It looks a little like chutes and ladders doesn’t it?  Then you have little gems like this… a provision that will make individual private health insurance illegal as the Investor’s Business Daily discovered:

When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page document was released, we thought we surely must be misreading it. So we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee.

It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:

"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.

So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won’t be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.

I’m sure they didn’t mean to put that in there did they?  It must be a mistake.  To any current or future state or federal legislator who may come across this post, may this be a lesson to you, read the darn bill.  Oh but that’s not all, IBD continues…

The nonpartisan Lewin Group estimated in April that 120 million or more Americans could lose their group coverage at work and end up in such a program. That would leave private carriers with 50 million or fewer customers. This could cause the market to, as Lewin Vice President John Sheils put it, "fizzle out altogether."

What wasn’t known until now is that the bill itself will kill the market for private individual coverage by not letting any new policies be written after the public option becomes law.

The legislation is also likely to finish off health savings accounts, a goal that Democrats have had for years. They want to crush that alternative because nothing gives individuals more control over their medical care, and the government less, than HSAs.

This health care plan is bad news.  There is no doubt that health care needs to be addressed.  But again one of the scariest phrases ever heard by man, “we’re from the Government and we are here to help.”

HT: Chicago Blues Girl

House Democrats plan to fund the broadest U.S. health-care expansion in four decades by increasing taxes on the wealthiest Americans, imposing a surtax of 5.4 percent on couples with more than $1 million in income.

The legislation unveiled yesterday would place additional taxes on households with more than $350,000 a year in income and calls for further increases if the measure doesn’t hit a target for cost savings. The provisions are intended to raise $544 billion over 10 years.

You know I recognize that I’m not so great with math, but it seems as though this would still fall short.  So it looks as though this will go further down the line.  You may say, hey they can afford it!  That is probably true, but is it right?  Consider that those households that make $350,000 already have a 35% tax rate.  That’s just federal income tax.  This doesn’t include property taxes, FICA, state taxes, etc.  Most people in this bracket are looking at least 50% of their income gone to Uncle Sam before they even receive it.

Does that seem far to you?  To me it looks like government sanctioned stealing at worse, it is definitely wealth redistribution.  At the very least it punishes success as the article in Bloomberg quotes Thomas Donohue, the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce who issued a statement saying:

The intention of this plan is to tax high-income households, but the real victims would be America’s small business owners.  Since when does our great free-market country punish success?

Not only that, but this 1,000+ page bill also issues a mandate on coverage:

The House is also proposing a mandate on Americans above a certain income level: People would be penalized as much as 2.5 percent of their income for failure to buy health insurance. Most employers would be required to insure their employees or pay a penalty equal to as much as 8 percent of their payroll.

Just curious.  Do our lawmakers not think that this won’t have any kind of trickle down effect on the middle and lower class?  Do they not believe this will effect smaller companies hiring?

Another classic example of our government causes problems, not solves them.  If you don’t believe that, look to Tennessee’s TennCare plan back in the 1990s.  This provides a model of what could happen on the national level with ObamaCare which will, if the Democrats get their way, provided on the backs of the “rich” who also employ the most people.

Yeah, makes a lot of sense, but then again this is our government at work.  I’m just curious how many of those who will vote in favor of this mess will actually read the bill this time?

She wrote:

Back in February, Republican State Rep. Rod Roberts of Carroll introduced a bill in the Iowa Legislature purporting to protect the rights and freedoms of Iowa teachers. More than 200 Iowa college faculty members promptly exercised their rights and freedoms by signing a statement against it.

The bill, called the "Evolution Academic Freedom Act" (HF 183), joined the ranks of legislation like No Child Left Behind for doing precisely the opposite of what its title claimed. The freedom this bill promised to protect was of school teachers to present as scientific fact religious theories on the beginnings of life. The problem is, the only scientific theory on how we got here is evolution. No matter how you dress them up, the rest fall into the realm of religious belief – which the Constitution forbids imposing on public-school students.

