January 14, 2005
As reported by the Chattanoogan online newspaper, a local high school student will be allowed to wear her Islamic head scarf to school, depsite previous objections related to the dress code. While there doesn't seem to have been any controversy stirred up by the decision, it is worth stating that this was absolutely the right decision to make. By allowing the student to wear the head scarf, the school district was not establishing in any way the religious beliefs adhered to by the student -- they were simply not restricting her free exercise of those beliefs. That's all the constitution calls for, after all. As a Christian, especially in a time when there is a growing anti-Christian sentiment within the culture, it makes me happy to see a government agency getting it right, even if the beneficiary is of another faith.
October 14, 2004
John Piper answers the question "Why do you impose your religious conviction on the whole culture?":
All laws impose convictions on a culture. And all convictions come from worldviews. They don’t come out of nowhere. People argue for laws on the basis of a certain view of the world. What needs to be kept clear is that voting for a law (a prescribed or proscribed behavior) does not mean voting for the worldview behind it. (via Aaron)This quote is just what I needed to hear today. With all the talk about the debates, Bush's religious views often get mentioned in a negative light with regards to certain divisive issues like abortion and gay marriage. This is exacerbated by Kerry who says he believes one thing, but doesn't believe it's right to impose that belief on others. In my opinion, Kerry's convictions either aren't very strong or he doesn't really have some of the convictions he claims to have. The separation of church and state does not mean that people must leave their convictions at the door simply because they align with or are rooted in religious ideals.
Doug Wilson offers up a good rhetorical argument against government control of schools, making a good analogy to the idea of a government controlled press:
I am willing for the government to control the flow of water, and I am willing for them to control the flow of traffic. I am not willing for them to control the flow of information.
August 31, 2004
"Maybe this explains John Edwards need for Two Americas. One where John Kerry can vote for something, and one where he can vote against exactly the same thing."
August 27, 2004
Following a theme that has developed in the comments of the Ralph Nader post, I offer up this quote describing the our country's big government:
The Federal Government is like a fruit tree that has grown wildly out of control. It was planted for a specific purpose, (to provide a particular kind of fruit in a particular season), but it has grown bigger and bigger till it crowds every other plant out of the garden, sucks up all the water, blocks all the sunlight, and has become a haven for every sort of foul beast. It has tentacles extending into virtually every realm of life and commerce - places it was never meant to be, doing things it was never meant to do.It comes from a discussion on the Boar's Head Tavern about a Christian perspective on government and the role of the government. There are some great comments discussing how failures of the church (universal) have led to the ever-expanding role of the government and how many look to the government as an idol:
...Americans of all stripes have come to believe that if a problem exists, the government should solve it.There are some big issues where this mindset comes into play and can have a major effect on politics - healthcare, the "war on drugs," public education, and many more, I'm sure. What role should the church be playing in these issues, and how could it do a better job than the government?And that is wrong, wrong, wrong.
August 24, 2004
While doing some research for my FNR Decision 2004 post, I came across a link to an interview Pat Buchanan conducted with Ralph Nader. It was actually very interesting. Nader is an intelligent guy, and as the lead-in says, "a conviction politician." He's making a play for conservative voters who are disappointed with George W. Bush, and he has some interesting points about why conservatives are (or should be) disappointed with Bush:
Here are the issues. One, conservatives are furious with the Bush regime because of the fantastic deficits as far as the eye can see. That was a betrayal of Bush’s positions, and it was a reversal of what Bush found when he came to Washington.Conservatives are very upset about their tax dollars going to corporate welfare kings because that undermines market competition and is a wasted use of their taxes.
Conservatives are upset about the sovereignty-shredding WTO and NAFTA. I wish they had helped us more when we tried to stop them in Congress because, with a modest conservative push, we would have defeated NAFTA because it was narrowly passed. If there was no NAFTA, there wouldn’t have been a WTO.
Conservatives are also very upset with a self-styled conservative president who is encouraging the shipment of whole industries and jobs to a despotic Communist regime in China. That is what I mean by the distinction between corporate Republicans and conservative Republicans.
Next, conservatives, contrary to popular belief, believe in law and order against corporate crime, fraud, and abuse, and they are not satisfied that the Bush administration has done enough.
