. Strict gender roles in relationships with male active and superior.
R. Flexible, egalitarian gender roles.F. Emphasis on sex as genitality and on genital acts.
R. Emphasis on people and their relationships rather than on what they do genitally.
In several of these cases it is my belief that they have it backwards. They attribute their own beliefs onto Christianity in this straw-man attempt to justify their brand of sexual ethics. For instance, the focus on sex as genitality is certainly no Christian position, nor is the idea that sex is animal passion and lust. It wasn't a Christian band that came up with the lyrics, "You and me ain't nothing but mammals so let's do it like the do it on the Discovery Channel." (It's from the Bloodhound Gang in an album called "Hooray for Boobies").
Going into bookstores lately I've noticed something about this brand of liberal sexual ethics. They say that sex is spiritual, emotional, communal (skipping past the interesting yet unconvincing theory that masturbation is a communal celebration), etc, but the books and content they put out on the subject focuses purely on the physical. There is book after book, article after article, teaching readers about the latest position or technique to make your partner crazy. For an ideology that claims to say that it recognizes the spiritual and emotional components of sex it certainly seems to talk about nothing else but the physical. In any store remotely identifying itself as Christian you won't find collections of sex toys for purchase. There's a good reason. If you have to resort to power tools and contortionism to enjoy sex, you aren't doing it right. For an ideology that is always searching and striving for the ultimate orgasm, they've never been less sexually fulfilled.
The point of contention at its deepest level is really a disagreement about love. Christians have one view; the liberal sexual ideology crowd has another. When Christians talk about love, they talk about a relationship between people first and foremost. That is why in Christian relationships, courting and getting to know one another takes place before sex (ideally). In the other camp, love is about sex first and foremost. That is why they generally have sex before any real relationship exists (i.e. one-night stands). In the September 2005 issue of Foreign Policy magazine, economist Jacques Attali predicts the death of monogamy because "at long last, we will recognize that it is human to love different people at the same time." What he means is sex. If society is so ready to disregard monogamy why is infidelity still such a large cause of the many divorces we see? When Christians talk about loving many people it doesn't require or necessitate sexual relations with those people.
Enough of talking about what other people think about sex, the point here is to talk about what Christianity says about sex, and love in general. If you ask about anyone what is the most intimate sign of love (particularly romantic love) you will almost universally get sex as a response. Ask people what would be the most intimate sign of love between married people; you'll likely get the same answer. So the first question to answer is what is love; particularly romantic love.
As Christians, our example is obviously Jesus Christ. I brief synopsis of Jesus' saving work can be put this way: In the fullness of Time, God the Father gave His only Son, who in turn, gave up His life on the cross for us. The love of Jesus can be seen by what he does for us and what he gives us. Jesus doesn't show His love by allowing us to give something to Him; he initiates the relationship by His gift. This brand of love is characterized first and foremost by giving.
The state of mankind when He died on the Cross wasn't particularly swell. The Jews repudiated Him, His apostles deserted Him, and He was put to death like a criminal. Jesus' gift of salvation comes to us in our sin. In other words, Jesus' love is unconditional. This brand of love is characterized by it being unconditional.
This is a good description of love in general; however that doesn't clarify romantic love specifically. For that we can turn to the much maligned Ephesians 5. In turn it talks about marriage from the perspective of the wife and the husband. Wives are to give obedience to their husbands. Husbands are to give their lives up for their wives. There is no discussion on the conditions for that (aside of an implied valid marriage) just that it should be done. Likewise, it's a gift.
This is also illustrated in the typical wedding vows of Catholic (and I imagine most Christian) weddings. Phrases like "for richer or for poorer", "in sickness and in health", "til death do us part" all can be summarized like this. I will love you and be your spouse no matter what conditions arise until one of us dies. Marital love is unconditional.
The most beautiful expression of this is the expression used both in Genesis and Ephesians to describe marriage, "the two shall become one flesh". To be more accurate and not allow ourselves to be hamstrung by the English translation, it isn’t a physical unity that is being referred to but a complete union, body, soul, mind, and heart. In short, the union is complete. Marriage is something that is more than just a physical reality as illustrated by the fact that the Catholic Church recognizes it as the highest form of spirituality, a Sacrament.