First off, this clearly shows that Basu has bought into the chatter that you can’t present Intelligent Design without citing chapter and verse in the Bible.  Not so.  Secondly she is making an assumption that the presentation of evolution doesn’t bring forth religious ideas, which it does.  I know, I was subjected to it in public school (and I wasn’t a Christian at the time and it hardened me against Christianity – is that the purpose of public education?).

That bill died in committee.  She now is complaining about what the Spencer (IA) Community School District is trying to do.

Two Spencer school board members, one an Assemblies of God minister, proposed a "religious liberty" policy providing for elective classes such as "Critic of Darwinism" (I assume they mean Critique) and "The Bible in History and Literature." The first, I fear, would try to debunk the theory of evolution, while the second, I’m guessing, would treat what’s in the Bible as historical fact.

First off, these are elective classes… meaning not part of the core curriculum and they are voluntary.  Shelf that even for a second.  Secondly is Darwinism is above critique?  Her objection to this class gives the appearance  that is the case.  There are atheist scientists who have problems specifically with Darwinism (which by the way can be argued is a religious belief) and the Theory of Evolution in general.

Regarding the Bible class.  I’ve seen other high schools do this in a non-parochial manner.  How she thinks you can honestly look at Western Civilization and look past the Bible as a historical source and literary work is beyond me.  In many ways I’d prefer, as a pastor, that public schools not do this, but for different reasons – I think they’ll screw it up.

She goes on to say “the rationale for Spencer’s proposal rests on the claim that academic and religious freedoms are being denied.”  Then goes to dismiss that reason.  Which shows me that she is listening to an echo chamber of people who say that isn’t so, but ignores evidence in other school districts and public/secular private universities where that has been the case.

She then says, “Nor is anyone asking kids to check their faith at the schoolhouse door. But publicly funded schools should not present religious beliefs as fact.”  Perhaps that hasn’t happened in Spencer, but can she say that has never happened?  Not so.  Public schools shouldn’t present that religious beliefs are false either.

She says “there’s nothing wrong with parents wanting their children to get a religious education. But that’s what parochial schools are for.”  I’m assuming that you’ll be endorsing the next school-choice bill that gets brought up in the next General Assembly.  I’m sure they’ll appreciate your support.

She describes Spencer High School students as “thoughtful, smart, and inquisitive.”  Then assumes because that is the case they’ll agree with her.  If they are “thoughtful, smart, and inquisitive” then why shouldn’t they be exposed to the marketplace of ideas…. including one’s she doesn’t agree with?

When it comes to our origins, I’d love to see us come to a realization that science has it’s limitations.  Provide all sides of the debate – the science of the debate.  Share the scientific limitations of all theories and leave it there.

In Basu’s mind religion isn’t fact (I’ll debate that, but that is an entirely different post), but neither is Darwinism.  Unfortunately it is often taught as though it is.

When I was thirteen, I had my first introduction to eschatology.  Our youth pastor did a whole series.  I learned about the rapture, the tribulation and so on.  We even watched the old 70’s movie, A Thief in the Night.  I had all of the scripture references, even underlined in my Bible.  But it was about that same time, that I realized that there were differing views, and that maybe not everything that I had been taught in Church could be proven with scripture.

It was at summer camp that same year, and years to follow that there were more series on eschatology.  I would annoy the teacher with my questions.  "So where is that in scripture?"  That seemed to be the question asked the most.  "Is that what it really says, because I am just not seeing it?"  And the teacher would respond "Yes, that is what it says."  After a while, I just left it alone.  For years in fact.

And then I became a Calvinist, and ultimately reformed altogether.  At some point I studied eschatology again.  Of course only to find out that what I had been taught previously was not held to by Reformed Theologians.  Of course not all reformed people agreed on eschatological views.  I met the Premillennialists and the Amillennialists.  Having respect for Kim Riddlebarger, I obtained his series on amillennialism, and maybe even called myself an amillennialist for a few days.  But I really wasn’t totally convinced.

I came into contact with some partial preterists.  I pretty much wrote them off as they tended to have other crazy views.  Sometimes they were theonomists, or tended towards extremism.