Conservatives are also upset about the Patriot Act, which they view as big government, privacy-invading, snooping, and excessive surveillance. They are not inaccurate in that respect.
And finally, two other things. They don’t like “Leave No Child Behind” because it is a stupidly conceived federal regulation of local school systems through misguided and very fraudulent multiple-choice testing impositions.
And conservatives are aghast that a born-again Christian president has done nothing about rampant corporate pornography and violence directed to children and separating children from their parents and undermining parental authority.
If you add all of those up, you should have a conservative rebellion against the giant corporation in the White House masquerading as a human being named George W. Bush. Just as progressives have been abandoned by the corporate Democrats and told,”You got nowhere to go other than to stay home or vote for the Democrats,” this is the fate of the authentic conservatives in the Republican Party.
Some of those issues were addressed in terms of Nader's positions earlier in the interview, and he had some interesting things to say, but he certainly didn't address them all. What he also failed to do was take that statement and really make his case for why disenchanted conservatives would like his take on those issues.
My friend and sometimes informal debate opponent Margaret Folsom recently asked me to explain in 500 words or less which candidate is best in the upcoming presidential election and why. Here's the first word: Bono.
Seriously, though, I have been giving it some thought and hope to have a real post on that subject later this week...
November 14, 2003
In my last post, I made reference to the growing streak of libertarianism in my political thinking. Libertarian thought, while growing more and more popular with people of my generation, is often objected to by conservatives. The main area of disconnect that I see is in the question of "legislating morality." This essay by The Dane of Nowheresville does a good job of explaining that while it is possible to legislate personal morality, "it is a mistaken way to look at society and law." Scott at Truth Becomes Lies also recently discussed his libertarian-slanted political thoughts, which are based on "two main ethics - personal responsibility and the sanctity of human life."
Romenesko's Obscure Store linked to this story on Wednesday. In Lauderhill, Florida, a homeowner had their house painted purple and gold, much to the displeasure of their neighbors. The city, after many complaints, passed a new ordinance that will control the colors a homeowner is allowed to use for the exterior of their homes. The ordinance gives the homeowner three years to comply by repainting if they do not use an approved shade, and two more years if they can prove a financial hardship. Lauderhill Commissioner Wally Elfers had this to say about the new law:
I almost jumped out of bed when I read we'd have to wait five years for someone to repaint a purple house... My God, that's a lifetime.
You know what makes me jump out of bed? The government telling people what colors they can paint their homes! I suppose my Libertarian streak has been steadily growing over the last year, but this just caused a major growth spurt. There's a house on Tennessee Ave. here in St. Elmo that was recently painted purple, with burgundy trim. I think it's hideous, and I wouldn't mind if the owners had a change of heart and repainted it a color that didn't hurt my eyes. That said, I would never petition the government to force them into repainting their home.
I read a similar story out of Atlanta earlier this year. A homeowner wanted to add a set of rounded stairs to his front porch, and was denied the request because rounded steps weren't historically accurate for that neighborhood as a whole, even though they were appropriate for that specific house's architecture. Another example of power run amuck. The homeowner had a great sense of humor and civil disobedience, though, and painted his house green with purple polka dots as a protest.
Last night, Genia and I were watching a West Wing rerun on Bravo, and one of the issues they were discussing was a national seat belt law. Obviously, wearing a seat belt is a good thing. They can be invaluable if you are involved in a wreck, and save a lot of lives. I think it's irresponsible not to wear one. If I died because I didn't wear one, I would have done a great injustice to my wife and child. However, does that mean the government should force you to wear a seat belt? I don't think it does.
Did our founding fathers really envision the government meddling in these types of affairs? I'll refer back to The West Wing. A character named Ainsley Hayes, a Republican lawyer, said this about why she's a Republican:
I believe that every time the federal government hands down a new law it leaves for the rest of us a little less freedom.
And I agree with that. Unfortunately, it is arguable that the current Republican party leadership (Bush, specifically) no longer truly supports small government and traditional political conservatism. See No Party by Josh Claybourn for some good examples of this.