Sacraments, in order to be valid require correct form and correct matter. This is of particular interest to the point because of the form and matter of the Sacrament of Marriage. The form is the free consent to marriage as an indissoluble union. The matter is the consummation of marriage, or sex. Not only does the Catholic Church no consider sex to be some base or animalistic instinct to be controlled, it is an essential component to the Sacrament and a highly spiritual act at that.
To follow the train of thought, the ultimate act of marriage is almost universally considered to be sex. As such, one would expect that sex should reflect the marital reality as a complete unconditional gift of love. At this point, this view of sex is totally irreconcilable with how it is presented by the liberal sexual ideology crowd. This view doesn’t restrict sex to the physical realm, nor dismiss the physical realm as something dirty to be discarded but it is an integration of the entire human person with the entire person of the spouse. This is a crude summary of Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body.
As a final point, there are those of the liberal sexual persuasion who argue that sex is beautiful in special in the way they practice it. Something that is special is characterized by its rarity. My wife is special because she’s the only one of her kind; there is not another person that is her clone. When one sleeps with 10 people, 50 people, 100 people, can one say that those encounters are special? Is it still special when you can’t remember all their names? When you don’t call them anymore? How can something be beautiful when it is treated with the same regard as a handshake?
The drive to continue new and different forms of physical expression of sex tends to indicate a focus on that aspect. If sex is little more than assembly line love, of course one will get bored. When sex is a celebration of love, as it should be in the Christian sense, one doesn’t need to make weekly sojourns to the adult book store for a new toy. No one gets tired of being truly loved. That’s not to say that only the missionary position is permitted, but the focus on the “latest fad” in technique betrays something that ends up ignoring the other dimensions of sex and perhaps ends up being sex as a taking instead of a giving. Contraception converts an unconditional act of love to a conditional act (only if we can avoid children). Then of course, the random sexual encounters can’t be understood as love in any real sense.
As one final point, it certainly isn't the Christian position that the only expression of marital love is sex exclusively. There are a myriad of general ways and even more ways specific to the couple where one can express love. Fostering those expressions which speak to the emotional (generally) dimensions of ourselves are what helps couples to feel connected and in love outside the bedroom, and quite frankly, to also feel those things inside the bedroom. No one wants to feel like merely a sexual object and without those other expressions of love, it very quickly begins to feel that way. The idea that sex should be the only way one expresses love does great harm to marriages.
It is only in the complete unconditional loving gift of self in the sexual act where one can truly experience the beauty and spirituality of sexuality. This is the orthodox Christian position, despite the claims to the contrary. Something special, sacred, and beautiful need not be shouted from the rooftops for all to hear but it’s high time that Christians speak up to counter this idea that we hate sex and think it is something base. It’s certainly high time that we counter this radical sexual liberation philosophy that has ended up so handicapping men and women that they no longer know how to relate to each other except genitally. It’s time to stop letting Planned Barrenhood have the only say in what sex is and what it should be.
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:38 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
January 12, 2006
Stop the ACLU: They're not against prayer, they're against Christianity
It is happening all across the nation. The ACLU sue city counsel after city counsel over praying in Jesus name. They don't sue to stop all prayer, but in every case the target has been Christian prayer. They even fought for the right of a Wiccan to pray at a counsel meeting. Many times it doesn't even take a lawsuit. They just type up a threatening letter and that does the trick. This was the case in Fredericksburg. But one man isn't taking things lying down.
Fredericksburg City Councilman Hashmel Turner has filed suit against his fellow council members, saying the council's newly adopted prayer policy violates his constitutional rights.Turner is being represented by the Rutherford Institute, a nonprofit group that advocates for free expression issues.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Richmond, asks the court to rule that the city's prayer policy is unconstitutional, and to order that Turner be allowed back into the council's prayer rotation.
The council voted 5-1 in November to adopt a policy of offering non-denominational prayers devoid of any Christian or other specific religious references.
Turner abstained from that vote, and Councilman Matt Kelly voted against the policy.
The vote came after Turner had been excluded from the council prayer rotation for more than a year. The council got a letter from the American Civil Liberties Union in July 2004 saying that the civil liberties group would file suit if Turner continued to invoke the name of Jesus Christ in his prayers.
Turner, who is pastor at First Baptist Church of Love in Fredericksburg, had always closed his prayers before council meetings by invoking the name of Jesus Christ before the ACLU complaint.
On the same night of the November vote for the nondenominational prayer policy, Turner asked to be put back into the prayer rotation, and to give the opening prayer before the Nov. 22 council meeting.