And then I met Dr. Kelly Birks.  He attended our Church for a while.  I knew he was a full preterist, but I really didn’t think a lot about it.  That is until we developed a relationship with him.  I respected much of what he taught, and at some point decided to listen to his 2nd Coming Series series.  Of course I did so amongst the eye rolling of many friends.  In fact some people treated me as if I was considering joining a cult, light interventions and all.

I have found that most people have views on preterism, and yet they have not studied it.  I am not a preterist at this point, but what I can tell you is that after listening to the 2nd coming series, I do understand why some hold to it.  It does need to be pointed out that there are differing views even within preterist camps.  There are many respected theologians with preterist leanings, like R.C. Sproul and Hank Hanegraaff.  In fact when I wrote to one of the smartest theologians I know, he even expressed that he was himself leaning towards a partial preterist view after studying the subject.  He said that he had looked into Josephus’ writings of events during A.D. 70 and was surprised to read accounts of chariots in the sky and other events that seemed to support preterist views.

All of this to say, that eschatology is not an easy subject.  As with anything, it is important that we go back to scripture, and be careful to not to quickly take a stand on something just because others we know and respect do.  And most importantly, let not even this study be a distraction to what is really important, the clarity and preaching of the gospel, and living now to the glory of God.

The appeal to justice as a way of cutting the ethical knot in favour of including active homosexuals in Christian ministry simply begs the question. Nobody has a right to be ordained: it is always a gift of sheer and unmerited grace. The appeal also seriously misrepresents the notion of justice itself, not just in the Christian tradition of Augustine, Aquinas and others, but in the wider philosophical discussion from Aristotle to John Rawls. Justice never means “treating everybody the same way”, but “treating people appropriately”, which involves making distinctions between different people and situations. Justice has never meant “the right to give active expression to any and every sexual desire”.

Such a novel usage would also raise the further question of identity. It is a very recent innovation to consider sexual preferences as a marker of “identity” parallel to, say, being male or female, English or African, rich or poor. Within the “gay community” much postmodern reflection has turned away from “identity” as a modernist fiction. We simply “construct” ourselves from day to day.

We must insist, too, on the distinction between inclination and desire on the one hand and activity on the other — a distinction regularly obscured by references to “homosexual clergy” and so on. We all have all kinds of deep-rooted inclinations and desires. The question is, what shall we do with them? One of the great Prayer Book collects asks God that we may “love the thing which thou commandest, and desire that which thou dost promise”. That is always tough, for all of us. Much easier to ask God to command what we already love, and promise what we already desire. But much less like the challenge of the Gospel.

Spot on… the treatment of homosexuals within the church, when it comes to church leadership, is not a matter of justice.  It actually diminishes what justice should really mean.

This move has already lead to a new Anglican expression being formed in the United States.  The Anglican Church in Canada is experiencing problems as well highlighted when Dr. J.I. Packer, a Reformed Anglican theologian left the because of the “poisonous liberalism” present in the church body.

HT: Matt Proctor

1.  LifeNews.com: National Education Association Defeats Measure to Take Neutral Abortion Stance by Steven Ertelt

During its national convention over the weekend, the National Education Association defeated a measure that would have had it take a neutral stance on abortion. The NEA has long supported abortion, pro-abortion candidates, and sponsored a forum with the former late-term abortion practitioner George Tiller.

On Sunday, NEA delegates defeated a proposal that pro-life teachers and educators hoped would make the group abortion neutral.

The bylaws amendment would have invalidated NEA Resolution I-16 which says the NEA "supports family planning, including the right to reproductive freedom," which is a code word for abortion. (read the rest)

HT: La Shawn Barber

2.  Idolatry in the AM

Cartoon by David Hayward.  Crackledawg, that hits too close to home, LOL.

3.  The A-Team Blog: Discernment and Fiction by Roger Overton

One of the most frequent responses to criticism of books like The Shack, Twilight or Harry Potter is that it’s just a story. It’s implied that fiction cannot be dangerous in any way because it’s all made up. I believe this is entirely misguided for two reasons: 1) We are affected by everything we take in, whether it’s fiction or non-fiction. 2) Simply because something is fiction it is not some how neutral, morally or otherwise. (read the rest)

4.  Internet Monk: What is An “Average Church?” by Michael Bell

You may have heard people say that the “average” sized church in the U.S. or Canada is about 75 people. You also may have heard someone say that the “average” sized church in North America is about 185 people. Who is right? It all depends how you define “average”.