October 02, 2003
"The Free State Project is a plan in which 20,000 or more liberty-oriented people will move to a single state of the U.S., where they may work within the political system to reduce the size and scope of government. The success of the Free State Project would likely entail reductions in burdensome taxation and regulation, reforms in state and local law, an end to federal mandates, and a restoration of constitutional federalism, demonstrating the benefits of liberty to the rest of the nation and the world."
As of today, they have over 5,000 members, and they announced that they have selected New Hampshire as the state where all members will agree to move and become politically involved in order to achieve the "free state" goal. It's a fascinating concept, I have to admit, though I'm not sure it will actually be effective. You can read their FAQs for more details on how they are planning to acheive the "free state" and what their ultimate goals are.
August 08, 2003
RazorMouth author P. Andrew Sandlin explains that we must have a greater impact on the culture before we will be able to have a greater impact on politics.
When Royal Ruckus is winning Grammies, when Brian Godawa is garnering Oscars, when the Bahnsen Theological Seminary is populating Churches, and when the Center for Cultural Leadership is training congressmen and college professors, capturing the governor’s mansion will be a cakewalk.He's specifically talking about California in this column, but the application would be practical in any state.In the battle for our society, culture, not politics, is central.
July 17, 2003
NRO columnist Jonah Goldberg has written an excellent column about Jerry Springer's Senate campaign in which he also discusses media elitism and voter turnout. My favorite line: "Whores should have as much say as nurses, according to a worldview which says nobody can be judged, all citizens are equal, all views valid."
July 07, 2003
Ben Domenech has an excellent essay entitled The Family Enemy in which he discusses how changing the legal definition of marriage will affect our already weak culture.
The debate over non-traditional marriage is actually about the family. Or rather, the redefinition of the family. It is about changing the family from a unit of one flesh and blood, founded on tradition and faith, to a unit whose boundaries and morals are defined by each husband and wife.Ben is a fairly well known young conservative pundit, and this essay in particular is definitely worth reading.The fact is that the traditional family undergirds civilization. It makes for more successful communities, happier homes, healthier lives and better neighborhoods. The current attempt to force-feed the redefinition of marriage down society's throat undermines the family to its core.
March 06, 2003
"No Good Reason" -- far from being an idealistic "Give Peace a Chance" sentiment, the article does acknowledge that war can be necessary and the proper response in certain situations. The author's argument is that this is not one of those cases. Give the article a chance, and allow yourself room to reevaluate how you feel about Bush's plans for Iraq.
(copied from www.moveon.org/emergency)
I'm hoping you can join me on an emergency petition from citizens around the world to the U.N. Security Council. The petition's going to be delivered to the 15 member states of the Security Council on MONDAY, MARCH 10.
If hundreds of thousands of us sign, it could be an enormously important and powerful message -- people from all over the world joining in a single call for a peaceful solution. But we really need everyone who agrees to sign up today. You can do so easily and quickly at:
http://www.moveon.org/emergency/
The stakes couldn't really be much higher. A war with Iraq could kill tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians and inflame the Middle East. According to current plans, it would require an American occupation of the country for years to come. And it could escalate in ways that are horrifying to imagine.
We can stop this tragedy from unfolding. But we need to speak together, and we need to do so now. Let's show the Security Council what world citizens think. Thank you.
August 30, 2002
Got a few bucks and want to make a statement about US Foreign Policy (specifically oil policies), buy some Thank You Financing Global Terror stickers. Of course, the seller makes an official statement that he does not encourage vandalism (placing these stickers on gas pumps that don't belong to you) but it's fairly obvious that's the most subversive way to use the stickers. I love the sticker, and agree that seeing one as you're filling up would get you thinking. The stickers are already becoming a big hit on the web (as evidenced by their link on such A-list sites as MetaFilter and Kottke.org).
Today's Kottke post talks about Google.com pulling the text ad purchased to promote the stickers. Apparently Google initially claimed that the stickers violated their "hate/anti" policy, but now they are running the ads again. (I would assume this is due to some public outcry.)
A recent survey found that nearly half of Americans now think the constitutional amendment on free speech goes too far in the rights it guarantees. Now, I knew that there were people working in our government (John Ascroft, to name a big one) who are going too far in pushing aside Constitutional freedoms in the name of "the war on terror," but there have been some major dissenters to his policies and proposals. Scarier still is that the number of citizens who agree that our freedoms can be sacrificed is growing.