Mayor Tom Tomzak said today he asked Councilwoman Debby Girvan to give the prayer at that meeting instead of Turner, because, "I did not want to unleash a 1,000-pound gorilla-the ACLU-on the City Council."
However, Tomzak said he does believe Turner's rights are being violated, and the suit filed today is "a lawsuit that I probably agree with."
"He's a very passionate man, a man of faith and a man of principle, and he believes his rights have been violated," Tomzak said of Turner.
Neither City Council members nor City Attorney Kathleen Dooley had seen copies of the lawsuit earlier today.
The suit calls the new prayer policy "an unlawful attempt by the City Council to prescribe the content of prayers given at City Council meetings by Turner and other members of City Council."
John Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, said Turner approached his organization last fall, saying he believed his rights were being violated. "All he wants is to say Jesus Christ at the end of the prayer," Whitehead said. "He's not asking for any money. ... It's a very simple suit."
One would think that it would be simple, yet the ACLU don't seem to get that. Religious expression in America is under attack. It is a shame that an organization that claims to protect our rights are the number one censor of Christian religious expression. If they were trying to get rid of all prayer at counsel meetings, we would have a different argument, but they are targeting Christian prayers and individual expression. It is good to see this man is standing up for his rights. More people should do so.
Currently there is legislation, introduced by Representative Hostettler that could put a stop to these ridiculous lawsuits. Hostettler's proposal would amend the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. Section 1988, to prohibit prevailing parties from being awarded attorney's fee in religious establishment cases, but not in other civil rights filings. This would prevent local governments from having to use taxpayer funds to pay the ACLU or similar organization when a case is lost, and also would protect elected officials from having to pay fees from their own pockets.
SIGN THE PETITION TO STOP TAXPAYER FUNDING OF THE ACLU
This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 115 blogs already on-board.
Posted by John Bambenek at 2:28 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
January 10, 2006
What does Separation of Church and State Really Mean?
The much-bandied about phrase “separation of church and state” means different things to different people. To those from the secular humanist persuasion, it means that the state can make no public acknowledgement of religion, have no religious displays, recognize no tax exemptions for churches, and goes so far to regulate even religious expressions of private individuals in the public arena out of line. One also hears that any attempt by others to “moralize” or use any religious values to argue for a policy should be silenced. On the other hand, there are those who believe the matter is simply that the government should not establish an official state church, or that a church should not be anointing officials in the government. Other than that, people should believe and practice how they see fit. Both sides couch their arguments on constitutional theories, some involving Thomas Jefferson’s wall of separation letter.
To consider this issue, it is important to consider the historical situation of the framers and what they intended. To recap, they were declaring independence from the King of England. There is one important title for the monarch of England that is relevant to this issue, “Supreme Governor of the Church of England”. Not only was the Church of England the official state religion (and still is), but the King himself was the head of that Church. This insured that his political reach not only extended in the public realm, but from the pulpit and even into the confessional. The hierarchy of the church was subservient to the king. This led to abuses in both directions, those by the church and those by the government.
The founders did not declare independence from England because they wanted to set up a secular state. They declared independence because of a long train of abuses and usurpations of government power against its people. They were concerned about matters of tyranny, not theology. The Boston Tea Party was about taxes (and thus enshrined in American tradition the fine art of bitching about taxes) not about Baptists throwing Presbyterian’s Bibles into the Atlantic. The Declaration itself made liberal use of religion in general, as did the Founders in their public statements. Even in Jefferson’s Wall letter, he expresses religious sentiment and asks for prayers. It’s obviously clear; it isn’t religious expression they are worried about.
The choice of phrase is important, “separation of church and state”. Jefferson doesn’t say separation of religion and state. He is talking about institutionalseparation. Ireland’s official church is the Roman Catholic Church, as is Poland’s. In England, it’s the Church of England. These aren’t religions in general but specific religious institutions. No nation has “Christianity” as the official state religion for a very good reason. The reason is that there’s about 50,000 some odd flavors that run the gamut from the Mormons to the Unitarians. Some Christians say Jesus established a hierarchical church, others say he was a social activist, still others say he was an anarchist. Saying Christianity is the official state religion would border on effective meaninglessness. It wasn’t the ideas that the Founders were afraid of which is why they were perfectly free praying together and expressing religious sentiment in public documents and speeches. Institutional corruption and tyranny were there concerns.