Statisticians use three terms when describing populations. “Mean”, “Median”, and a third term that won’t really enter our discussion today called “Mode”. (read the rest)

5.  Break Point: Surf’s Up!  Climate Change and Hubris by Chuck Colson

Someone ought to remind the leaders of the industrialized nations that while they may think they rule the world, they don’t.

As the story goes, the courtiers of the 11th-century Anglo-Scandinavian king, Canute, told him that he was “so great, he could command the tides of the sea to go back.” (read the rest)

She’s not wasting time.  With just under two weeks left before Alaska Governor Sarah Palin gives the reigns over to her Lt. Governor, Sean Parnell, we see the gloves come off regarding President Obama’s cap and trade tax energy plan.  She writes in an op/ed for the Washington Post:

I am deeply concerned about President Obama’s cap-and-trade energy plan, and I believe it is an enormous threat to our economy. It would undermine our recovery over the short term and would inflict permanent damage.

American prosperity has always been driven by the steady supply of abundant, affordable energy. Particularly in Alaska, we understand the inherent link between energy and prosperity, energy and opportunity, and energy and security. Consequently, many of us in this huge, energy-rich state recognize that the president’s cap-and-trade energy tax would adversely affect every aspect of the U.S. economy.

There is no denying that as the world becomes more industrialized, we need to reform our energy policy and become less dependent on foreign energy sources. But the answer doesn’t lie in making energy scarcer and more expensive! Those who understand the issue know we can meet our energy needs and environmental challenges without destroying America’s economy.

Job losses are so certain under this new cap-and-tax plan that it includes a provision accommodating newly unemployed workers from the resulting dried-up energy sector, to the tune of $4.2 billion over eight years. So much for creating jobs.

In addition to immediately increasing unemployment in the energy sector, even more American jobs will be threatened by the rising cost of doing business under the cap-and-tax plan. For example, the cost of farming will certainly increase, driving down farm incomes while driving up grocery prices. The costs of manufacturing, warehousing and transportation will also increase.

The ironic beauty in this plan? Soon, even the most ardent liberal will understand supply-side economics.  (read the rest)

Ed Morrissey points out that unfortunately liberals will still likely not admit a problem and because they have a “sky is falling” mentality:

They’re not worried about falling standards of living; most of them think we exploit too many natural resources anyway, and that less energy and less of everything would bring about the kind of harmony they desire — and want to impose on everyone else.

Just when liberals thought they got rid of her… she comes out to slay a giant.  Oops.

Update: Art Brodsky at HuffPo believes that she doesn’t have the authority to write an op/ed.  It’s pretty funny to see liberals throw a hissy fit about her writing an opinion piece for the Washington Post.  What authority do you need to have to write an op/ed?  She certainly has a handle on energy policy, and has written about, interviewed about, and have given numerous speeches on energy.  I think he’s just jealous because looking around in the lefty blogosphere apparently you don’t need authority to be a liberal blogger either.

I think that millennial views need not be among those doctrines that divide us. . . . I am suggesting that what you believe about the millennium—how you interpret these thousand years—is not something that it is necessary for us to agree upon in order to have a congregation together. The Lord Jesus Christ prayed in John 17:21 that we Christians might be one. Of course all true Christians are one in that we have his Spirit, we share his Spirit, we desire to live out that unity. But that unity is supposed to be evident as a testimony to the world around us. Therefore, I conclude that we should end our cooperations together with other Christians (whether near-ly in a congregation, or more at length in working together in missions and church planting and evangelism and building up the ministry) only with the greatest of care, lest we rend the body of Christ for whose unity he’s prayed and given himself. Therefore, I conclude that it is sin to divide the body of Christ—to divide the body that he prayed would be united. Therefore for us to conclude that we must agree upon a certain view of alcohol, or a certain view of schooling, or a certain view of meat sacrificed to idols, or a certain view of the millennium in order to have fellowship together is, I think, not only unnecessary for the body of Christ, but it is therefore both unwarranted and therefore condemned by scripture. So if you’re a pastor and you’re listening to me, you understand me correctly if you think I’m saying you are in sin if you lead your congregation to have a statement of faith that requires a particular millennial view. I do not understand why that has to be a matter of uniformity in order to have Christian unity in a local congregation. (transcript from A.J. Gibson)