The results of institutional-mingling of churches and governments are quite clear in history and it hasn’t been beneficial for the state or the church. However, this is a far cry from divining an intent that projects the idea that “religion is all that’s wrong with the world” upon the Founders. There was a camp among the Founders who believed that a free society required a religious people and yet still continued to allow free association between the various churches.
However, the crowd pushing separation most vigorously also is the crowd that’s trying to regulate certain religious beliefs out of existence. Pharmacists aren’t allowed to express their religious sentiments about abortion and retain their jobs. The argument is that they shouldn’t take the job if they don’t follow a pre-defined ethical construct approved by the government. Catholic hospitals are consistently fighting attempts to force them to provide abortions despite their clear religious teaching. Catholic Charities in California was required to recognize “gay marriage” despite their own beliefs. School children (a.k.a. individual citizens not to be confused with government officials) are told that they aren’t allowed to pray or have bible studies on school property. In one case, school children were threatened with federal prison if they dared utter a prayer on their own volition during a graduation ceremony. The IRS has investigated churches for preaching against abortion. In short, the wall of separation is growing to enforce a certain religious orthodoxy and not protect the free expression of religion that was also mentioned in the First Amendment.
The irony of setting up such a system where beliefs are regulated to some level of appropriate orthodoxy on issues such as abortion is that the sword cuts both ways depending on the whims of government. When right-wing churches complained about IRS harassment, the left-wing told them to stop talking about abortion instead. However, when an antiwar sermon brought the IRS, the left-wing cried foul. The problem with state regulation of religion is that its regulation will serve its own interests, usually on sale to the highest bidder. The Founders were rightly concerned about this abuse, which is why in the same breath of saying the State should establish no official religion; it should also in no way restrict reasonable expressions of religion.
Contrary to the opinion of some, the First Amendment doesn’t require regulating religion into hiding; it requires that they remain institutionally separate. The mere expression of the word “God” in a speech does not a theocracy make.
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:49 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
October 2, 2005
Broken but not Beaten: Death with Dignity
* Note: This is written from a Catholic perspective using some of the traditions that we have about the Crucifixion. It shouldn’t be outside the realm of other Christian trains of thought. This is a draft, comments welcome.
There is something implicit about being killed that presumes defeat in our minds. If someone dies, they’ve lost their fight. In the minds of the West, there is no there is no greater punishment we give than the death penalty. You can see in the words and actions of those who want to put someone to death that they presume killing that individual will give them victory over their crimes. We don’t understand suicide bombers that will sacrifice their own lives to kill others and as such we have a very large problem defending against them. Self-preservation makes sense to us, self-sacrifice does not.
When many Christians look at the Crucifixion, they see man putting God to death and celebrating a victory, though short-lived. It is the Resurrection that is celebrated because that is viewed as victory over death and rightfully so, but at an expense of seeing the Crucifixion for what it really is, a victory in itself (albeit not “the” victory). Paul proclaims “Christ crucified”, not Christ resurrected, as the stumbling block for the Jews and foolishness to Gentiles. (1 Cor 1:23)
Ancientt Romans were not stupid. The understood priorities and resource utilization; you have to if you are going to run an empire the size of Rome. They knew that if a soldier was in one place doing one thing, he could not be somewhere else doing another. This is important because when Christ was sentenced to death, they used soldiers to torture him, prod him out to Golgotha, and then crucified him. For the scourging and mocking of Jesus, an entire company of soldiers was assembled and they all apparently participated (Matt 27:27).
The point of this exercise wasn’t to kill him. It is far easier and more efficient to just draw a sword, kill him there, and be on to other duties. The Romans, and by them the Jews, wanted to convey a message by killing Jesus, as they did with every crucifixion they ever did. It was to instill in the population a sense of fear in crossing Rome by destroying the pride and dignity of those who did commit crimes. There is something humiliating about those who go to their eventual death as broken and sobbing messes. That was the image the Romans wanted, someone who was not only killed but completely destroyed hanging naked on wood for all to come and mock. In that culture, being killed was bad in itself but some could justify it. Being killed with a shameful death is something that was unbearable to people and served as a good anecdote for people who thought to cross the Empire.
As an example, recent history has shown the willingness of certain sectors of Muslims to kill themselves for their cause. One way some have dealt with this is to take the bodies of the terrorists and to stuff them in pigs and bury the body. This act (which I think is immoral) has served as a somewhat effective deterrent to those who would commit such acts. The concept of a shameful and disgraceful death is a powerful deterrent.
When Jesus died on the cross and Joseph of Arimathea asked for the body, Pilate was surprised he had died so quickly, so much so that he did not believe that Jesus was dead until told by his own people (Mark 15:43-45). Crucifixions were commonplace in the empire. Pilate didn’t just show up that day and Jesus was surely not the first nor last person every crucified by his order. Jesus died far quicker than normal compared to most crucifixions. Both the thieves crucified with Jesus were alive after Jesus was dead (John 19:33). It wasn’t because of the Crucifixion that caused Jesus to die quicker than the others; it was what happened leading up to the Crucifixion.
According to tradition, Jesus was whipped 39 times by the centurions. 40 lashes are considered a death sentence. Another thing to consider is that this wasn’t just a whip made out of rope or leather. They would work broken glass or rocks into the whip so that it would tear the flesh as you were hit with it (which is why only 40 would usually kill you).
The point of physical torture is to emotionally and physically break someone down. For almost everyone it works. The US military, when training people to deal with being prisoners of war, does not expect people immunize people to torture. What they do train you to do is find ways to keep your dignity and prevent you from being broken down. There are many stories of American POWs coming up with clever ways to maintain resistance. Some would come up with believable lies for their interrogators (such as giving the names of their high school football team members when they ask for names of fellow soldiers); others would find culturally specific ways to resist that would be lost on the interrogators. For instance, the crew of the USS Pueblo would secretly stick out their middle fingers in staged propaganda photographs as a symbol of resistance while the Koreans believed they were creating useful propaganda pictures or they used sign language to sign the word “snowjob” to the cameras. The symbols were lost on them. The use of torture to break someone down is a centuries and millennia old act and it was not unknown to the Romans.
Most people react to torture by saying or doing whatever the torturers want. People become desperate quickly in order to make it stop. The thieves were probably tortured but not to the extent of Jesus. Most people would probably only take a few lashes before they were broken. In Jesus’ case, they had to stop beating him or they’d kill him before he was crucified and that would be unacceptable. They needed a public spectacle and having him die in private would deprive them of that. Jesus denied them the satisfaction of breaking him with torture.
That, however, did not stop the abuse. They merely switched from whipping him to mocking and harassing him. We live in a society that can turn the most mild-mannered soft-speaking individual into a raving lunatic spewing forth a stream of obscenities that would make a sailor blush just because they are caught in rush-hour traffic. People do not tolerate being the butt-end of jokes for very long. The soldiers slapped him around, spit on him, and mocked his kingship. If I were Jesus I probably would have responded by giving those soldiers festering boils in uncomfortable places. Jesus took it and said nothing. He denied them the satisfaction of breaking him with mockery.
Then they lead him out to the public spectacle that is a crucifixion. There is no evidence that attending crucifixions was mandatory as far as I know. The people who were there wanted to be there. There were some there who were friendly to Jesus, most however were not. The road was lined with people who mocked and hurled insults. Then he was stripped and nailed to a cross and left to die. Jesus was the main attraction of this even and the thieves crucified with him knew this. This is why the bad thief hurled insults at him with the rest of the crowd, he was trying to regain some sense of pride (Luke 23:29). The crowd and the bad thief mocked Jesus’ divinity, and he did not respond. He deprived them of breaking him before he died.
He took all the evil mankind had to offer and did not sway one iota from his message. He could have wiped them all out with a thought and didn’t. He could have let loose his tongue and cursed like a sailor but he said nothing. At the end of the day, he forgave them all. The point for the Romans and by extension the Jews, in crucifying Jesus was to get him to recant or otherwise abandon his own preaching. It was to break him to show that his words and his life mean nothing except failure. They tried to show the public that his message was empty and leads to humiliation. They failed.
Anyone can be killed at any moment of any day. It’s simply not difficult to kill someone especially in our day with the wealth of technology available for killing. Jesus was not defeated by being killed. Yes, he was physically and emotionally assaulted and eventually died. He, however, did not waiver from His message. He knew He was going to die and He approached that event with dignity and shrugged off all that humanity could pile on to Him. The Roman Empire could put anyone they wanted to death and there wasn’t squat anyone could do about it. But when they piled on all they could on Jesus to squelch his message and humiliate the messenger, they failed. Two thousand years later, Christianity is still here because the Romans could not defeat it then. Jesus was beaten but not broken, and when He died, He died with His full dignity showing that no one can take that away from someone. His death was a victory.