Full disclosure: I am premillennial.  My particular denomination, the Evangelical Free Church of America, recently had this debate when rewriting their statement of faith.  Historically the premillennial position has been a part of the statement, and they decided to keep it.  There is certainly a camp within the EFCA that would like to see it gone, and I can sympathize with that for the reasons that Dever gives.

What do you think?  Is it a sin to require a particular millennial view?

HT: Andy Naselli via Justin Taylor

Some thoughts about today… it was a Democrat love fest.  Yes, she overcame adversity.  Yes she has a remarkable story.  Yes she has the right credentials to be nominated.

The Republicans will surely ask her about the “wise Latina woman” and judges “setting policy” remarks as the hearings go on.

Random thought as well, why the heck is Senator Al Franken (D-MN) (I still can’t type that with a straight face) on the Judiciary committee?  Also, what was Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) thinking, saying basically that she’ll be confirmed unless she implodes, and he doesn’t think that is likely?  A confirmation shouldn’t be a forgone conclusion, and she should explain some of the controversial remarks that she has made.  Also the fact that a number of her decisions have been reversed is troubling as well.

Randy Barnett in the Wall Street Journal shares some questions that should be asked by the Committee, but likely won’t be:

Supreme Court confirmation hearings do not have to be about either results or nothing. They could be about clauses, not cases. Instead of asking nominees how they would decide particular cases, ask them to explain what they think the various clauses of the Constitution mean. Does the Second Amendment protect an individual right to arms? What was the original meaning of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment? (Hint: It included an individual right to arms.) Does the 14th Amendment "incorporate" the Bill of Rights and, if so, how and why? Does the Ninth Amendment protect judicially enforceable unenumerated rights? Does the Necessary and Proper Clause delegate unlimited discretion to Congress? Where in the text of the Constitution is the so-called Spending Power (by which Congress claims the power to spend tax revenue on anything it wants) and does it have any enforceable limits?

Don’t ask how the meaning of these clauses should be applied in particular circumstances. Just ask about the meaning itself and how it should be ascertained. Do nominees think they are bound by the original public meaning of the text? Even those who deny this still typically claim that original meaning is a "factor" or starting point. If so, what other factors do they think a justice should rely on to "interpret" the meaning of the text? Even asking whether "We the People" in the U.S. Constitution originally included blacks and slaves — as abolitionists like Lysander Spooner and Frederick Douglass contended, or not as Chief Justice Roger Taney claimed in Dred Scott v. Sandford — will tell us much about a nominee’s approach to constitutional interpretation. Given that this is hardly a case that will come before them, on what grounds could nominees refuse to answer such questions?

Of course, inquiring into clauses not cases would require senators to know something about the original meaning of the Constitution. Do they? It would be interesting to hear what Sen. Al Franken thinks about such matters, but no more so than any other member of the Judiciary Committee. Such a hearing would not only be entertaining, it would be informative and educational. After all, it would be about the meaning of the Constitution, which is to say it would be about something.

Questions like this would tell us just how much Judge Sotomayor and the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee actually knows about the Constitution.  That could be either very enlightening or very frightening.

HT: Jeff Angelo

• Where In The Church Is The Gospel with Dr. Rod Rosenbladt and Craig Parton (new on their website).
• Christ Alone by Dr. Rod Rosenbladt
• Coleen posted on their clothing & apparel awhile back.
• Be sure to check out the resources they are advertising in the sidebar as well.

If you are interested in becoming a sponsor for Caffeinated Thoughts, find out more here.