Posted by John Bambenek at 12:00 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
September 29, 2005
Stop the ACLU: The War on Abstinence
The ACLU has delcared war on abstinence education. The "guardian of civil rights" has determined that such programs are dangerous according to the Waxman report that I debunked last year. That report did not say all abstinence education programs contained errors, and included programs as erroneous because of ludicrous things such as the word "snuggling" as suggesting religion. The ACLU has picked the parts of the report out that the liked and started to run with it.
Skipping past the labeling of policy decisions they don't agree with as "dangerous", exactly what in abstinence education violates anyone's civil liberties? Parents are perfectly free to get condoms for their kids, buy them porn, or show them how to use sex toys. Abstinence education does not impede anyone from doing anything; it is the suggestion that one ought not to do anything. Yet, the ACLU considers this issue a matter of reproductive freedom.
Simply put, this is not a legal fight to protect anyone's rights. This is a fight to advance a specific agenda that has nothing to do with rights. Teachers are not running around arresting children for having sex.
They suggest that abstinence education is dangerous because kids will do it anyway and won't have essential information to protect themselves. The story goes they must be informed on all the choices such as Plan B, and amusing ironic name considering that safe sex is supposed to be safe (and not require Plan B's). Kids simply won't listen when being told not to have sex.
However, the same people insist on DARE programs in schools which tell kids to stay off drugs. Do we get rid of these programs too? Should we take out DARE and instead introduce a program that shows kids how to do drugs properly to minimize the chance of contracting Hep C?
Critics have said that the ACLU is not interested in defending civil liberties as much as they are fighting for the advancement of a certain agenda. This latest war on abstinence is the best example of this in action. No rights are being violated but the ACLU is on the scene to prevent the dissemination of messages that they disagree with.
This was a production of Stop The ACLUblogburst. Over 100 blogs are already on board. If you want to join us, just register through our portal. We will add you to our mailing list, and send you the info on how to get aboard and fight the ACLU.
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:57 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 26, 2005
Is the ACLU Anti-Christian?
Many people view the ACLU as anti-Christian (Anti-Christian Lawyers Union, etc). With all the cases they take beating away any symbol of Jesus in the public square, it's hard to think they AREN'T anti-Christian. As the new symbol of Los Angeles shows, they don't seem to have a problem with other religions, just Christianity it appears. The question is, are they really anti-Christian?
The ACLU says they are the guardian of liberty who works to defend and preserve individual rights. However, they are less fighting for something than fighting against something. They fight against intelligent design and abstinence education not because they infringe on rights, but because they are part of an order they believe needs to be abolished.
Being anti-Christian implies that they intend to specifically attack Christianity as an end of itself. As Roger Baldwin (a co-founder of the ACLU) said of the goals of the ACLU:
"I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the properties class, and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal. I don't regret being part of the communist tactic. I knew what I was doing. I was not an innocent liberal. I wanted what the communists wanted, and I traveled the United Front road to get it.
The ACLU's actions are a part of a political worldview they hold. It was founded by communists and though many members and lawyers would say they aren't communist today that foundation influences the way they look at things. They are militant privacy advocates and anti-government to the point of wanting to take away valid tools from law enforcement. This is why they helped Rush Limbaugh, not because they support his speech, but because their causes temporarily aligned when the Florida prosecutor's office seized his medical records unjustly. That is not to say that the government is lily white when it comes to privacy, but to say that monitoring phone calls of suspected terrorists leads to a police state is ludicrous and scare-mongering.
The ACLU attacks the traditional foundation of the family in society. This is why they fight against parental notification of abortions, school choice, and the parent's role in educating their children. In fact, they attack traditional forms of authority beyond that of the state. In communist nations, the state is the highest authority and all needs and actions must be made in connection with what is best for the state. That is why you can talk about purges and gulags and communists don't flinch. Communism requires them.
Their attacks on Christianity aren't designed to eradicate Christianity, per se. They are designed to establish a social order (or more appropriately destroy the existing order) and customs that advance their ideas and Christianity isn't a part of it. In short, they aren't anti-Christian in intent, they are anti-Christian in effect.
Thanks to OTB
Posted by John Bambenek at 12:09 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack